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.
You know you're reaching with that one. No part of Georgia is gulf south.
Technically, Georgia doesn't touch the Gulf, but parts of southwestern Georgia (Valdosta, Thomasville, etc.) are less than 100 miles from the Gulf Coast and are definitely influenced by the region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overcooked_Oatmeal
El Paso and San Antonio are not Southern cities.
I definitely won't argue with El Paso, but even as Spanish influenced as San Antonio is, there are definitely elements of southern influence there, especially centered around its black community. The same is true for Austin.
LOL This thread never goes away, does it? Almost like it's closely related twin on the Texas forum about the status of the state as Southern! (very alliterative, huh? LOL)
But seriously, just a few replies to a couple of very good posts on the subject...
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89
It's crazy isn't it? But at the same time, there still IS a part of the state that stands true to these stereotypes. The thing people don't understand is that those parts of the state make up a smaller part instead of the majority. And also, it doesn't help that many establishments, businesses, hospitals, etc, advertise themselves, or have been crowned as the "1st so-and-so in the Southwest", or the "Largest so-and-so in the Southwest".
This is a very good point, Polo. But it is also one that needs to be put into its proper historical perspective. It is one I have made over the years I have been arguing this subject, but I sincerely believe (in my worthless two cents worth! LOL) is very valid.
You are correct that many businesses, etc, in Texas advertize as being (this or that) of the "Southwest". And yes, that DOES contribute to the "stereotype" in many ways.
BUT -- and I don't think this can ever be emphasized enough -- the origins of this phraseology came about from a desire to demonstrate and tout the differences in the eastern and western South. Not to seperate Texas from the South at large. With Texas rapidly (after the War) growing and prospering, it became very attractive from a public relations level to advertise as "Southwest" for some businesses. Such as established banks, for instance. Since Texas was a developing frontier, a newbie johnny-come-lately couldn't accurately call themselves "Largest in the South"... as that phrase had long ago been adopted somewhere east of the Mississippi. Soooo? "Largest in the Southwest" worked better! LOL
But the main point is that it (Southwest) simply meant the extension of the original application of the term. That is, the western frontier part of the South itself. Another good example is the formation of the original Southwest Conference and its member schools. And hell, even today, the Southwestern Athletic Conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is made up of historically black Southern schools from Texas to Alabama.
The confusion (or at least part of it), IMHO, came about later when other territories west of Texas became states and were also considered "Southwest" (by simple geography)...and over time, it began to blend into a false idea/concept in the minds of many, that the Southwest of the South (Texas and Oklahoma in particular) was indistinguishable from the Southwest of the West (New Mexico and Arizona in particular).
However, historically and culturally, they two different critters.
Ehh, screw the census Bureau. The Trans-Pecos Region isn't part of the South.
Okay, but that's why theoretically, it probably shouldn't be included, but technically it is. The Trans-Pecos region may not be southern, but it's located in a southern state.
True, and I never understood why some Texans even perpetuate these (often false) stereotypes themselves. For example, I've seen Texas related signs, most notably a bumper sticker for a car dealership out of San Antonio, that shows a picture of a saguaro cactus, when those things don't even grow in the entire state of Texas.
LOL Nairobi? This reminds me of a postcard advertizing Jefferson, Texas, at a little shop in the town (which is pure ante-bellum Deep South in tone and history and character), and it had a generic "GREETINGS FROM JEFFERSON" (or something like that), overlaid upon a background motif of boots, cowboy hats and catcus and buttes and, yep, the non-existent saguaro cactus! LOL
Good lord, it is was about as ridiculous as it could get. I even asked a manager about it, and she laughed too. Said something like, "yeah, I agree, but those post cards are just generic and the background is standard on all of them."
*AHEM* But anyway, I agree with all you say. And I think a lot of Texans "perpetuate it" for two reasons (which of course can overlap). One, is that they really are unaware of the Southern origins of the state and its history. The old Hollywood movies didn't help much! Another, is that hell, (understandable in many ways), they want to play up to the said stereotype (see below on some of this).
Quote:
I'm not sure if this whole phony Wild Wild West motif is just for the sake of the tourists, but it gets to be beyond annoying.
Again, agree and agree. And yep, it is, in many ways -- as you say -- for the sake of the tourist industry (which no question is large!). See below, related to a new book on Texas' regional identity (which I havent read but am going to order!):
To repeat, a lot of it is a great tourists draw, and the latter was NEVER intended to mean "The South Stops Here." It simply meant that the EAST ended (Dallas came up with this one to counter Ft. Worth), and the post-bellum western frontier began. The western South as opposed to the eastern South. On the same plane (no pun intended) that St. Louis' "Gateway to the West" never meant one was leaving the Midwest...just entering a New Frontier.
But anyway, here is a link to the book and excerpts from an interview with the author:
Q: How would you say Texas identity has changed over the years?
A: After the Civil War and Reconstruction, state leaders looked to rebrand Texas, repackaging its identity as forward-looking,modern and progressive. Toward this end, Texas possessed something that its sister states in the Confederacy lacked. ... The first was its Texas Revolution identity, and Texans could also escape their Southern heritage by heading out West to blend inwith the cowboys, cattle drives and gunslingers. ... Since the 1980s, there's been a needed correction, reintegrating ourSouthern legacy into the state's narrative. It's important to remember that Texas is many things. Its identity is complex and cannot be fully understood within the limited Southern, Western or independent context.
Q: You talk about Fort Worth but not much about Dallas. So is Dallas where the East ends?
A: East Texas and the South do not abruptly end in Dallas. One can still find elements of Southern identity in cities such as Weatherford, Decatur and Graham. Dallas is only 30 miles from Fort Worth and the two share cultural similarities. For example, on Feb. 23, 1861, Dallas and Tarrant [counties] voted for secession by more than a 3-to-1 margin. ... Fort Worth
certainly has authentic Western characteristics [but] in July and September 1860, Fort Worth mobs lynched two alleged abolitionists. ... In branding itself Western, the city is simply doing what much of Texas did during the '20s and '30s, escaping out West to avoid its Southern heritage, the legacy of defeat in the Civil War, military occupation during Reconstruction and troubled race relations. Finally, it's no secret that the Old West and Western destinations remain very popular with tourists.
***********************
Again, I havent read the book yet, but am ordering it. Two thing that really leap out at me a bit, is that the author (Glen Ely Sample) put the "boundary" of where the South really becomes the West, wayyy out in western Texas (far from Ft. Worth). Another is he calls attention to the fact that so much of the Texas "western" image, was deliberately and artificially created during the Depression era in order to "escape" its obvious connection with the humiliation associated with the defeat of the Confederacy and Reconstruction.
As he also says (rightfully), many new day Texas historians have recently (since the 80's) tried to correct this contrived historical attempt at revision, by emphasizing the reality of the basic origins of Texas -- historically and culturally -- as an essentially Southern state! About time, I say!
The Saguaro Cactus may not grow in Texas, but those little Cactus in Central Texas were everywhere. Those cacti, combined with Central Texas brownish brush, combined with a lack of any sort of Southern pines, combined with Central Texas's limestone ledges all give Central Texas and South Texas a look that's "different" from the rest of the South. It may not be Arizona, but it's far from being Georgia. Texas is the Western Fringe of the South.
Some of you posters can't read a map worth a damn. Even Stevie Wonder can see that Louisiana is NOT the center of the South by a longshot. There are too many states well to the east of Louisiana that are still southern. West of DFW is not the South. Abilene is not as southern as Tyler. San Antonio and Austin are not southern cities by a long shot. Waco is sort of Southern and west of Sealy is pretty much Alta Mexico. Atlanta may not be the "center" but unlike DFW/Houston, it's surrounded by the South. The "South" ends quite abruptly about 100 miles west of DFW/Houston.
Hey OO! Good to see one of my favorite worthy opponents on line again!
Anyway, you know we are gonna argue, don't you? LOL
You have a certain point that "the South abruptly ends" 100 miles west of DFW...but only in a topographical sense. That would place it around the 100th Meridian (the eastern border of the Texas/Oklahoma Panhandle).
However, keep in mind that the area west of there (which extends slightly into far eastern NM) is one of the strongest bastions of the Southern Baptist Church in the country. Also, according to the most recent and extensive surveys/studies ever done, "West Texas" is also clearly an extension of the "Southern American English" belt", and further, a majority of west Texans self-identify with the South.
In summation? One cannot say "the South abruptly ends" at a given point until Southern influences clearly abruptly end. And they don't, in West Texas. The Eastern South ending? No question. But NOT the South and its historical and cultural influences which clearly offset it from the interior Southwest (i.e. New Mexico and Arizona mostly), and the Plains Midwest north of Oklahoma.
Of course, I will definitely concede that the Trans-Pecos part of Texas belongs to the true SW, and that the upper-panhandle is at least as Midwestern as Southern.
Hey OO! Good to see one of my favorite worthy opponents on line again!
Anyway, you know we are gonna argue, don't you? LOL
You have a certain point that "the South abruptly ends" 100 miles west of DFW...but only in a topographical sense. That would place it around the 100th Meridian (the eastern border of the Texas/Oklahoma Panhandle).
However, keep in mind that the area west of there (which extends slightly into far eastern NM) is one of the strongest bastions of the Southern Baptist Church in the country. Also, according to the most recent and extensive surveys/studies ever done, "West Texas" is also clearly an extension of the "Southern American English" belt", and further, a majority of west Texans self-identify with the South.
In summation? One cannot say "the South abruptly ends" at a given point until Southern influences clearly abruptly end. And they don't, in West Texas. The Eastern South ending? No question. But NOT the South and its historical and cultural influences which clearly offset it from the interior Southwest (i.e. New Mexico and Arizona mostly), and the Plains Midwest north of Oklahoma.
Of course, I will definitely concede that the Trans-Pecos part of Texas belongs to the true SW, and that the upper-panhandle is at least as Midwestern as Southern.
"Abrupt" was exaggerating a bit on my part. I'll modify and say "peters out" instead because I do see where you're coming from. While Odessa, Midland, Abilene, etc may seem "southern-lite/diet-southern" to me but who am I to tell someone where they're from?
I'm a California gal, but I have Coastal North Carolina/Southern VA blood from my fathers side of the family who feel that Texans aren't "real" southerners and some Georgia/Alabama relatives from my mama's side who think neither Texas nor Virginia are the "True" South, and that anything west of the Mississippi is "out west," so that may have influenced my opinion, but years of living in Texas changed my opinion on those sort of matters.
I'm still trying to figure out just what in hell region Oklahoma is supposed to be in. Is Tulsa the South or the Midwest?
Amarillo? Wichita with a twang.
@Nairobi - If San Antonio is a 'southern' city based on those characteristics, so is Miami. Yeah, you'll find southern culture if you look hard enough, but overall, I still feel San Antone is in Alta Mexico, and Miami is a combo of Cuba del Norte and Baja New York.
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.
And yep, it is, in many ways -- as you say -- for the sake of the tourist industry (which no question is large!). See below, related to a new book on Texas' regional identity (which I havent read but am going to order!): 
