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.
Haven't we had trouble determining what Southern culture is? Do you consider Houston the South, for the same reasons you consider Miami the South? Both cities are majority Latino, both cities black-american population are very "Southern"(as defined by us) etc, etc. Wouldn't they be in the same boat?
I do actually consider them Southern for the same reasons. Historically, both these cities were populated by Southerners moving away from the Deep South. The Latino population didn't really come in until the 40s in huge numbers for both cities. But most of the blacks in Miami came from Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. Miami was like a frontier city. Likewise, many of Houston's blacks came from Louisiana (mostly) and Mississippi. Houston was a frontier city in a frontier state.
The thing that separates Miami from Houston is that Miami was like a frontier city for Northeasterners as well. Houston didn't get that attention from the West (because it wasn't populated like the NE) nor the NE or Midwest. But in the last 70 years, Miami and Houston's Latino population changed Houston's culture into a different type of Southern city. The Black population of both cities do relate to the other Southern cities. The Latino population for both cities do not. Also, with blacks, Miami has a huge Caribbean population and Houston has a huge West African population specifically Nigerian. Both can relate to the Black culture because they're black. Both both do not relate to the Southern culture. I think these two cities are more alike than many would like to believe.
Those states are southern. They are not part of "the south" or Dixie per say, but they are southern.
It is because of culture that we describe them as southwestern rather than as "the south". But locationally, they are undeniably southern.
Do you see what I mean?
But we do not call them Southern states like we do from Texas to Florida to Virginia. Because culturally, that dominates over the location of a particular state. Nobody from Arizona is going to call themselves Southerners. Likewise the same for Southern California and New Mexico. They are Southwest or Interior West. There is a huge difference between culturally between Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and Arizona and New Mexico.
I do actually consider them Southern for the same reasons. Historically, both these cities were populated by Southerners moving away from the Deep South. The Latino population didn't really come in until the 40s in huge numbers for both cities. But most of the blacks in Miami came from Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. Miami was like a frontier city. Likewise, many of Houston's blacks came from Louisiana (mostly) and Mississippi. Houston was a frontier city in a frontier state.
The thing that separates Miami from Houston is that Miami was like a frontier city for Northeasterners as well. Houston didn't get that attention from the West (because it wasn't populated like the NE) nor the NE or Midwest. But in the last 70 years, Miami and Houston's Latino population changed Houston's culture into a different type of Southern city. The Black population of both cities do relate to the other Southern cities. The Latino population for both cities do not. Also, with blacks, Miami has a huge Caribbean population and Houston has a huge West African population specifically Nigerian. Both can relate to the Black culture because they're black. Both both do not relate to the Southern culture. I think these two cities are more alike than many would like to believe.
I forgot that parallel between the 2 cities. Both cities have a great number of foreign blacks. Houston and Miami are probably the 2 cities with the greatest numbers of foreign blacks in the South.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
But we do not call them Southern states like we do from Texas to Florida to Virginia. Because culturally, that dominates over the location of a particular state. Nobody from Arizona is going to call themselves Southerners. Likewise the same for Southern California and New Mexico. They are Southwest or Interior West. There is a huge difference between culturally between Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and Arizona and New Mexico.
You just repeated back to me exactly what I said. Just put in different words.
Culture is why they are the southwest and not part of the traditional south. Location is why they are in any kind of south at all.
They are a south because of location. They are a southern culture unto themselves because of their location. They are not part of what we call "the south" because of the difference in cultures.
Location makes them southern. Culture sets them aside from "the south" as we typically think of it. And this is why using a directional term to describe a cultural region is a bad idea. I think it confuses people.
You just repeated back to me exactly what I said. Just put in different words.
Culture is why they are the southwest and not part of the traditional south. Location is why they are in any kind of south at all.
They are a south because of location. They are a southern culture unto themselves because of their location. They are not part of what we call "the south" because of the difference in cultures.
Location makes them southern. Culture sets them aside from "the south" as we typically think of it. And this is why using a directional term to describe a cultural region is a bad idea. I think it confuses people.
No what I'm basically saying is that on this forum and in real life, we designate a place as whatever region because of it's culture first. Location comes second. In fact, honestly, it's an afterthought. There is a reason why you see threads like Capitol of the South or most important city in the South, you see Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, and sometimes DC in the poll and not Phoenix, San Diego, and Los Angeles. Because culturally, they are different from each other. If we looked at location first, than I would understand your point. But we don't. But Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Diego do not have a Southern culture. Sorry.
No. There are too many cultures across this country to measure any region by culture itself.
Location first, culture second.
People from Rhode Island are completely different than people from Vermont, yet they are still both New Englanders. Why? Because both states are located in New England.
Yes! Location seems more important in determining regional affiliation than culture. Geographic regions normally cover a fairly large area and have clearly defined boundaries (i.e. state/national borders). U.S. regions are certainly not culturally homogenous, as there are pockets of unique cultures throughout the country...those are called sub-regions, and that's what I would call South Florida. There is no real reason to divide such sub-regions into their own little region, but if some people want to do that then they better get ready to have like 1,000 sub-regions of the U.S.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
No what I'm basically saying is that on this forum and in real life, we designate a place as whatever region because of it's culture first. Location comes second. In fact, honestly, it's an afterthought. There is a reason why you see threads like Capitol of the South or most important city in the South, you see Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, and sometimes DC in the poll and not Phoenix, San Diego, and Los Angeles. Because culturally, they are different from each other. If we looked at location first, than I would understand your point. But we don't. But Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Diego do not have a Southern culture. Sorry.
I know what you're saying but you don't know what I'm saying. -_-
They do have a southern culture as their culture exists in a south. (Note: a south, not the south).
People use culture to say that a city in North Carolina is not southern. But they are wrong. Because regardless of the culture in that city, North Carolina is located in the south (this part of the southern US being the south as we think of it).
Culture can be used both properly and incorrectly. Location is often (Often meaning not always but nearly always) set in stone.
I really don't know how I could put it any clearer. I'm not saying Arizona is part of Dixie or the traditional south. It is, however, part of the southern half of this country. The fact of location makes it southern, the fact of culture sets it apart from the south as we think of it. Therefor, Arizona is part of a culture we call, south-western rather than southern (as we use the term southern to describe the south-eastern culture).
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ
Yes! Location seems more important in determining regional affiliation than culture. Geographic regions normally cover a fairly large area and have clearly defined boundaries (i.e. state/national borders). U.S. regions are certainly not culturally homogenous, as there are pockets of unique cultures throughout the country...those are called sub-regions, and that's what I would call South Florida. There is no real reason to divide such sub-regions into their own little region, but if some people want to do that then they better get ready to have like 1,000 sub-regions of the U.S.
Fine. Then if we have another Capital of the South thread, in addition to Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and New Orleans, we must now include Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Diego, and Los Angeles. Since they are now Southern and all.
Honestly, I don't think you do see what I'm saying. I understand if you look at the location they are in the Southern half of the country. But the way this country determines what region we are actually in the broad scheme of things comes down to culture, not location.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,540,027 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
Fine. Then if we have another Capital of the South thread, in addition to Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and New Orleans, we must now include Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Diego, and Los Angeles. Since they are now Southern and all.
NO! You seriously aren't getting it!
Never-mind. It's clearly beyond your scope of thought.
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.
Yes! Location seems more important in determining regional affiliation than culture. Geographic regions normally cover a fairly large area and have clearly defined boundaries (i.e. state/national borders). U.S. regions are certainly not culturally homogenous, as there are pockets of unique cultures throughout the country...those are called sub-regions, and that's what I would call South Florida. There is no real reason to divide such sub-regions into their own little region, but if some people want to do that then they better get ready to have like 1,000 sub-regions of the U.S.
