Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's look at the lush subtropical native vegetation in Austin. Let's see, scrubby native juniper ("cedar") that has drought-resistant foliage. Scrubby live oaks that are nothing like the huge specimens that live in the Deep South; and unlike their Southern counterparts clad in luxuriant Spanish Moss, Austin's pathetic little specimens have clumps of "Ball Moss" studding their limbs. Take a drive out 71 or 290 immediately west of town and see the yucca and prickley pear -- so Southern! Try growing anything in your garden besides lantana, rosemary and the like -- see what happens to your unwatered roses and azaleas (and the soil is too alkaline for the latter, without adding signficant amendments -- quite unlike the acid-rich soils of the South). And I love all those bayous snaking through Austin! Oh, sorry -- those are all man-made lakes. Just such Southern topography and flora!
I lived in Austin for 10 years,a nd I can tell you that it is truly schizophrenic in regards to culture and socio-economics and mindset. You have a progressive, liberal, and artistic influence due to the music scene and the university and the California immigrants. You have a redneck, good ol' boy zeitgeist due to the fact that Austin is, well...in Texas, after all! You have a genteel, southern feel in some parts of south Austin. And of course you have a strong hispanic contingent, also mostly in south Austin. Much of Austin's original charm is now long gone, as it seems to be striving to get more like Dallas every year. I laugh whenever I see the "Keep Austin Weird" bumperstickers. Austin used to be alot of fun but is now about as "weird" as a vanilla milkshake. A shame.
First, having lived in Austin for 40 years, Austin was "progressive, liberal and artistic" long before the Californians started arriving.
As for the "Keep Austin Weird" bumper stickers, the originals, created LONG before they were commercialized (which is why I don't have one - I'm not going to give those folks on thin dime for commercializing something that was exactly the opposite of its original meaning), were in response to just the trend that you're describing - they're a cry to stop the attempts to make Austin Anywhere USA by people who moved here for its unique charm and then proceed to try to make it just like where they came from, or by people capitalizing on the people moving here and doing the same.
TexasHorseLady is absolutely correct about this. In the early 1970s Austin was primarily a mecca for other Texans who appreciated the bohemian atmosphere, music scene and natural beauty of Austin and the Hill Country. There were no Californians back then (apart from the occasional, rare stray) and Austin was both folk-artsey and unpretensiously intellectual and genteel.
As an outsider, my view is that Texas is a mix of Southern and Western.
I know that Texas was one of the first 7 Deep South states (SC, MS, GA, FL, AL, LA, TX) that seceded at the start of the Civil War. But that was because Texas was only populated in the eastern part of the state (same thing with northern FL), which is the most historically and culturally southern part of the state. Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina later followed in secession.
Texas as a whole isn't as culturally southern as most of the south. But Texas isn't western like the true western states like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada either.
You could say that TX bridges the South with the West. In that sense, it is a 'border state', like Missouri (Midwest + South), Maryland (Northeast/MidAtlantic + South), Kentucky (South + Midwest), etc.
States change over time. Virginia, the birthplace of the American South, home of Robert E Lee, Capitol of the old Confederacy, is pretty much a modern border state (South + MidAtlantic) nowadays. Virginia is exactly halfway between Maine and Florida and is becoming more and more similar to Maryland in demographics, education, ecomony, politics, culture, etc.
Kentucky seems to have gotten more 'southern' over time. West Virginia has pretty much stayed the same.
Texas seems to have formed it's own identity. Don't most Texans consider their state like a country?
Austin is in central Texas, so I will just say that Austin is a SOUTHCENTRAL city. Same for Texas. Not Southeastern or Southwestern, but Southcentral
I have seen Austin labeled as all three. I am sure some will say it is a mix. What aspects of Austin do you guys believe make it southern, southwestern, or western?
I've nothing against Californians as a group, but I hope you're being facetious.
Still, in a strictly cultural way there may be a certain amount of truth to that and again gets back to the Southwestern aspects (talking Southern Cali).
To use the old cliche'..I have followed this thead with "great interest" LOL
I didn't get into it initially, personally, for several reasons.
One, is that I am worn to a frazzle over the larger topic itself (Texas' regional afflilation). Anybody who knows me knows I consider Texas -- as a whole -- essentially a Southern state. Parts of it are clearly not Southern (i.e. the trans-pecos and, nowdays, large parts of south Texas). But by and large --IMHO-- Texas is part of the South if it has to be placed into a regional catagory. At least as much as a Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida, are.
Second, (which ties into the first), I didn't want to "tread" upon anybody else's territory. There are some of us who have fought this "war" for several years, and it has become sort of on unspoken agreement, to not start it up again!
Third, it is one that to which, really, there is no "right" answer at all. And never will be. So long as the definition of "the South" itself remains illusive, then for sure, the questions of which states do and don't belong, will be.
With that said, I decided to wade in simply because this post by NCnut came just about as close -- as anything ever has -- to pegging it just about right. It was great and I repped him/her for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCnut
As an outsider, my view is that Texas is a mix of Southern and Western.
Absolutely right on the money! My fine-tuned qualification is that most of Texas is the "western South". Which is a very unique sub-region of the South itself. Where the basics of Southern history and culture are very much blended with the frontier aspects of the post-bellum western frontier. The blend makes it -- as Tstone put it earlier -- uniquely "Texas". It is not the southeast, but it for sure isn't the true West or Southwest either as understood today or yesterday. To me (which I know -- along with a dollar -- gets one a draw beer) the designation "western South" -- and most of Texas -- are synonymous!
Quote:
I know that Texas was one of the first 7 Deep South states (SC, MS, GA, FL, AL, LA, TX) that seceded at the start of the Civil War. But that was because Texas was only populated in the eastern part of the state (same thing with northern FL), which is the most historically and culturally southern part of the state. Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina later followed in secession.
*nods in agreement* This is a part of Texas history that, sadly/strangely even many native Texans don't know much about. Texas, in the day and age, was an all-out fire-eating, secessionist state. All out Confederate and, in fact, Texas was -- in the last days -- the last stronghold of the Confederacy where "let's fight on" was actually given some credence. Most in the "east" had just had it. "We" were hopelessly beaten, but in the the trans-Mississippi dept. some wanted to continue it. I admire that spirit -- would have been a part of it -- even if -- in retrospect -- it would have only prolonged the inevitable....
Ok, anyway, point as relates is that no one seperated Texas from the South in those days and didn't for a long time. Texas was under Reconstruction rule like every other Southern state (and ours was particulary long and harsh) and its legacies bonded Texas to its southeastern allies in a way which was later reflected by just about every aspect of life. It continued as the same pioneers (GTT) settled western Texas looking to get a new start. The dominant culture was anglo/black Southern. The state was not a "melting pot" as in the sense of a California. Or other truly western states. Not even close.
Quote:
Texas as a whole isn't as culturally southern as most of the south. But Texas isn't western like the true western states like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada either. You could say that TX bridges the South with the West. In that sense, it is a 'border state', like Missouri (Midwest + South), Maryland (Northeast/MidAtlantic + South), Kentucky (South + Midwest), etc.
I agree with this totally. That is why I like the term "western South" to describe much of Texas. It incorporates the South with the West. In fact, I seem to remember an old "Texas Tourist Bureau" slogan that went something like: TEXAS! Where the South meets the West"
Quote:
Texas seems to have formed it's own identity. Don't most Texans consider their state like a country?
Wellll, now that you metion it...? Yep...I guess that might be so! *grins*
Quote:
Austin is in central Texas, so I will just say that Austin is a SOUTHCENTRAL city. Same for Texas. Not Southeastern or Southwestern, but Southcentral
I like that one! If "western South" won't do the trick (which as John Shelton Reed once said, is a bit too "Germanic" for American tongues), maybe South Central will!
To use the old cliche'..I have followed this thead with "great interest" LOL
I didn't get into it initially, personally, for several reasons.
One, is that I am worn to a frazzle over the larger topic itself (Texas' regional afflilation). Anybody who knows me knows I consider Texas -- as a whole -- essentially a Southern state. Parts of it are clearly not Southern (i.e. the trans-pecos and, nowdays, large parts of south Texas). But by and large --IMHO-- Texas is part of the South if it has to be placed into a regional catagory. At least as much as a Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida, are.
Second, (which ties into the first), I didn't want to "tread" upon anybody else's territory. There are some of us who have fought this "war" for several years, and it has become sort of on unspoken agreement, to not start it up again!
Third, it is one that to which, really, there is no "right" answer at all. And never will be. So long as the definition of "the South" itself remains illusive, then for sure, the questions of which states do and don't belong, will be.
With that said, I decided to wade in simply because this post by NCnut came just about as close -- as anything ever has -- to pegging it just about right. It was great and I repped him/her for it!
Absolutely right on the money! My fine-tuned qualification is that most of Texas is the "western South". Which is a very unique sub-region of the South itself. Where the basics of Southern history and culture are very much blended with the frontier aspects of the post-bellum western frontier. The blend makes it -- as Tstone put it earlier -- uniquely "Texas". It is not the southeast, but it for sure isn't the true West or Southwest either as understood today or yesterday. To me (which I know -- along with a dollar -- gets one a draw beer) the designation "western South" -- and most of Texas -- are synonymous!
*nods in agreement* This is a part of Texas history that, sadly/strangely even many native Texans don't know much about. Texas, in the day and age, was an all-out fire-eating, secessionist state. All out Confederate and, in fact, Texas was -- in the last days -- the last stronghold of the Confederacy where "let's fight on" was actually given some credence. Most in the "east" had just had it. "We" were hopelessly beaten, but in the the trans-Mississippi dept. some wanted to continue it. I admire that spirit -- would have been a part of it -- even if -- in retrospect -- it would have only prolonged the inevitable....
Ok, anyway, point as relates is that no one seperated Texas from the South in those days and didn't for a long time. Texas was under Reconstruction rule like every other Southern state (and ours was particulary long and harsh) and its legacies bonded Texas to its southeastern allies in a way which was later reflected by just about every aspect of life. It continued as the same pioneers (GTT) settled western Texas looking to get a new start. The dominant culture was anglo/black Southern. The state was not a "melting pot" as in the sense of a California. Or other truly western states. Not even close.
I agree with this totally. That is why I like the term "western South" to describe much of Texas. It incorporates the South with the West. In fact, I seem to remember an old "Texas Tourist Bureau" slogan that went something like: TEXAS! Where the South meets the West"
Wellll, now that you metion it...? Yep...I guess that might be so! *grins*
I like that one! If "western South" won't do the trick (which as John Shelton Reed once said, is a bit too "Germanic" for American tongues), maybe South Central will!
Great post, NC!
*thinks to self*:
Jesus Christ!..C-D...How much rep must I spread around before I can rep this guy again. I mean seriously, enough already with the "you must spread rep..." spiel
I'd be much happier with South Central than with Western South, because those two phrases have very different meanings, just as different as the meanings of Civil War versus War Between The States.
Neither one's really right, though. Texas is Texas, as in, in the Texas region of the United States.
You could ask that about the whole state of Texas. Texas is Texas, and there's only one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
