Arrrgh!!!

Just for a laugh I had a go at this it said:_

***Your Linguistic Profile::***

50% General American English

20% Yankee

15% Dixie

5% Midwestern

0% Upper Midwestern

Not bad for someone born, raised and living in the South East of England!

Adele--What a hoot! It's good to see what type of American English the Queen's people speak!

Your Linguistic Profile::
50% General American English
20% Yankee
15% Dixie
5% Midwestern
5% Upper Midwestern

... I didn't realize I'd have 'Yankee' in me at all... guess us Canadians are a real mix of the various parts of the states?

Desiree--Fabulous that you posted your profile. Now, we need to hear from Australia. (Then Buffy can go for the other Colonials!)

Adele, I'm relieved to see that your language leans more toward us Yanks than the southerners. Had you been majorly Dixie, I'd still be on the floor, laughing!

Desiree...you're the first person to score anything in Upper Midwest. I wonder what word(s) they consider to be primarily UPPER Midwest?

Cop Car, I know a New Zealander.....*G*

Guess this reflects some carry-over from my years living in the south, but I don't say y'all:

55% General American English
15% Dixie
15% Upper Midwestern
l0% Yankee
0% Midwestern

We called ourselves midwesterners in Ohio, but not the true midwest. Wonder what states they define as midwest?

This is where I display my ignorance of American culture not explained in on films and tv. Just what is the difference between American Yankees and Southerners? I've always wondered.

Adele, Mason and Dixon, who were surveyors, plotted out the line that divided Pennsylvania and Delaware early in US history, and it was that line and the Ohio River that basically divided the Northern States from the Southern States in the mid 1800s. When the issue of slavery divided the states, and we went to war, the people of the northern states became known as Yankees or Yanks. Originally the term had applied to the New England states (those in the northeastern section of the USA), but it came to symbolize all Northern soldiers.

This link will give you an idea of how the states divided. The north, and California, Nevada and Oregon were anti-slavery, and the states from Texas to the east coast in the south were pro-slavery.

This link will show you the original Mason-Dixon Line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason-Dixon_line

joared....I have the answer for you. These states are considered the Midwest: North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.

Personally, I've always thought it odd that Ohio is considered the Midwest, but it may be because of the geographical division of the mountains that separates it from the East. Historically it is more closely aligned with the eastern states/colonies.

I'm fascinated that you show 15% UPPER Midwestern AND 15% Dixie! What a well rounded person you are! *G*

Adele--Mason and Dixon were both, I believe, English. I know that Dixon was as he was my great...great grandpa.

(GRINS) WHAT a SMALL WORLD we live in!

That's interesting. I'd heard of the term the Mason-Dixon line but assumed that it was the name of certain rivers which had made the great North/South American divide. Obviously I knew of the war between the North and South and the fact that it was based on either pro or anti Slavery views but assumed that people had made up their mind which side they wanted to follow based on individual philosophy, not on geographical location.

I was interested to see from the map on Wikipedia (the link in Buffy's note above) that the Southern states of America seem to form a much smaller portion of the US than I had imagined. I assumed that the North South divide was roughly equal in size, not that the South is much smaller.

Oh well, you learn something new every day. Thanks for this.

Hehe, Had to check this one out. I have lived in 13 different states...people say I have my own custom accent.

Your Linguistic Profile: 55% General American English 20% Yankee 10% Dixie 10% Upper Midwestern 0% Midwestern

Adele, the Civil War was not just about slavery, but about economic issues and a way of life. Most of the manufacturing and industry was in the North, and most of the South relied on agriculture for income. The Northerners began freeing their slaves, but the South still depended on them to grow the crops. Financially, they would be ruined if they had to hire help to plant and harvest.

Northerners call it the "Civil War," but Southerners call it the "War Between the States," or the "War of Northern Aggression" (I think).

I don't have the statistics, but the North had more men and more supplies. The South had a lot of pride and determination. Unfortunately, in this war brothers could, and did, fight each other.

600,000 people died, of the three million who fought.

If I recall, correctly, my great-great grandfather (Parley Sweet), a Missourian, fought on the Union side. However, the town in which I was born has a historical museum named "Bushwhacker". From Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushwhacker,

"Bushwhackers were Confederate partisans, or guerrilla fighters, during the American Civil War. The term was widely used during the conflict, though it came to be particularly associated with the guerrillas of Missouri, where such warfare was most intense."

A little later, the article says, "In Missouri, however, secessionist bushwhackers operated outside of the Confederate chain of command. On occasion, a prominent bushwhacker chieftain might receive formal Confederate rank (notably William Clarke Quantrill), or receive written orders from a Confederate general (as "Bloody Bill" Anderson did in October 1864, during a large-scale Southern incursion into Missouri). For the most part, however, Missouri's bushwhacker squads were self-organized groups of young men, predominantly from the strongly slaveholding counties along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, who took it upon themselves to attack federal forces and their Unionist neighbors."

I never knew that's where the term "bushwacker" came from!

Buffy, your comments on the war are interesting. The only real information I'd got about it I'd picked up from films, books, etc and from memory it was only the slavery issue that is emphasised. The reason why the South wanted to retaain Slavery was not mentioned. On the other hand couldn't they just have employed former slaves to do the agricultural tasks? Obviously it would have had an economic effect on prices bur surely the abolition of slavery would have had that anyway.

Adele, those of us living in the North think it made sense to shift over to a wage paying situation, but it would have eaten up any profit the plantation owners might have made. Most people will fight tooth and nail to keep from loosing the source of their income, and that's just what happened. Perhaps they didn't know enough about supply and demand to realize that they could have charged more for their crops.

Having been educated in Missouri (mostly), I was taught that the war was basically a "states's right" issue. The southern states didn't want the Federal Government telling them what to do (and still didn't in the 1950s when the civil rights drive hit its peak). I was always on the side of equal opportunity for all of us; but, if we couch the issue in terms of morality, where do I, then, stand on other issues that are being pressed by the Far (Religious) Right as moral issues. It's all very grey, to me.

We had an interesting, but brief, discussion at quilting bee last night. I personally don't mind having time for prayer at school, as long as those who don't wish to pray are exempt from the prayer. Several of the other quilters felt that it was inappropriate to have prayer in school. I was rather surprised, because this is one of the most liberal groups of women I have ever known.

The hardest part about making decisions having to do with religion and morality in school is that we don't have a crystal ball to see what those decisions will have wrought a hundred years from now.

These same women also resisted the idea of standardizing education requirements across the nation. They felt that there would be too much disention on a state by state basis,concerning issues like evolution.