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.
In this particular article, yes, there are many sources cited to back up opinions.
No, what you do find is a link to somebody else's opinion.
So if I think that Chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream, and I link to somebody else who also thinks that Chocolate is the best, does that prove the point?
No, what you do find is a link to somebody else's opinion.
So if I think that Chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream, and I link to somebody else who also thinks that Chocolate is the best, does that prove the point?
??? What are you talking about? The link to Wikipedia? If so, this wasn't cited as a source to back up any thing. Neither was that quote from the author of the book. Rather, in both cases, just some interesting side reading on some points which had been brought up. That was made clear right from the start.
BUT be that as it may, the only thing provided -- to directly back up a contention -- that was someone else's opinion, were two sociological surveys indicating answers to questions involving regional affiliation. However, this was directly relevant to what was being said/asked/challenged at the time. To wit, what do studies say on the subject as it involves Texans.
Anyway, as to this chocolate ice cream example, like the California thing earlier, it isn't a valid comparrison. Because for one thing, the topic involves more than just how a segement of the population "feels" on the subject. The larger topic started off as a request for opinions on whether Dallas was a Southern or Midwestern city, which kind of evolved in different opinions on Texas larger regional affliliation. Mine was it is essentially Southern (Some agreed, some didn't. You don't. No problem).
But in order to back up my opinion (which is all ANYBODY'S thoughts on the subject are), I provided historically known and proven information and facts about charter membership in the Confederacy, settlement patterns, linguistics, religion, general culture and traditions, even the Southern roots of what are often thought of as "Western", etc. Someone can INTERPRET these facts and assign importance as they wish, but their exisitence can't be denied. On the other hand, there is nothing factual at all which can be offered to "prove" chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream.
Anyway, on a related tangent, what started off as a civil and legitimate discussion with an exchange of relevant information is starting to degenerate. As always on subjects like this, there probably comes a time to just agree to disagree...
??? What are you talking about? The link to Wikipedia? If so, this wasn't cited as a source to back up any thing. Neither was that quote from the author of the book. Rather, in both cases, just some interesting side reading on some points which had been brought up. That was made clear right from the start. ..
Sure, if you link to factual information as opposed to just another opinion, then your link is useful. If you refer to a study, however, the value of the link is more problematic. A study is just an opinion that someone came to based upon data and analysis of the data. Someone else could very well have a different interpretation of the data and a different conclusion.
Actually, I agree with you that Texas was settled by Southerners. It was also settled by Northerners, Hispanics, Europeans, Westerners and plains indians. What I maintain is that the nature of Texas transformed the people who settled there, in the same way that California transforms settlers into Californians. The essence of Texas as a culture is something that is common to the Western settlers, the Hispanic settlers, the Hill Country Europeans, and the Southern settlers. And today's migration patterns completely overwhelm any influence of the few thousand Southerners that arrived 150 years ago. So despite the existence of Southern settlers, Texas is not a Southern state anymore than California is an "Okie" state. I think that goes to the heart of our difference of opinion.
Probably the main reason I reject your analysis is that it excludes Hispanics from the Texas identity. I know many Hispanics who consider themselves Texans, and they do not consider themselves Southerners.
I also notice that when you look at census maps, the Black (10-15% or more of county pop) areas and the Hispanic areas tend to peter out/overlap in the same areas, D/FW and Houston areas. In other words, the hispanic population seems to decrease significantly east of Dallas and Houston while the black population decreases significantly to the west.
I've always thought that Houston was the "blackest" city in Texas though, but D/FW has a large Black population too, right?
Currently, Houston has about 900,000 blacks in the metro area. DFW has around 830,000. Both are expected to pass 1 million in the next 5-10 years. DFW is actually receiving more blacks than Houston. Both are known to be great cities to relocate for Black Americans from around the country.
Now back to this yankee thing. I have never used that word to describe a Northener in my life and I don't know anyone else who has either. But that's probably because most blacks don't use that word. It also maybe because of this:
Quote:
The major exception to the rule is Central Texas -- Austin, San Antonio, and the Hill Country -- where immigrant German pioneers with values similar to those of Germanic Americans in the Midwest and Great Plains were historically more progressive than the dominant Southern conservatives.
That's probably why Austin is the way it is. It was destined to be a liberal democratic city. But it is slowly seeping out to the rest of the state.
Currently, Houston has about 900,000 blacks in the metro area. DFW has around 830,000. Both are expected to pass 1 million in the next 5-10 years. DFW is actually receiving more blacks than Houston. Both are known to be great cities to relocate for Black Americans from around the country.
Yeah, I am a black man originally from Mississippi, and if the people I graduated High School or College with didn't move to Atlanta (like I did), they moved to Houston or D/FW. Houston seems to be a bit more popular with the young black professional set, BUT Dallas isn't too far behind in terms of popularity. The job opportunities, cost-of-living, and the warm climate makes a great combination for a lot of people.
The consensus is that moving to Atlanta is getting a bit passe because it's too many people moving here, and it's "cliche". You wouldn't believe how many times I've randomly ran into people I went to High School or college with by just going to the mall or the bank. And this is in a metro area of 5 Million people!
Quote:
That's probably why Austin is the way it is. It was destined to be a liberal democratic city. But it is slowly seeping out to the rest of the state.
The Central Eurpoeans that moved to Central Texas had a more socialist sort of mentality, right? Also, having the largest state university in the state right in the state capital doesn't hurt either. Those types of cities tend to attract the granola hippie types. See: Chapel Hill, Berkeley, Boulder, Madison, etc.
Sure, if you link to factual information as opposed to just another opinion, then your link is useful. If you refer to a study, however, the value of the link is more problematic. A study is just an opinion that someone came to based upon data and analysis of the data. Someone else could very well have a different interpretation of the data and a different conclusion.
This is but a truism. As applied to the issue at hand however, the relevance of the only instance when a survey was cited has already been explained.
Quote:
Actually, I agree with you that Texas was settled by Southerners. It was also settled by Northerners, Hispanics, Europeans, Westerners and I plains indians. What I maintain is that the nature of Texas transformed the people who settled there, in the same way that California transforms settlers into Californians. The essence of Texas as a culture is something that is common to the Western settlers, the Hispanic settlers, the Hill Country Europeans, and the Southern settlers. And today's migration patterns completely overwhelm any influence of the few thousand Southerners that arrived 150 years ago. So despite the existence of Southern settlers, Texas is not a Southern state anymore than California is an "Okie" state. I think that goes to the heart of our difference of opinion.
Notwithstanding that the other groups you mentioned much paled in comparrison to the numbers of white/black Southerners (far, far, more than a few thousand and much much more recently than 150 years ago. And that influence was carried on by even more of their decendents), I do agree that aspects of other influences go to the heart of our difference of opinion.
Yes, the large size, unique history and topgraphical differences with the southeast alterted somewhat even the lifestyles and outlooks of the Southern settlers. Which is why I said *to begin with* that while IMHO Texas is ESSENTIALLY a Southern state, it is NOT a TYPICAL Southern state.
(In fact, on a related tangent, not many states ARE duplicates of Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia if one accepts such as typically Southern! LOL Florida certainly isn't (and is likely, anymore, less traditionally "Southern" than Texas in most places), Virginia never really has been, and Arkansas has many differences as well. Just to mention a few locales).
Oh well, back to the point, the phrase I think of that comes to mind in summarizing the difference is that Texas is "Western South" (as opposed to Southeastern). That is, where basically Southern history, culture, etc, etc. were blended with elements that were encountered on the western post-bellum frontier.
Anyway, I laid out earlier why the California comparisson is not valid.
Quote:
Probably the main reason I reject your analysis is that it excludes Hispanics from the Texas identity. I know many Hispanics who consider themselves Texans, and they do not consider themselves Southerners.
You cannot point to any place where I excluded hispanics from having a Texas identity. What I said was that the hispanic influence on post 1836 Texas history, culture, politics, etc, was minor (until relatively recently) when stacked up against that formed by the anglo/black duality...which was common to the South. This is one reason why Texas, while it certainly can be considered Southwestern in some contexts, is not in the same vein as New Mexico or Arizona. This is far from saying hispanics may not identify as Texans.
I DO agree that many if not most hispanics do not consider themselves Southerners and this influence, especially in South and part of west Texas is altering the state's character, no doubt. Just as happened in Florida many years ago.
This goes to the migration thing and to what extent this will continue and/or play out as relates to regionalism, remains to be seen...
Anyway, I think we have both probably pretty well laid out our cases. There really isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer on this anway. It is all a matter of individual perspective and experience, and the weight and priorities put on offered evidence...
Anyway, I think we have both probably pretty well laid out our cases. There really isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer on this anway. It is all a matter of individual perspective and experience, and the weight and priorities put on offered evidence...
LOL Well, as to the original question, I think almost everyone will agree that if the choice is solely between Southern or Midwestern, then it is Southern! I don't think that answer will cause another lengthy debate (which has pretty much run its course, anyway, far as that goes).
I lived and worked in Albuquerque for 8 months in 1999 and enjoyed it very much. It is at high elevation but still in the desert, while having mountains (the San de Cristo range), to the east. Being in the desert, it has humidty so low a lot of people have units called a "swamp cooler" they put on the roof of their house which pumps moisture into, not out of their home. And Albuquerque is in mountain-standard time zone (it is in the southWEST afterall). So if that sounds like Dallas, you're in the southwest because Albuquerque is very much a southwestern city.
But that doesn't sound like Dallas. At all. We might have some low humidity from time to time but we have alot of medium to high humidity, also. And Dallas isn't in a desert. Btw, Texas is in the Central Time Zone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grindin
**dodges bullets**
Which brings me back to my original question...
...Where does Dallas stand in all this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
LOL Well, as to the original question, I think almost everyone will agree that if the choice is solely between Southern or Midwestern, then it is Southern! I don't think that answer will cause another lengthy debate (which has pretty much run its course, anyway, far as that goes).
But "midwestern" should not be a choice at all. I don't understand where that comparison comes in. If anything, the choice is typically either Southern or Southwestern.
TexasReb, you still have not provided a satisfactory answer as to how Hispanic South Texas can have a Texan identity, an identity you claim is Southern. Yes, I agree that South Texas and its Hispanic population was outvoted by Anglo/Black Texas, but that does not mean the Texan identity was Southern in nature. If you have Southern Texans, Hill-Country German Texans, Hispanic Texans, Native American Texans, and Yankee Texans, your generalization falls apart.
BTW, South Texas has been predominantly Hispanic for centuries. This is not a recent occurence.
Actually, place of origin of settlers does not determine an eventual culture. Land, climate, terrain, all are a much stronger influence on the eventual culture of a region. That is why California is populated by recognizable Californians, not Midwesterners. The climate and terrain of Texas, especially West Texas and South Texas, created a different culture than you find in the Southeastern US.
The agricultural similarities between the Texas Panhandle and the other High Plains regions mean that people with similar dependence on the land will have a similar culture. Amarillo has nothing in common with Jackson, Mississippi. The Texas Hill Country was settled by Europeans attracted by the terrain, not displaced Southerners, yet they are also Texan. Similarly, everything south of the Nueces River was and is Hispanic. Any working definition of what Texas is has to include areas such as this, not minimize or ignore them as you seem to be doing.
Two main points:
. The Texan identity includes, but is not restricted to, people who are Southern in origin.
. The culture of a region that defines its identity is molded by climate and terrain.
For the question "Is Texas South or Midwest?", my answer is NO.
Last edited by aceplace; 03-12-2008 at 01:58 PM..
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.
If anything, the choice is typically either Southern or Southwestern.
