Southern vs. Southwestern (should)

[Danbo1957]

Originally Posted by scm53

Funny, I missed the part in there about a melting pot.

Why are you concentrating on "melting pot"? I did not use the term.

Austin was chosen to be the capitol, reasons for doing so included that Waterloo was at a crossroads of ancient traveled pathways and navigable river. Various peoples lived/hunted/traveled through the area for centuries; and crossroad cities the world over are known for their residents' identifiable curiosity of other cultures, ideas, and ways-- very Austin.

Placement matters-- Waco and Bryan-College Station (two examples, on the Brazos) are each only a hundred miles from Austin, think how it would have been different if Lamar didn't hype Waterloo...

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Danbo1957

Why are you concentrating on "melting pot"? I did not use the term.

No, but from a four hundred+ word post, you choose only those few words to quote:

Originally Posted by i35vagabond

Austin is the dividing line between South and Southwest and West.

Austin is really melting pot of sorts.

To which you said:

Originally Posted by Danbo1957

That's why he capitol was put here. Austin has been a natural crossroads for mellennia which allowed for the political, educational, and cultural hub that it is.

Now, if you want to crawfish away, be my guest. But saying "I did not use the term" is an almost-Clintonian parsing. You didn't say them, but you certainly endorsed the thought.

[Danbo1957]

Dude, you're just arguing for... why exactly? Melting pot or not, those on this thread have been told why Austin is what it is: a crossroads of Southern, Western, Southwestern, and Mexican. One can literally walk from the east side of the Capitol building to the west side and change cultures.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by cocoeubanks

I've been reading through old threads trying to find some insight, but haven't really found what I'm looking for. If you know where I should be looking, please point me that way.

My husband has been transferred to Austin, and he, myself, our 8 month old and a sometimes smelly Jack Russell are moving mid-July. We've been in Denver for a couple of years, and Columbia, SC before that. Both born and raised in the Carolinas.

Everyone has told us we'll love it there, but always seems to follow up with "You need to remember, it's more of a Southwestern than Southern city." What does this mean, exactly? We already know that it won't be anything like Charleston or Atlanta, that's a given. But never having lived or traveled in the Southwest, what are some characteristics you'd put on a Southwestern City?

We're not concerned with the lack of quote/unquote Southernism. We've been in about the most unsouthern place in the country and made out just fine. And I don't mean this to start an argument between the two. I'm mostly just curious as to what it means to be a Southwestern city.

Welcome to Austin, my wife and I moved here from Denver in 1977 and have never regretted it.

Texas is a place all unto itself, it has a slight mix of Southern and Southwestern influences. And Austin is slightly different from the rest of Texas. Austin is more liberal than most of Texas and more so then Denver but you won't be uncomfortable, it is a very accepting, live and let live place. I have lived in Pheonix and Southern California as well, they don't have much SW flavor in my opinion. I think of New Mexico when people talk about SWestern. Mexican food is very popular in Austin but it is a little heavier then what I think of as "New Mexico" Mexican food.

[imaterry78259]

Austin, San Antonio, Waco and Laredo are all southwestern cities

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Danbo1957

Dude, you're just arguing for... why exactly? Melting pot or not ...

Because the accuracy of history matters. And your attempt to link what Austin has become to why it was chosen to be our capital in 1839 is just nothing more contemporary feel-goodism. That's why.

[Danbo1957]

Crap, Dude. I was a history major at UT. You think that I have some kind of vested interest in why Austin is what it is now? Austin is what it is now due to it's entire history, including why it was chosen to be the capitol. Somebody didn't just flip a switch in 1959, and Wah-lah!

You have the accurate history of Austin? Present it.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Danbo1957

You have the accurate history of Austin? Present it.

I did. You were in such a rush to Mr. Googlé to find ANYTHING that you blew right past it.

Austin wasn't made the state capital because it was a melting pot in 1839, as you asserted. You made that assertion - YOU prove it. Should be cake for a UT history major. Dude.

[Danbo1957]

OK... let's seeee... IGNORE... *click*

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by cBach

You are right about that type of upper crust old money in the South. In New Orleans they call it the "Mardi Gras royalty". These are the people whose great great great grandfathers made a lot of money in one of the oldest cities in the country at a time when the city was increasing in population each day the same way Austin is now. If you want to get into that crowd, you will be disappointed. The Americans on the Uptown side of Canal would marry into the French Creole elites and that was the only way they would be recognized. In a lot of these times, it was bringing new money back into a decaying old money family that had almost tapped out the trust funds, so the new blood was welcomed. I admit, in the South, if you are "new money" you will never fit in with the "old money" crowd.

However, scratch a little beneath the surface and you will find some big differences between the South and Texas. Yes, the Uptown elite in New Orleans will never accept those noveau riche people, but look at their neighbor. You see them, the ones with the shotgun house? It used to be a slave quarter but is now being rented by a hipster couple who have remodeled the place to be eco friendly. On the other side is a school teacher in a rundown shutgun as well. Guess what, they all get along and there's no keeping up with the Joneses. They all know they are different but are fine with it.

Now in Texas, because most cities don't have zoning, you end up having a situation where an HOA takes over for the lack of zoning, and thus you have stringent requirements meaning only a certain socioeconomic status can live there. Everybody examines everyone's house and makes sure they have the best granite countertops or the best hardwood floors or the best looking bathroom.

In areas without HOAs, in Austin you still get socioeconomic segregation because of ridiculous ordinances that drive up the cost of making improvements to property to the point that only wealthy people can do so. So the core city is getting increasingly rich, with various suburbs for each and every socioeconomic class. Thus people mainly hang out with people of their same class. That is a foreign concept in old deep South cities.

And also, if you think there's no old money in Texas, look at Highland Park in Dallas or Rice University area in Houston or Tarrytown in Austin. It's just not as pervasive as in the South.

The other point is that in the South, besides the Uptown elite types, socioeconomic status is not as important as in Texas and I believe it has to do with lack of zoning, which ironically creates extreme zoning because of HOAs.

You say Texas but you're really referring to the part of Texas that IS in the Southwest. You have to exclude Houston and East Texas from your characterization, because out here it IS the South.

The thing about exercise stood out. You may not believe this but in Houston, a lot of people have no concept of "hiking". I talk about hiking and they think it has to do with mountains.