As discussed above, there is no "accepted line for the Sun Belt." Nor is the 36th parallel an accepted demarcation of the "geographic South." The Mason Dixon line, for example, exists more or less at the 39th parallel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason–Dixon_line. The significance of the 36th parallel is that roughly that latitude was adopted under the Missouri Compromise of 1820 as the dividing line for the expansion of slavery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise. The Missouri Compromise was subsequently nullified by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas Meanwhile, under the Compromise of 1850, the entirety of California was admitted to the Union as a free state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850 It is thus highly inaccurate to say that because San Jose exists along a certain latitude that it is a "Southern" city. Indeed, while doing research several years ago on the subject of African-Americans here, I uncovered a startling anecdote: During the Jim Crow era roughly a century ago, a black man was given 24 hours to flee Louisiana; he boarded a west-bound train and asked the black porter where he should go. Go to San Jose, he was told, it's the best place for negros in the west.
That's super, and it's all political/cultural. I'm merely talking about the GEOGRAPHICAL sense of the term. Excerpt from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/555542/the-South "the South, region, southeastern United States, generally though not exclusively considered to be south of the Mason and Dixon Line, the Ohio River, and the 36°30′ parallel" Furthermore, the SUN BELT (which is what the comment I quoted entailed by the way). Given your extensive history knowledge I shouldn't have to explain how the term Sun Belt, and the areas it encompasses/borders came to be, should I ?
Interesting, since African-Americans only make up 3% of the population in San Jose, compared to 6% in San Francisco and 27% in Oakland.
The 36th parallel and the Mason Dixon line, and indeed "the South," are not merely geographical descriptors, they are as I've explained laden with political and cultural baggage. So, too, is the term "sun belt."
Yes, it is. That doesn't take away that there is a strictly geographic point to that imaginary line measure. Yes, the Sun Belt is indeed laden with the same ... and the combination of it and the 36th parallel are what ropes San Jose in. Of course, I tried to simply use the line of measure to completely avoid this entire conversation just now ... but there's always one.
"Prior to World War II, blacks constituted about 3% of Oakland's population." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_California
The 36th parallel is strictly a point of latitude. Its infusion with any meaning whatsoever beyond that fact involved a brief and finite period of time in the early 19th century based on political conditiions which have, thankfully, long since vanished and which, even at the time, excluded any application to California. Thus, the 36th parallel is simply a non sequitor in discussing whether or not San Jose is a "sun belt" city.
The Sun Belt implications have nothing to do with what you dredged up, although they do mirror some of it though not being anywhere near as harsh. It has to do with the Sun Belt, the issues that arose to garner that name, and the regions that it all encompasses. The 36th parallel is tied to that. The given definition for the Sun Belt has, and I quote, "rough boundary of the region is the 36th parallel" within it.
Definition given by whom? What is your source for the suggestion that the "sun belt" is defined by the 36th parallel?
Your words: "The given definition for the Sun Belt has, and I quote, 'rough boundary of the region is the 36th parallel' within it." What are you quoting?
That certainly doesn't say that the region is defined by it. It's saying that there is a rough geographical marker. Those aren't one in the same ... before you couldn't infer, but now you're inferring too much ? Interesting. And actually, here's a link to the Sun Belt being defined (actually using the 37th parallel) that is much more up the alley of where you were going: http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405121309_chunk_g978140512130930
The first sentence of the abstract from your own source: "The 'Sunbelt' is more a journalistic shorthand for metropolitan prosperity below the 37th parallel than it is a viable analytical or historical concept. There is no consensus on the precise geographic boundaries of the Sunbelt, and the works discussed below variously identify areas as diverse as the South Atlantic and the Pacific Northwest as parts of this same region." (Emphasis added). Your source does not define the sun belt using the 37th parallel. Your source concedes that resort to it is a "journalistic shorthand," and a substitute for actual "analytical" reasoning, which is precisely my point about your argument. If the "sun belt" is merely shorthand for all points south of a certain latitude, the phrase is devoid of import or meaning. If the phrase means something else and is more nuanced, and is not the subject of consensus, then the person using it should be careful to define what he or she means and be prepared to offer support for the meaning advanced. As I've mentioned, with reference to my own source material, the phrase "sun belt" connotes to me a post-World War II migration phenomenon colonizing areas of the United States which were previously sparsely inhabited because of the absence of air-conditioning. San Jose is not one of those places. El Jefe weighed in earlier suggesting that San Jose is part of the sun belt because it is warm in the winter. This seems to me to be more accurate than a strictly latitudinal definition but still misses the mark. The more pertinent issue is how hot a place is in the summer and whether it could support large-scale civilization prior to the advent of air-conditioning.
Why is it then that the 36th/37th parallel is what keeps coming up, and the borders along that line are the ones involved ?
Why is it that the only source material you have referenced alluding to either of those latitude lines says there is no accepted boundary?
See, this is where simple math comes in ... the Sun Belt region has basing on what again ? which has what as the rough divisive line again ? You did the referencing for that ... ... but where did the 36th or 37th parallel come from then, if neither are accepted ?
The 36th and 37th parallels are latitudinal lines that pre-existed the coining of the term "sun belt." They are not "accepted" boundaries defining where the sun belt begins or ends. You, and some unspecified "journalists," may accept one or the other such line as a rough boundary south of which exists the "sun belt," but as your own source suggests, doing so is reductionist, substituting a simplified (and misleading) definition for actual analysis. I will give another example why the reductionist latitudinal definition is wanting. There is no doubt that both Charleston and New Orleans exist south of the 36th parallel, and both are also culturally and historically Southern cities. But neither is correctly characterized as a "sun belt" city within the context the term was coined because neither witnessed a post-World War II influx of population or industrialization. Charleston, especially, realized its apex in the antebellum era. Meanwhile, north of Charleston, South Carolina, a case can be made for treating the Research Triangle area of North Carolina as part of the "sun belt." The term "sun belt" is itself a shorthand connoting something much more complex than simple geography, which is probably why there is no readily accepted shorthand definition, and which is also probably why most journalists (who by nature abhor complexity) resort to simplistic and misleading synonyms.