U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Most authentic southern state
Virginia 6 2.78%
North Carolina 7 3.24%
South Carolina 15 6.94%
Georgia 15 6.94%
Florida 4 1.85%
Alabama 39 18.06%
Mississippi 78 36.11%
Louisiana 18 8.33%
Texas 12 5.56%
Arkansas 9 4.17%
Tennessee 10 4.63%
Kentucky 3 1.39%
Voters: 216. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-10-2009, 07:02 AM
 
10,167 posts, read 16,642,162 times
Reputation: 5695

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wpmeads View Post
Regions are just states with similar a culture, history, and geographical location lumped together for the purpose generalization. None of the states in the South are exactly the same just like none the states in the Pacific West are the same and none of the states in the Midwest or the Northeast are the same. Anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Exactly right!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2009, 07:06 AM
 
309 posts, read 1,092,412 times
Reputation: 193
Greetings,
Having relatives in all of these southern states. I think there all great... but one thing that I have always wondered is this:
Why do they call the Northern Folks Yankees. When is was the British they were calling Yankees.

Remember " The Yankees are Comin"
Be Blessed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Closer than you think!
2,103 posts, read 3,164,970 times
Reputation: 1529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akhenaton06 View Post
Right, but you said they weren't Southern at all. That's simply not true.

And I'm not the first or last to say it...What's your point?...They're not IMO...Overall speaken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 11:52 PM
 
14,006 posts, read 21,956,970 times
Reputation: 4085
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
LOL We have this discussion before, Polo...and what is being talked about is the overall regional affiliation. Other than the trans-pecos (which has always been a bit different from the rest of the state) the primary identity is South, not Southwest (as in New Mexico and Arizona "southwest"). Even in West Texas cities like Midland and Lubbock, there is a tremendous history and pattern of Southern character not at all present in the true SW.

The Fort Worth slogan? It has been taken totally out of original context. It didn't even originate with Fort Worth, for one thing (it sprang from an 1911 poem that had nothing to do with Texas). Many locales made claim to being "where the West begins." But it didn't mean it took on a whole different regional affiliation. For instance, St. Louis with its arch and "Gateway to the West". It didn't translate into that one was leaving the Midwest...just entering into a certain new "post-bellum frontier" part of the country.

Likewise, in the case of Ft. Worth, it meant entering into a "new South". A "Western South" if you will, where Southern ways were blended with frontier western aspects. Different from the "Old South" of cotton being undisputed king (although it is important to note that cotton, not cattle, remained the "staple" of Texas agriculture).

This is evidenced quite a bit by the fact Dallas responded by calling themselves "Where the East Ends". Note it didn't say where the South ends, but where the "east" ends.

Oh well, like I say, we have done this before and, really, we are not necessarily in total disagreement. Just a matter of many degrees! LOL
But wouldn't it be fair to the people of West Texas and folks in the Trans Pecos region to call Texas Both? I just think Texas is too big to just be thrown into ONE region of the US. It's proximity to Mexico and New Mexico geographically AND culturally HAS to be considered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 12:10 AM
 
Location: metro ATL
8,190 posts, read 11,844,605 times
Reputation: 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdw1084 View Post
And I'm not the first or last to say it...What's your point?...They're not IMO...Overall speaken
You didn't say "overall." Had you said that, I wouldn't have disagreed. You said those states weren't Southern AT ALL. That's simply not true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 12:24 AM
 
Location: Closer than you think!
2,103 posts, read 3,164,970 times
Reputation: 1529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akhenaton06 View Post
You didn't say "overall." Had you said that, I wouldn't have disagreed. You said those states weren't Southern AT ALL. That's simply not true.
They're not traditionally southern...Will that make you feel better....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 12:27 AM
 
Location: metro ATL
8,190 posts, read 11,844,605 times
Reputation: 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdw1084 View Post
They're not traditionally southern...Will that make you feel better....
Certain parts of Florida and Texas are "traditionally Southern." Overall, no, but parts of them are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 08:00 AM
 
10,167 posts, read 16,642,162 times
Reputation: 5695
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
But wouldn't it be fair to the people of West Texas and folks in the Trans Pecos region to call Texas Both? I just think Texas is too big to just be thrown into ONE region of the US. It's proximity to Mexico and New Mexico geographically AND culturally HAS to be considered.
You have a very good point -- as you always do -- and definitely so in the realm of being fair to those areas. But just to make a few important additional points over-all...

First, the trans-pecos area I would for sure consider truly Southwestern (as in Interior desert Southwest of New Mexico and Arizona). But I still maintain most of west Texas -- sans that ever nagging trans-pecos extention LOL -- is not "Southwestern" in the same sense as the above states.

That is, having been settled overwhelmingly by pioneers from the southeastern United States (including East Texans), its character and basic traits in terms of history and culture are noteably diffferent from the Native-American/Hispanic dominated "desert and mountain" Southwest.

The problem (at least IMHO) is that the term "Southwest" can take on at least two different meanings. Each indicating seperate sub-regions of completely different larger regions. In most of Texas it translates into "western South" (which was the original meaning). Literally, the western extension of what has usually, historically, been understood to compose the American South.

It was/is certainly different from the traditional "Old South" (particuarly in terms of topography), but the settlement patterns (and what came with it) offset it much more so with the states to the west. This is very evidenced by things ranging all the way from the dominance of the Southern Baptist Church to Confederate monuments on most courthouse lawns...and many other items in between. All in all, a very unique and different sub-region of the South itself. Essentially Southern, but with a strong flavor of the frontier (post-bellum) "west" not present in the ante-bellum southeast.

On the other hand, New Mexico and Arizona have nothing "classically Southern" about them, thus the designation of Southwest takes on a whole different meaning. They are sub-regions of the generally considered "West". The pattern of influential Southern migration after the WBTS pretty well ended in a small slice of eastern New Mexico (interestingly enough, called "Little Texas" LOL). And they didn't even become states until a decade into the 20th Century.

I know I have posted it many times before, but I think this passage from Raymond Gastil's "Cultural Regions of the United States" puts it very well:

Unlike the Interior Southwest, neither aboriginal Indian nor Spanish-American culture played a central role in the definition of the area. The people of Texas are mostly from the Lower, Upper, and Mountain South and these Southerners easily outnumbered the Spanish speaking and Indian people even before the state joined the Union. Therefore, when we refer to a large Spanish-speaking population in Texas, we are primarily speaking of a relatively recent immigrant population, quite different from the core areas of the Interior Southwest."

Just on a very related tangent, South Texas is sort of a "problem." It seems to have gone from one extreme to the another, if such terms can be used. That is, originally, it was very much influenced by Mexico (obviously). Later, after the Texas Revolution, most hispanics left the state, settlers from the Southern United States poured in, and this culture dominated until relatively recently (For many years San Antonio was called a "blend of Old Mexico and Old South")

Today? It is very much going back the opposite direction. In fact, that is an understatement...it already HAS! LOL Anyway, I don't how to label large parts of South Texas, anymore. Despite its large and majority hispanic population, it is still not "Southwest" as in NM or AZ...or even El Paso. But it has definitely lost a lot of classic "Southern flavor" (although the presence -- as Mr. McCoy and Spade have noted --is still very much there in many areas).

Oh well...that is a confusing one!

Last edited by TexasReb; 12-11-2009 at 08:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 08:21 AM
 
37 posts, read 245,002 times
Reputation: 31
I voted for Mississippi in the poll because it is more "raw" south. Currently I live in Louisiana but when I visit Mississippi I find my southern twang becomes more pronounced and my yes maam's and no maam's become more frequent. From the dirt poor but proud people you would find in the Mississippi Delta to the more sophisticated people (relatively speaking) you would find on the Gulf Coast, I find that Mississippi epitomizes what the South truly is about.
Louisiana is close behind, but I find that this state has more of an eclectic influence from the different cultures that reside down in New Orleans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 12:37 PM
 
14,006 posts, read 21,956,970 times
Reputation: 4085
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
You have a very good point -- as you always do -- and definitely so in the realm of being fair to those areas. But just to make a few important additional points over-all...

First, the trans-pecos area I would for sure consider truly Southwestern (as in Interior desert Southwest of New Mexico and Arizona). But I still maintain most of west Texas -- sans that ever nagging trans-pecos extention LOL -- is not "Southwestern" in the same sense as the above states.

That is, having been settled overwhelmingly by pioneers from the southeastern United States (including East Texans), its character and basic traits in terms of history and culture are noteably diffferent from the Native-American/Hispanic dominated "desert and mountain" Southwest.

The problem (at least IMHO) is that the term "Southwest" can take on at least two different meanings. Each indicating seperate sub-regions of completely different larger regions. In most of Texas it translates into "western South" (which was the original meaning). Literally, the western extension of what has usually, historically, been understood to compose the American South.

It was/is certainly different from the traditional "Old South" (particuarly in terms of topography), but the settlement patterns (and what came with it) offset it much more so with the states to the west. This is very evidenced by things ranging all the way from the dominance of the Southern Baptist Church to Confederate monuments on most courthouse lawns...and many other items in between. All in all, a very unique and different sub-region of the South itself. Essentially Southern, but with a strong flavor of the frontier (post-bellum) "west" not present in the ante-bellum southeast.

On the other hand, New Mexico and Arizona have nothing "classically Southern" about them, thus the designation of Southwest takes on a whole different meaning. They are sub-regions of the generally considered "West". The pattern of influential Southern migration after the WBTS pretty well ended in a small slice of eastern New Mexico (interestingly enough, called "Little Texas" LOL). And they didn't even become states until a decade into the 20th Century.

I know I have posted it many times before, but I think this passage from Raymond Gastil's "Cultural Regions of the United States" puts it very well:

Unlike the Interior Southwest, neither aboriginal Indian nor Spanish-American culture played a central role in the definition of the area. The people of Texas are mostly from the Lower, Upper, and Mountain South and these Southerners easily outnumbered the Spanish speaking and Indian people even before the state joined the Union. Therefore, when we refer to a large Spanish-speaking population in Texas, we are primarily speaking of a relatively recent immigrant population, quite different from the core areas of the Interior Southwest."

Just on a very related tangent, South Texas is sort of a "problem." It seems to have gone from one extreme to the another, if such terms can be used. That is, originally, it was very much influenced by Mexico (obviously). Later, after the Texas Revolution, most hispanics left the state, settlers from the Southern United States poured in, and this culture dominated until relatively recently (For many years San Antonio was called a "blend of Old Mexico and Old South")

Today? It is very much going back the opposite direction. In fact, that is an understatement...it already HAS! LOL Anyway, I don't how to label large parts of South Texas, anymore. Despite its large and majority hispanic population, it is still not "Southwest" as in NM or AZ...or even El Paso. But it has definitely lost a lot of classic "Southern flavor" (although the presence -- as Mr. McCoy and Spade have noted --is still very much there in many areas).

Oh well...that is a confusing one!
I agree with everything you say, BUT there are certain people out there in West Texas including Odessa, Midland, Van Horn, etc, etc, that do not consider themselves Southerners, but rather Westerners. Heck, I even knew people in Austin that don't consider themselves Southerners, they rather consider themselves Westerners or just Texans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top