As a Fort Worth native I have never considered Fort Worth to be "Where the West begin" Please Chime in (Houston: fit in, neighborhood)

[rgb123]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Texas cowboy = Southern roots = Southern

So what is your point?

"Cowtowns" were also very much a part of historic Kansas (Wichita, Abilene, etc)...does that make them more historically and culturally connected with the West of the Rocky Moutains than it does the Midwest?

I think the problem here is everyone is forgetting that the Great Plains is a region. The midwest does not conjoin the Rocky Mountain Region. Kansas And Nebraska and a large part of Oklahoma and Texas Are Great Plains....and they tend to identify largely with the west...and some parts more south, some more mid-west some rather north, such as North Dakota.


As a midwesterner from Illinois, this a great annoyance of mine. Most people seem to think the midwest is larger than it is....the Great Plains is a region in itself, and different than the midwest just as the south is different from the east coast and west.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by rgb123

I think the problem here is everyone is forgetting that the Great Plains is a region.

Certainly it is a physical and topographic region. But not one bonded by basic history and culture. Which is really the definition of a region in the true sense. I really don't think anyone would seriously contend that Kansas and Nebraska are in the same "region" as Texas (and most of Oklahoma)...

[rgb123]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Certainly it is a physical and topographic region. But not one bonded by basic history and culture. Which is really the definition of a region in the true sense. I really don't think anyone would seriously contend that Kansas and Nebraska are in the same "region" as Texas (and most of Oklahoma)...

Oh I beg to differ! And the region isn't broken by state lines. historically and culturally the great plains is bonded....by hardship, by homesteading, lack of water yet farming taking place, westward expansion. Part of Texas, namely the panhandle, is in the Great Plains, and obviously quite different than other parts of Texas.

Certainly the panhandle and parts of Oklahoma have more in common with Nebraska and Kansas than they do with Detroit or Milwaukee or Chicago, which would be the midwest.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by rgb123

Oh I beg to differ! And the region isn't broken by state lines. historically and culturally the great plains is bonded....by hardship, by homesteading, lack of water yet farming taking place, westward expansion. Part of Texas, namely the panhandle, is in the Great Plains, and obviously quite different than other parts of Texas.

Certainly the panhandle and parts of Oklahoma have more in common with Nebraska and Kansas than they do with Detroit or Milwaukee or Chicago, which would be the midwest.

Sorry, I mis-read your earlier post! You make some good points. I was thinking in terms of whole states, but that was not what you were saying.

Anyway, yes, at least as far as Texas goes, the northern panhandle (generally that part north of Amarillo) is more culturally connected to the "Great Plains Midwest" than it is to the South, or West, or even most of the rest of Texas.

So far as whether or not this "region" is to be seperated from the larger Midwest or not? Well, I don't have a dog in that fight, as the saying goes! LOL

Personally, I just always thought of it as a sorta "sub-region" to the larger Midwest (same as I think of the vast majority of Texas -- and goodly parts of Oklahoma -- being a "sub-region" of the larger South). Anyway, I DO know (my ex is from Kansas) that most residents identify as being Midwesterners...

[texastim]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Most of Fort Worth's "western" acolades stem from its "cowtown" image and city moniker (very real). But again, the origins never meant that one was leaving the South. Never intended at all to mean such. Heck for one thing, many of those early cattle companies were named something like "Dixie Cattle Company" or some such! LOL

The cowtown image indicates just that: one has left the South. I know of no Southern city that touts itself as a "cowtown" as much as Fort Worth.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

In many cases it WAS a final destination. In others, especially after the "great Southern migration" after the WBTS? It was merely a stop-over. I am familiar with Fort Worth's history as a "fort town". It was originally part of the cordon that extended all up and down the western U.S. Later this same "chain" kept moving westward.

Fort Worth for many was a final destination. In terms of westward pioneers, Fort Worth WAS where they were headed. There are no other towns/cities in the South that were the final destination of homesteaders.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

And who ever denied the "frontier" experience? My point is, the West as considered a "region" today is different from the "West" of an era and frontier qualities. Fort Worth (and most of West Texas) is very much a part of the latter. It is not a part of the former. The basic history and culture of the city has very little in common with Tucson, Arizona, or Denver, Colorado.

The history of the Fort Worth in comparison to Denver or Tucson matters little. Tucson and Denver don't have similar histories. Denver and Los Angeles don't have similar histories. Los Angles and Boise don't have similar histories. Are the all in the West? Yes.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

The "poll' consists of a total (at present) of 13 people responding. It has changed back and forth. It may again tomorow. This is hardly a "scientific" poll. If it does? I can call it a "fact" back. But certainly, with good reason, you wouldn't accept it either in this realm.

The poll is up to 19 people, and it really hasn't waivered over to more Fort Worth natives believing that the city is Southern. As of this post, almost 73 percent of the Fort Worth natives who have contributed to this poll believe that Fort Worth is a Southern city.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

I agree -- and always have -- the trans-pecos area of Texas is part of the true Southwest. Also, parts of Texas north of Amarillo are very atypical of a lot of the state. I am sure many Americans consider the Plains being a sub-region of the West. But if one is going to get into that aspect, many more residents in the individual states which make up the "Plains" identify, in terms of regional affiliation, with either the Midwest or South (depending). I can provide solid evidence of this.

I'm sorry. You claim the Plains is a sub-region of the West, then you claim that residents of those states consider themselves to either be in the South or Midwest. That's not so. The 19 Fort Worth natives here in northEAST Texas have claimed that this city is in the Southwest. People in Austin and San Antonio would definitely put their cities in the Southwest before the South, as those two cities share ABSOULTELY nothing with other Southern cities. Therefore, it is hard for me to believe that the majority of Texas falls into the Southern category, when people as far east as a line from Fort Worth to Austin to San Antonio consider themselves to be otherwise. Let's not even get started on waht people in Corpus, Brownsville, and Laredo consider themselves. Believe me, it's definitely not Southern! Please spare me of your "solid evidence." You have yet to produce any so far that has been any bit relavant in the past 140 years.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Of course, it has. But none of this negates the basic bonds of history and primary culture when it comes to grouping states within a region. There is a good reason why Texas is much more often labeled South than West

Who are these people who are labeling Texas the South? I have yet to hear many people do so. Most people I know consider Texas it's own region, Southwestern, or part of the Southern Plains.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Of course it figures into it. Which is why (and I keep using this example as it is the one I am most familiar with) Kansas and Nebraska are in a different "sub-region" of the Midwest. Same as Texas (and most of Oklahoma and, arguably, some of Arkansas) are a "sub-region" of the South. The "western South".

Texas and Oklahoma are NOT part of the South. Southern Plains does not equate to Southern. Arkansas is more Southern than Texas and Oklahoma ever were.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Sorry, but it is not just barely in this climatic zone as per either humid sub-tropical or sub-humid subtropical. You mention topography...and it is only somewhere around the 100th parallel (in fact, actually even much further west), where the elevation changes to the point of becoming a climate more typical of the "West" than the South.

DFW IS just barely in this climatic zone. As I pointed out, Shreveport, a couple hundred miles to the east, in an average year, receives a foot more of rain than DFW. DFW, in an average year, receives almost a foot more of rain than Abilene. DFW is in a climate transition zone. The South does not have these wild transitions over such short distances.

Going west on 20, one only needs to go to Erath and Palo Pinto counties to start seeing hills. You go up a steep ridge before going into Abilene. Once you leave Abilene, the vegetation thins out rapidly. This topography is more in line with a transition zone than an area that is in a solid geographic region.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

I appreciate your opening sentiments...and I return the with all due respect. But you are making strawman arguments. The basic point is that Fort Worth (and the vast majority of West Texas) was settled by westward moving pioneers from the southeast.

As were Arizona, New Mexico, and Southern California.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

It is that culture and history which dominated. It is found in everything from Confederate monuments on courthouse lawns, to the speech patterns, and even such seemingly trivial items as the deeply entrenched custom of eating black-eyed peas on New Years Day. To say nothing of that -- Hollywood movies not withstanding -- it was cotton, not cattle, that was really the staple of existence.

Our speech patterns reflect those of Southerners because, as you have noted, that's where the majority of settlers arrived to Texas from. That's does not make us Southerners ourselves. People in Texas do NOT sound any bit similar to people in Louisiana or any part of the undisputed South.

People eat black-eyed peas in a lot of places on New Years Day. That is no longer solely a Southern ritual.

Lastly, cotton is a big industry in Arizona. Does that make Arizona a Southern state? Cotton grows where the climate is favorable, which is not just in the South.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

I don't know where you are going with this. Who said wide-open spaces weren't a feature of the West? What I said was that it was more a feature of the Plains than the Rocky Mountain West which yes, other than the West Coast, IS the domimant region of the West (same as the southeast is probably the dominant sub-region of the South ).

I will say it again, wide open spaces are very much a feature of ALL of the West. Even in the Rocky Mountains you still have wide-open spaces. Look up the Basin and Range system. You'll see.

What about the Desert Southwest? The Great Basin of Nevada? The arid areas of northwestern Utah, portions of Wyoming and Idaho, and eastern Washington and Oregon, or the areas away from the California coast? All of these areas do not fall into the Rocky Mountain West, but make up a SIGNIFICANT portion of the region.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

But regardless, your original point was attempting to link Texas with the West because of wide-open spaces. What I countered with was that there are many parts of the West where this is definitely not the case, so it can hardly be used as an argument. And going a bit further (what makes you think I haven't been there, by the way?) even many of those places with "wide-open" spaces are nothing like anything in Texas.

Texas has very hilly country, mountains to the west, sparse vegetation in the Western half of the state. It looks very much like New Mexico and portions of Arizona.

I have spent significant time this entire area, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

And speaking of the "high country"? My fiance is FROM the true West. Colorado, in fact. And lived in Nevada for many years as well. And a veteran of the Navy who has lived all over the country when a WAVE. Not that it really matters, but she is adament that Texas is NOT a "western state" as she thinks of the West. She told me where she comes from, Texas was always considered a Southern state, and moving and living here did nothing but confirm it. The whole culture and attitudes are different.

Well, I am sorry that your fiancee's views do not reflect the views of the Fort Worth natives, like me, who this question was ACTUALLY posed to.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

I hope you are not making a racial case of this. If you are, your arguments (which again, I find very compelling and good... even in disagreement) are lost. As playing this card is the last resort for those who cannot win the pot any other way. What I said was, and stand by, is that much of the Mexican population into Texas is relatively recent (as compared with the interior Southwest)...and that much of it is illegal. How much? I don't know. But no doubt it is considerable.

I am not trying to make anything racial out of this argument. However, the fact that you claim that the majority of the Mexican population in Texas are recent arrivals or the descendents of illegals is sad and laughable at best. I am starting to doubt that you have ever been south of Wichita Falls. While I was growing up in the 50s, there were very prominent Mexican neighborhoods in Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, of course El Paso, and many other cities throughout the state.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

With that said, and as concerns this topic, I think this observation by Raymond Gastil in his great (and original) book "Cultural Regions of the United States" says it well. This is the one where he put almost the entire state of Texas in a sub-region of the "Greater South" aptly named the "western South". He noted the vast differences with the true SW, one of which was the hispanic influence:

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."

Raymond Gastil needs to open his eyes and actually come to Texas. This is not true. He probably claims Texas' African-American population are recent arrivals too. LOL.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

There are still many visible cattle farms in the undisputed South. I am not sure of your point here. What I said was, and stand by, is that the primary prototype of the Texas cowboy was of the old Southern cattle droving tradition, and not the Mexican vaquero...which more influenced the West and Southwest.

The Mexican Vaquero culture is not the overwhelming cowboy culture in New Mexico, Arizona, or California, either. Still doesn't prove your point. You need to go to Sonora, Mexico for that Vaquero culture.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

I think you are missing my major point. Which was that a "western" affiliation identity cannot be determined by city monikers. St. Louis just happened to be the most notable example.

City monikers or not. The overwhelming majority of the 20 people who have answered this poll consider Fort Worth western. You can try to convince people otherwise. However, I think us Cowtown natives know where we live. After all, we've spent our whole lives here.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

What "facts" have you presented which cannot be countered? And have not been? Is it your contention that if one doesnt accept the "facts' you present as solid evidence of your thesis, that they are either being deliberately wrong or pig-headed? LOL

The facts about the cattle culture, climate, actual history of the area. You don't live in Fort Worth, and it looks kind of silly for you to argue with a native. If you want to believe that Fort Worth is Southern, by all means go ahead. If you want to believe Los Angeles is in the Plains, Chicago is part of the Northwest, or that West Virginia is an island, go ahead. However, few residents and natives agree with you. Your statements aren't facts. The poll, however, is.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

To use that phrase again, with all due respect? You seem to confuse this topic as being one of a purely scientific nature with such an opening statement. It isn't. "Facts" may be "facts" but as to how they "prove" the point at hand depends on the subject at hand.

I mean, it is a "fact" that ice is a necessary ingredient of ice-cream. Of that there is no argument. On the other hand, as to whether or not, say, "dialect" or "cattle culture" makes a state more this or more that, is subject to individual interpretation.

Let's not argue with that. The most concrete fact right now is how Fort Worth natives are voting in this poll. If we were to go with THAT fact, you have no argument at all. This reminds me of Richmonder27 turning blue in the face trying to prove that all of Virginia is a Southern state.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Regional affiliation is a more of an "art" than a true science...in some ways. It certainly isn't an "objective science". Same as history isn't. They are kin, in fact. For instance (and I am NOT trying to be condecending, of that, I promise), it is a "fact" that the South fired on Ft. Sumter. But that "fact" can be interpreted different ways in terms of the larger question of which side started the War. For some, it means the South asked for it. For others (like me! LOL), it was a justified measure because the Union troops were armed troops within "our" territorial waters and represented a threat to our declared soveriengty! LOL

You seem to be a Civil War expert. With all due respect, this has nothing to do with Fort Worth residents' current view of our city. The Civil War was almost 150 years ago. It was an embarrassing hiccup in our nation's history that needs to be forgotten.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

See what I mean? Same thing applies with the "facts" we both present. You take them to mean Texas is more West. I take the same and present how it is more South!

The facts are not negotiable. You have somehow managed to skew the facts SO much that you have placed the majority of Texas in the South. Not at all factual or honest.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

To sum it up...there IS a difference of the Southwest of the West as opposed to the Southwest of the South. They are different critters. And that is a major point too. Fort Worth is "western South". Not "southern West".

Fort Worth is not the western South at all. We have not reach a consensus, and your opinion does not reflect that of actual Fort Worth natives or residents.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

And what is wrong with that? It blends the basic history and culture of the South with all those admirable frontier elements and qualities of the post-bellum "west". It makes it something very unique. And I PROUD of that!

But anyway, I need a beer! And I apologize for such a long rambling post!

Frontier + West = Definitely not the South. After all this, I need a bottle of tequila and a 24 pack.

I am sure you will counter every single point I've just made. That's fine. This post was asking Fort Worth natives how they view their city. The overwhelming majority of Cowtown natives have placed the city in the West. That is consistent with my view, and as far as I am concerned, Fort Worth stands as a Western (Southwestern) city.

[Bass&Catfish2008]

I have lived in Fort Worth for almost 7 years and I would definitely say that Fort Worth feels (at least to me....and I've been to every Southern state with the exception of Alabama) to me to be quite Southern. Is North Texas like the Deep South? Of course not. I don't know anyone that would argue that, but Fort Worth (and definitely North Texas in general) have some very strong Southern traits.

Is there some western/frontier mixed in there? = of course. But I would argue (after living on the West Coast, East Coast, Florida (Lakeland area = relatively Southern), and I've spent time in undeniable Midwest states = Kansas, Nebraska, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois) that Fort Worth is culturally much more connected with the South. I think the Census actually (I know, it's a shocker! LOL) properly places Oklahoma and Texas in a subregion of the South known as the West South Central (along with Arkansas and Louisiana). These states are different, but have more in common with each other culturally than grouping them in other regions such as the Southwest or Midwest.

I was born in raised in south-central Oklahoma and Fort Worth feels pretty much exactly like OK City and Tulsa and is not a lot different from Little Rock. I have family from Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas and culturally we have always considered all our kin/relatives Southern. Just my opinion based on my experience.

[NCN]

I know absolutely nothing about Fort Worth, Texas, but I consider that I am in the West with I go over the Mississippi River. So I would consider Texas to be Southwest, but still the South.

[TexasReb]

This is all getting rather lengthy and I think every point which can be made has been..

Originally Posted by texastim

The cowtown image indicates just that: one has left the South. I know of no Southern city that touts itself as a "cowtown" as much as Fort Worth.

Yes, it was a "cowtown". So was Wichita and Abilene in Kansas. Different types of cowtowns, but cowtowns. That hardly meant/means they are not Midwestern. Just a "western" sub-region of the same. Same as Ft. Worth is "western South." But far as that goes, if you want to use "cowtown" as a qualifier for 'West", then I don't know of any in that region (the West as defined by the Census Bureau) which tout themselves as cowtowns either.

And I want to make something clear. I have never said Fort Worth is not a "western" city. What I said was it (like the rest of West Texas) it is "western" in a different sense than the West as usually defined as a coherent region today (i.e. Rocky Mountain and Interior Southwest). That is a blend of historic and cultural Southern which also combines many aspects of the frontier west. Two very different "Wests". ONLY if one believes that "the South" is synonomous with "southeast" can Texas not be considered essentially "Southern."

Fort Worth for many was a final destination. In terms of westward pioneers, Fort Worth WAS where they were headed. There are no other towns/cities in the South that were the final destination of homesteaders.

I said that earlier. For many it was. For many others, there were other places for westward moving pioneers. Point is/was, most of those early settlers were from the South looking to get a new start after the War. They hardly left their basic culture behind them once they crossed what is now I-35 East. The basic imprint on West Texas is Southern.

The history of the Fort Worth in comparison to Denver or Tucson matters little. Tucson and Denver don't have similar histories. Denver and Los Angeles don't have similar histories. Los Angles and Boise don't have similar histories. Are the all in the West? Yes.

It matters if one is trying to present Ft. Worth as being in the same broad historical and cultural region as those other cities. That is, the West as opposed to the South. Which is seems you are trying to do. Maybe I mis-understood you. Regardless, you are correct as that Los Angeles and Denver vary quite a bit. Which is why the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain West are different "sub-regions" of the West. Same as Ohio and Kansas are different sub-regions of the Midwest. Same as Texas and Alabama are different subregions of the South.

The poll is up to 19 people, and it really hasn't waivered over to more Fort Worth natives believing that the city is Southern. As of this post, almost 73 percent of the Fort Worth natives who have contributed to this poll believe that Fort Worth is a Southern city.

True. Although at the time of this writing, it is now 20. But how do you know they are Fort Worth natives? I have seen polls like this on the forum before and believe me, there is no way to verify whether or not those responding are actually adhering to the "rules". Which is why that even when CD polls "prove" my point about Texas being essentially Southern, I generally don't quote them as being a relative indicator.

These polls are fun to do and take and read all the different viewpoints. For sure. But not at all to be taken as a genuine measure on a broad scale. The same can be taken on different forums and yield very different results. Not to say it is NOT accurate as how many residents of Fort Worth feel, but just it is hardly a scientific poll as these things are commonly understood.

I can easily show you another where the results where much different (and of a much more scientific nature) where South was chosen over West by far (although this was Tarrant County at large, and not just confined to Fort Worth)

It was from the Assocation of American Geographers and conducted by a noted regional sociologist (James Shortridge of the U. of Kansas). The results (when asked to choose between four regional terms of self-identification) in Tarrant Country went: South - 58% West - 14% (the rest was Midwest...go figure! LOL).

I'm sorry. You claim the Plains is a sub-region of the West, then you claim that residents of those states consider themselves to either be in the South or Midwest.

When did I claim this? I said clearly I considered the Plains (that is, north of a general Amarillo to somewhere north of Oklahoma City near the Kansas border to be a sub-region of the MIDWEST. And that those IN those "western" states of the same, identify much more as Southern or Midwestern, respectively, than with the West.

That's not so. The 19 Fort Worth natives here in northEAST Texas have claimed that this city is in the Southwest.

Fort Worth for sure isn't Northeast Texas. But regardless, the poll aspect has been addressed. And the question didn't include Southwest as a choice, anyway. If it had, it might have won. Probably would have. But then (as I have said before too), the whole "concept" of the "Southwest" is open to differerent interpretations. It can mean "western South" or "southern West."

People in Austin and San Antonio would definitely put their cities in the Southwest before the South, as those two cities share ABSOULTELY nothing with other Southern cities. Therefore, it is hard for me to believe that the majority of Texas falls into the Southern category, when people as far east as a line from Fort Worth to Austin to San Antonio consider themselves to be otherwise. Let's not even get started on waht people in Corpus, Brownsville, and Laredo consider themselves. Believe me, it's definitely not Southern!

Southwest thing again. And where do you come by this "data". Actually, the most extensive and long running survey and study I know of (seven years from the Southern Focus Poll out of U. of NC) , clearly indicates a decided majority of Texans consider themselves to be in the South and consider themselves Southerners. If it wasn't too lengthy, I would post it. But it can be found elsewhere and I will be glad to furnish the link.

Please spare me of your "solid evidence.[/b]" You have yet to produce any so far that has been any bit relavant in the past 140 years.

Why don't you spare yourself, podner? If you don't like it, there is always the ignore option.

Who are these people who are labeling Texas the South? I have yet to hear many people do so. Most people I know consider Texas it's own region, Southwestern, or part of the Southern Plains.

I agree completely Texas is its own "region". Never argued otherwise. BUT when it IS placed it a region, it is properly -- historically and culturally -- part of the South. As opposed to the West. The "western South" to be a bit more definitive. See below on "who" these people are...

Texas and Oklahoma are NOT part of the South. Southern Plains does not equate to Southern. Arkansas is more Southern than Texas and Oklahoma ever were.

*shrug* So says you. On the other hand, the majority of residents of both states-- in the most comprehensive and extensive surveys ever done -- say different. Want to see it? I'll be happy to provide it. Here, DM...or the link on past forum concerns.

And what do comparissons such as you make have to do with anything? LOL Really, it sounds a bit petulant. Kinda like you are trying to get my goat or something. Sorry...won't work.

Mississippi is more "Southern" (whatever one means by that) than Arkansas. Arguably more than South Carolina as a whole. And nothern Virginia and Florida are less Southern than almost any part of of Texas. And yep, parts of East Texas rival parts of Alabama and Mississippi. Tennessee has its own unique "Mountain South" characters. South Louisiana is almost a world unto itself...

I can carry this one to ad infinitum or ad absurdum...but in the end it will simply prove the point that the South is not nor never has been, a monolithic region. But one bonded by history and culture and aspects that are generally accepted to bond regions. Texas is the South, in this regard, not the West.

DFW IS just barely in this climatic zone. As I pointed out, Shreveport, a couple hundred miles to the east, in an average year, receives a foot more of rain than DFW. DFW, in an average year, receives almost a foot more of rain than Abilene. DFW is in a climate transition zone. The South does not have these wild transitions over such short distances.

What you "pointed out" doesn't stand up in this realm. You are drawing contrasts from east to west. Why not draw them west to east? The vast majority of the Texas climate is much more akin to the southeast than it is to the true southwest or Rocky Mountain West. That is, humid or sub-humid sub-tropical. This is by FAR a bigger contrast than anything found at least west of the Caprock as concerns Texas.

Going west on 20, one only needs to go to Erath and Palo Pinto counties to start seeing hills. You go up a steep ridge before going into Abilene. Once you leave Abilene, the vegetation thins out rapidly. This topography is more in line with a transition zone than an area that is in a solid geographic region.

All very true. But topography pales very much in comparrison to historical and cultural factors when it comes to exactly why regions of the country are so grouped.

As were Arizona, New Mexico, and Southern California.

Not true at all. Only in a small part of eastern New Mexico (and perhaps a few isolated enclaves in S. California) was Southern culture -- as in terms of settlement patterns -- ever a major force. And such was because of Texans! Most of the Interior Southwest was very much dominated by Spanish/Mexican/Native American culture. On the other hand, it was black and white settlers from the South which made the dominant impact on Texas.

Our speech patterns reflect those of Southerners because, as you have noted, that's where the majority of settlers arrived to Texas from. That's does not make us Southerners ourselves. People in Texas do NOT sound any bit similar to people in Louisiana or any part of the undisputed South.

As has been pointed out countless times, there is simply no such thing as a uniform "Southern accent, but the language (in terms of accent and idiom) has always been generally accepted as one which plays a major factor in regional classifications. But at least you acknowledge the simple truth of that a "Texas accent" is Southern American English.

People eat black-eyed peas in a lot of places on New Years Day. That is no longer solely a Southern ritual.

Where other than the South is this a wide-spread custom? People say "y'all" in other parts of the country too. And use "coke" as the generic for soft drink. But it is far and away a trait of the historical and traditional Southern United States.

Lastly, cotton is a big industry in Arizona. Does that make Arizona a Southern state? Cotton grows where the climate is favorable, which is not just in the South.

No, it doesn't (make Arizona a Southern state, that is). However, Arizona was never considered Southern. Texas traditionally has been. Too, the cotton industry in the southwest is not really the same as it existed in Texas. In the former, it is more "industrial". On the other hand, Texas was very much part of the old "Southern Cotton Belt" and the cultural and life-style for so many years, reflected it. There is a HUGE difference.

I will say it again, wide open spaces are very much a feature of ALL of the West. Even in the Rocky Mountains you still have wide-open spaces. Look up the Basin and Range system. What about the Desert Southwest? The Great Basin of Nevada? The arid areas of northwestern Utah, portions of Wyoming and Idaho, and eastern Washington and Oregon, or the areas away from the California coast? All of these areas do not fall into the Rocky Mountain West, but make up a SIGNIFICANT portion of the region.
Texas has very hilly country, mountains to the west, sparse vegetation in the Western half of the state. It looks very much like New Mexico and portions of Arizona.

And I will say it again. The wide-open spaces as generally exist in Texas are more a Plains feature than one of the true West. Hey, "forests" are a part of the "East". Does that make Georgia an "Eastern" state as commonly understood?

I have spent significant time this entire area, thank you very much.

And? Who said you didn't? Your counter-points are starting to take on the note of defensiveness....

Well, I am sorry that your fiancee's views do not reflect the views of the Fort Worth natives, like me, who this question was ACTUALLY posed to.

The views of Fort Worth natives were not germane to the issue I was speaking of. What I said was that as a native of the true West, Texas was never considered part of it in a modern day sense. And I posed no question to you at all. On the contrary, I even said that her opinion was just that...and opinion and mattered no more than anybody elses.

I am not trying to make anything racial out of this argument. However, the fact that you claim that the majority of the Mexican population in Texas are recent arrivals or the descendents of illegals is sad and laughable at best. I am starting to doubt that you have ever been south of Wichita Falls. While I was growing up in the 50s, there were very prominent Mexican neighborhoods in Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, of course El Paso, and many other cities throughout the state.

This little exchange between us is starting to go to hell in a handbasket. You are starting to put words in my mouth. Another rhetorical ploy.

What I said -- in so many words -- was (are you denying or deliberately misunderstanding?) there is a significant illegal immigation population in Texas. How much, I don't know, but it is considerable. Are you going to dispute that I said different...or just hope you can do the twist and yes, try and turn it into a racial thing?

The major point to be made is that the hspanic/spanish/Mexican was never the influence on Texas culture as was that of blacks and whites from the South. At least in comparrison to states like NM, AZ. Hell, those states didn't even become states until the early 20th Century.

And on a related tangent? Who gives a damn where you think I have been? maybe nobody but I CAN say this:

My profile is on-line and a matter of "public record" so to speak. What one sees is what one gets...

You only say you have grown up in the 50's. For all I know, you could be a college undergrad claiming it for the sake of supporting your point. And to be honest, your whole argumentive style and tone comes across in that general way.

But if you are? Then you should know that while, yes, there are significant areas of Hispanic population that always existed (who said different?), it has only been comparatively recent they reached and have the impact of the basic white/black duality of the traditional South.

Raymond Gastil needs to open his eyes and actually come to Texas. This is not true. He probably claims Texas' African-American population are recent arrivals too. LOL.

And a matter of fact, it is the opposite of at least one of his reasons for definining most of Texas as a sub-region of the South. That is, the existence OF a large African-American population of Texas which is established and non-migrant, and significantly rural. Something not at all found in the "West".

The Mexican Vaquero culture is not the overwhelming cowboy culture in New Mexico, Arizona, or California, either. Still doesn't prove your point. You need to go to Sonora, Mexico for that Vaquero culture.

So what was the cowboy culture in AZ and NM influenced by? I am really curious. I have provided the evidence it was at the VERY least -- and much more -- influenced by the Old South cattle droving tradition in Texas. I have never heard anything which backed up that the vaquero "herding and tending" was not the general rule in the former two states, especially given the overwhelming influence of Mexico up until the time of statehood, and even today.

As it is, the "point" was just that. If one is going to use the "cowboy and cattle" icon as being evidence of Texas more "western" than "Southern" affiliation, then examine it and its roots, properly. As it is, you seem to -- in a roundabout way -- downplay the vaquero influence. I KNOW it has been overplayed in Texas. Is this also true of Arizona and New Mexico?

City monikers or not. The overwhelming majority of the 20 people who have answered this poll consider Fort Worth western. You can try to convince people otherwise. However, I think us Cowtown natives know where we live. After all, we've spent our whole lives here.

See earlier points and posts as to the validity of the poll. I already posted (and will do so again) other much more applicable "polls" which give a much different perspective.

The facts about the cattle culture, climate, actual history of the area. You don't live in Fort Worth, and it looks kind of silly for you to argue with a native.

Now THIS is a prime-streak example of why I say you argue/discuss/debate more like a college undergrad than someone who is a native Texan of the fifties. Matter of fact, far as that goes, this one might be the most illogical of all.

I mean no personal affront nor insult...not at all...but this seeming "point" reflects a certain cloistured and even self-absorbed arrogance typical of someone 'twist 18 and 21' in college, or something like that. A certain above "vibe" one gets when disagreement comes into play because they are not used to being disagreed with. It is typical of college undergrads and college professors, to be honest...

Silly to argue with you? LMAO again. I don't know whether or not (to use your own terminologyy earlier) whether this seemingly inflated footnote is sad or laughable.

Who ARE you? Usually when folks post their credentials for expertiese on a certain subject, they generally back it up in a certain way. Are you a teacher, preacher, doctor, lawyer, or Indian Chief...?

Keep in mind too, I would have NEVER been so ill-mannered as to ask this if you had not yourself called into question my own experiences and roots in Texas. A true Texan oughta know better.

As it is -- and highly coorelated-- I can think of little so almost pathetically silly and immature in turn as to the absolutely ridiculous argument that credentials are lacked if an opinion fails scrutinity on this subject solely on the basis of if one is not an actual native of Fort Worth.

I am less than an hour and a half removed from Ft. Worth and have been for 51 years. I have immediate family who lives there now. Do you think you are the only native of Fort Worth with an opinion? Take it as you will, but seems what it really boils down to is that you take take disagreement as more of a "how dare you disagree with me " type affront than it is to the basic history and culture and history of Fort Worth.

If you want to believe that Fort Worth is Southern, by all means go ahead. If you want to believe Los Angeles is in the Plains, Chicago is part of the Northwest, or that West Virginia is an island, go ahead. However, few residents and natives agree with you. Your statements aren't facts. The poll, however, is.

*yawns* Sophomoric satire and irony does nothing for your case. Polls once again? Want me to post another? I have earlier. Tarrent County. Want it again?

[quote] Let's not argue with that. The most concrete fact right now is how Fort Worth natives are voting in this poll. If we were to go with THAT fact, you have no argument at all. This reminds me of Richmonder27 turning blue in the face trying to prove that all of Virginia is a Southern state.

Where is the evidence that it is only Fort Worth natives voting in this poll? Far as I know, they could be from Boston.

Is it? Virginia a Southern state that is? I happen to think it is, but in fact, I am glad you brought that one up. Becuase very often, simply because the way a poll is worded, respondents will often reply accordingly. I have seen polls where people vote one way simply to be contrary. ..as in the sense of

[quote] You seem to be a Civil War expert. With all due respect, this has nothing to do with Fort Worth residents' current view of our city. The Civil War was almost 150 years ago. It was an embarrassing hiccup in our nation's history that needs to be forgotten. [/QUOTE

No, I am no expert. Just an interest layman. However, the relevancy is that, unlike in the states of the West, there is a strong Confederate history and legacy. In terms of being "Southern", it counts for much more than anything as concerns topography in terms of Texas history.

The facts are not negotiable. You have somehow managed to skew the facts SO much that you have placed the majority of Texas in the South. Not at all factual or honest.

That is right. Facts in and of themselves are not negotiable. But as in the point made earlier, you seem to totally be oblivious to the FACT of how FACTS can interpretted to make a point/thesis, depending on whether or not the said is art, pure science, or fine science. It is a FACT water freezes at 32 degrees. This concretely proves it is necessary to make ice-cubes. Or ice-cream, or that it is a necessary factor in whether or not an "ice-storm warning" can be issued for a given region.

But "facts" as in that Texas was part of the Confederacy or that it has a cowboy culture can be interpretted different ways and in varying degrees of importance as to how it applies to regional affiliation.

Frontier + West = Definitely not the South. After all this, I need a bottle of tequila and a 24 pack.

Texas is Southern. It is not Western.

I can handle the 24 pack. Not the tequlia though. Like "Southern Comfort"...bad experiences when I wore a younger man's clothes on THAT one! Not very pleasant. Whew!

I am sure you will counter every single point I've just made. That's fine. This post was asking Fort Worth natives how they view their city. The overwhelming majority of Cowtown natives have placed the city in the West. That is consistent with my view, and as far as I am concerned, Fort Worth stands as a Western (Southwestern) city.

And your view is fine. I think you make some very good points. But as posted earlier (lord knows how many times), would a much more scientific poll of Tarrant County residents be accepted as equally valid by you? And remember again, my contention is not, nor never has been, that Fort Worth (nor West Texas) is not "western". It very much is. It is just that its western characteristics are a blend of both Southern and western in a sense not at all typical of the West as defined.

Western South. What is wrong with that? Combines the best of both in the classic sense!

[Citislicker]

Due to all the cows/stockyard/cowtown/cowgirl museum, etc, I would say fw is more west than south, thought it's a hard decision. It has degrees of both for sure.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by subslug

The South had plantations, Fort Worth didn't.
The West had livestock, of which Fort Worth was famous for so, looks like it's West.
The Chisholm trail started in Fort Worth and it was once called the Wall Street of the West.

I don't know where the phrase came from, probably just a jab at Dallas but.....??

From the wiki Chisholm Trail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today, most historians consider the Chisholm Trail to have started at the Rio Grande in Texas or at San Antonio, Texas.

and

The Chisholm Trail was previously used by Indian hunting and raiding parties; it went north from Austin through Waco and Fort Worth.

Chisolm Trail Map

The cattle drives began around 1867, at that time Fort Worth was only about 15,000 people (interpolating) and I'm sure the study flow of cattle and ranch hands through Fort Worth, and when the ranch hands returned home all gave the city a distinctly western flavor to anyone who happened to be visiting there. Fort Worth also being one of the largest communities in that part of the country was also probably one of the primary destinations for anyone heading West.

In January 1849 Worth proposed a line of ten forts to mark the Western Texas frontier from Eagle Pass to the confluence of the West Fork and Clear Fork of the Trinity River. One month later Worth died from cholera. Worth was a well respected and decorated U.S. Army General at the time of his death and a hero of three wars. Fort Worth, Texas; Lake Worth, Texas; Lake Worth, Florida; and Worth County, Georgia are named in his honor.

For quite some time this line of forts was considered the edge of the frontier, which probably contributed to the idea that the West began at Fort Worth.