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.
Before around 1950, Texas actually had MORE Hispanics than California did. California did a relatively good job on not only settling Anglo Whites here, but also making sure that Asians and Hispanics wouldn't move here.
In fact, in 1910, California was 93% Non-Hispanic White. There is no point in Texan history where Texas was as monocultural as California.
Nowadays is a different animal.
I don't get how Texas Hispanics are a more recent phenomenon when in fact, more of California's Hispanic population is foreign born by percentage than Texas'?
By that rationale, Mexican food in Texas shouldn't suck. But, I guess we can't live in a perfect world.
By that rationale, Mexican food in Texas shouldn't suck. But, I guess we can't live in a perfect world.
That's for another topic.
I've never been to Texas so I can't say. But if a whole STATE has 8 million Mexicans, I'm almost positive there is at least one place that has good Mexican food.
In fact, in 1910, California was 93% Non-Hispanic White. There is no point in Texan history where Texas was as monocultural as California.
Yes, there is. At least in the truly cultural/historical sense of what forces shaped the states.
Quote:
I don't get how Texas Hispanics are a more recent phenomenon when in fact, more of California's Hispanic population is foreign born by percentage than Texas'?
For one thing, after the Texas Revolution, most natives of Mexico left the state and Texas simply became -- because of settlement influences -- just the western extension of the American South. It was the anglo/white duality that overwhelmingly dominated. Even San Antonio (still today) touts itself as a blend of "The Old South and Old Mexico." And El Paso went for secession during the WBTS.
Sure, the hispanic and Mexico influence is very evident in Texas. BUT...not of the same variety and type of the true Southwest...including southern California. It was mostly confined to South Texas...and still is, in a relative sense.
BTW -- can you cite the source and more specific figures for your 93% percentages of California, in 1910? I am not doubting, necessarily, but just curious...
I realize it is "politically correct" to pretend otherwise, and assign a mostly Mexican influences to Texas icons...but in fact, such is really just mushy and fuzzy contrivance. Hell, the Texas cowboy -- perhaps the most iconic symbol of all -- is actually much more a prodgeny of the Old South cattle drover tradition than that of the Mexican vaqero. And most early Texans were not cowboys, anyway...they were poor white/black cotton farmers who either came from, or were decended from, southeastern settlers coming west to get a new start. And they brought their culture and attitudes and traditions and heritage with them. And it was nothing like that of California...
I'm 23. One of those people who've lived in 4 different decades, 2 different centuries, and 2 different millenniums.
I mean, most people have individual tastes and everyone typically likes everything. However I'd say the predominant music genre in LA amongst people in their early 20s is EDM. But among the backyard and underground alternative and heavy metal show I've been to, it was very Hispanic. Much more so than most people expect.
Yeah, underneath all the EMD, there seems to be a guitar-driven alternative revival all over the US among all color folks.
Both of these states are large areas with large populations that now have the same percentage of Hispanics/Latinos as each other at 37.6% of their state populations, with most being Mexican.
So it begs the question, which state is more influenced by Mexicans (and other Hispanics)?
Criteria:
Political
Social
Economic
Culturally
Historic
Cities
Food
I would say California because the population is a lot larger than Texas population....
California Demographic Information 38.1% Latinos State Pop 37,700,000 People California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau
One thing that's curious is the difference in the politics of immigration between the two states. It doesn't line up with the idea of California as more liberal, Texas as more conservative.
As somebody mentioned before, the anti-Mexican immigrant hysteria came out of California rather than Texas, though Texas did try (unsuccessfully) to keep non-citizen children out of its public schools. Still, George W. Bush spoke Spanish and actually tried with some success to get Latinos to vote Republican. But in California, Republicans have offered nothing but nonstop Mexican-bashing and as a result Latinos have lined up pretty solidly against them. Even Latinos who are themselves somewhat concerned about immigration don't back California Republicans, because they understand the racism and xenophobia in the Republican position. To me this seems to imply that Mexicans are somehow more "established" in Texas, but I don't know in what way.
One thing that's curious is the difference in the politics of immigration between the two states. It doesn't line up with the idea of California as more liberal, Texas as more conservative.
As somebody mentioned before, the anti-Mexican immigrant hysteria came out of California rather than Texas, though Texas did try (unsuccessfully) to keep non-citizen children out of its public schools. Still, George W. Bush spoke Spanish and actually tried with some success to get Latinos to vote Republican. But in California, Republicans have offered nothing but nonstop Mexican-bashing and as a result Latinos have lined up pretty solidly against them. Even Latinos who are themselves somewhat concerned about immigration don't back California Republicans, because they understand the racism and xenophobia in the Republican position. To me this seems to imply that Mexicans are somehow more "established" in Texas, but I don't know in what way.
Oh lord, What exactly is "xenopbobia", anyway. Please be specific.
Hell, it seems like the illegal aliens are the most "xenophobic" of anyone. After all, they are the ones wanting to flee their own country, right?
Yes, there is. At least in the truly cultural/historical sense of what forces shaped the states.
So in what qualitative way was American-era California more influenced by Mexico than American-era Texas? What specifically about California during the American era was more significantly Mexican than Texas? After the Gold Rush, the newcomers did all they can to strip all the Californios (Mexican Californians) of all their rights, including their land holdings, though some did retain some semblance of power.
There seems to be a blank in everyone's mind when it comes to that and make some assumption that how things are today = how things always were. To give you a short primer of California history, there was a huge nativist movement in California beginning in the 1860s. From then until the 1940s, that was the reality of California: a very racist place.
Quote:
For one thing, after the Texas Revolution, most natives of Mexico left the state and Texas simply became -- because of settlement influences -- just the western extension of the American South. It was the anglo/white duality that overwhelmingly dominated. Even San Antonio (still today) touts itself as a blend of "The Old South and Old Mexico." And El Paso went for secession during the WBTS.
And California, on the other hand, was basically an extension of the Midwest until the Mexican Revolution brought over hundreds of thousands of Mexican refugees into California (and Texas for that matter).
Just look at the numbers below if you don't believe me.
Quote:
Sure, the hispanic and Mexico influence is very evident in Texas. BUT...not of the same variety and type of the true Southwest...including southern California. It was mostly confined to South Texas...and still is, in a relative sense.
But the bulk of population of California until the 1930s was in Northern California, which most people would agree is significantly less Mexican than Southern California.
Again, how is California as a whole any more influenced than Texas as a whole by Mexicans? California isn't simply Southern California either, but it seems that it's an easy thing to forget.
Quote:
BTW -- can you cite the source and more specific figures for your 93% percentages of California, in 1910? I am not doubting, necessarily, but just curious...
White: 2,211,218 (got this from total white - mexican from first and 2nd link) (93.0%)
Mexican: 48,391 (2.0%)
Black: 21,645 (0.9%)
Native American: 16,371 (0.7%)
Asian: 79,861 (3.4%)
I realize it is "politically correct" to pretend otherwise, and assign a mostly Mexican influences to Texas icons...but in fact, such is really just mushy and fuzzy contrivance. Hell, the Texas cowboy -- perhaps the most iconic symbol of all -- is actually much more a prodgeny of the Old South cattle drover tradition than that of the Mexican vaqero. And most early Texans were not cowboys, anyway...they were poor white/black cotton farmers who either came from, or were decended from, southeastern settlers coming west to get a new start. And they brought their culture and attitudes and traditions and heritage with them. And it was nothing like that of California...
California's agricultural heritage isn't 100% based off of ranching either, though admittedly, ranching here does seem to be rooted more in the vaquero tradition than anything else.
However, when it comes to farming, much of the farming methods came from not only Midwestern farmers who settled here, but Asian immigrants as well, as opposed to the plantation and campesino methods more commonly seen in Latin America.
At the end of the day, I don't think any one of these areas is any more influenced by Mexico and the rest of Latin America more than the other. There isn't some decisive moment where either state is "ah hah! Now you're more Mexican!"
Even if California or Texas was more Hispanic, I don't associate that with anything bad. It just is what it is.
Last edited by Lifeshadower; 10-28-2012 at 03:01 AM..
I'm pretty content that it was an open poll. What a joke.
You have Texans voting for California & Californians voting for Texas as if being characterized with Mexican anything or Hispanic anything is supposed to be a bad thing?
This forum is a joke. I hear something dumb everyday from "diversity is overrated" (which is a real life fundamental in the United States for the record).
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-28-2012 at 03:29 AM..
People aren't necessarily trying to run away from Mexican/Latino influences on their state, just look at what's going on. To me, the Latino influence is one of the good things about California.
Lifeshadower's point about the history of racism in California is well-taken. It definitely was not always the land of sunshine and tolerance, if it is that today. In the 1930's, in economic hard times, there was a big movement to deport Mexicans from California, during the course of which many U.S. citizens were deported. I don't think that happened in a big way in Texas, maybe somebody can say something about that. During World War 2, there were riots in LA during which young White men attacked young Latino men for the crime of wearing "zoot suits."
In the writing of U.S. history, there is still an East Coast bias, and there's been a lot more historical research about the Northeast and South than about the West. Some historians certainly have written about the West/Southwest, but we could use a lot more research.
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.
