U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-24-2013, 03:17 PM
 
7,592 posts, read 9,444,553 times
Reputation: 8949

Advertisements

Before I go back and read the previous 10 pages, I'll say that the southernmost city would be any city just northwest of Ft. Lauderdale, and the westernmost would be around Lubbock. A city like Amarillo, in the far north of the Panhandle, would be the southernmost part of the Great Plains, with its strong wheat crop. Without any proof, I would guess that they would have more of a western "twang" rather than a southern "drawl"..

El Paso is a whole 'nother story...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-24-2013, 06:14 PM
 
Location: A subtropical paradise
2,069 posts, read 2,197,388 times
Reputation: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
I agree in lots of ways. But that is the key. Whether you admit it or not, looking back over your posts, you are simply shifting a bit to agree with MY points. Although I know you will not admit it, YOU are the one changing wording...and not back up anything you say...or at least not much of it...

Now, again, the Southwest is and always has been, something of a sub-region of the South on lots of levels, and, later, a separate one on others. Here is a good article on it, and lots of backup in terms of footnotes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southw..._United_States

The bottom line is that the Southwest of Texas and Oklahoma has not much in common with the Southwest of New Mexico and Arizona. There are a few topographical similarities, but almost nothing in terms of historical and cultural ones. The pairs don't even self-identify as in the same broader regions!

And nothing wrong with that. it is just -- boiled down -- Texas and Oklahoma are western Southern, and Arizona and New Mexico are southern Western. Two different critters.

I ask again. What about west Texas, other than some features of physical topography, has much in common with New Mexico and Arizona? All I ask is an answer and I never get one.
No, my point has always been:
1.) Geography wise; half of Texas is Southern, the other half is Western. The two halves are divided by the Balcones Escarpment. In the case of Oklahoma, there are Southern and Western halves, but they are not split by the escarpment.
2.)Culture wise; the only part of Texas that is truly southern (that is, the only part of Texas that can even be considered to have strong antebellum ideals) is Texas east of the Trinity River. The only part of Texas that is Southwestern is West Texas. The rest of Texas has a distinctly Texan Culture that is a blend of Southern, Southwestern, and Spanish/Mexican culture.

Texas and Oklahoma share in common more than just topographical similarities with the Southwest; An aspect of Southwestern culture is a strong Native American presence, which both Texas and Oklahoma have. Also, established, and entrenched Spanish mission culture can be found throughout Texas, even in the deep Eastern woods, all the way to the Pacific coast of California. This historical Spanish culture featured ranchero and vaquero ideals, which Texas has, and such culture is an aspect of the broad Southwestern culture. Both Texas and Oklahoma have the rugged, frontier, "live, let live" attitude that the Southwest has as well. I could go on and on about the cultural similarities if you want me to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
As I said in an earlier post, I actually -- no kidding -- know some distant kin from Mississippi and Alabama who barely consider South Carolina, Southern. And definitely not Louisiana or North Carolina. Would you agree with that?

BUT? Point is, as I have said repeatedly, YOU are the one seemingly making a solidified statement that the South is defined by some myth of moonlight and magnolias. YES, I agree there is something to that. But ALSO? There is something to that western Texas is the South moved west, and that southeastern settlers make into an EXTREMLY unique part of the South. The SOUTHwest, so to speak. The ORIGINAL Southwest, about the strongest bastion of Southern Baptist Church membership in the world.
Well, good for your "edumacated kin." But as stated before, what differentiates Texas and Oklahoma from the true Southern States like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Carolinas, etc, is the fact that the two states didn't share a strong defined antebellum history(where the Gone With The Wind ideals came from). The two states were always rugged frontier lands that had very different histories from the South. Texas was once Mexico, and became its own country after that, while Oklahoma was a sanctuary for Native Americans.When the South easterners moved west, they kept some of their traditions, but were forced to adapt to the rugged frontier of the two states. In addition, they mingled with the established Spanish and Native American culture in Texas and Oklahoma, respectively. In Texas, this mixing and assimilation created a distinctly Texan culture found nowhere else in the country. As stated before, things like the Southern Baptist presence only add to the melting pot of Southern, Southwestern and Mexican ideals that Texas is. Oh, and Texas is a Majority-Minority state that is dominated by Catholics. Food for thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Texas and Florida were two of the original seven Confederate States (the four of the Upper South joined up later), so what is your point here? What sort of "Gone With The Wind" culture did Tennessee or Arkansas have? And your years are wrong, by the way! Again, and I can never say it enough, the South is just a region where, heck, those who live in it, believe they live in it. If their idea of the South is GWTW, then I guess that is what it is. On the other hand, if it is good manners and a Confederate history and black-eyed peas, then Texas and other states make ad dad-gum proud part of it. I state that with pride, as a Texan. NO one from any Deep South state "out Southerns" me.

If any think they do? Then I say again, step up to the plate and we will go after it. I dare them to say they love it (the South) any more than I do. If so?, then start with stating why they feel they have the authority to actually feel a superiority in thinking they are more Southern than I am...?
And then unlike the rest of the "Original seven" Florida and Texas quickly progressed and became immigration stations, moving ahead in culture, and distancing themselves from the segregation mentality the rest of the South held. This is why the Jim Crow laws weren't as strong in Texas and Florida as they were in say Alabama, Georgia, Carolinas, Arkansas, etc.

The strong Antebellum culture was able to develop to a great effect in both Tennessee and Arkansas because both became states relatively early before the Civil War compared to both Texas and Florida. And look at you, saying my years are wrong; 1845 was the year Texas and Florida were admitted to the union.

And funny enough, both definitions of the South you gave (The GWTW definition, and the "Confederate history, black-eyed-peas good manners" version) only apply to small geographic areas in Texas and Florida, whereas they are found in large swaths of land in states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, The Carolinas, etc. Much of the rest of Texas and Florida either don't fit with the traditional version of the South, or they actually argue against being southern. Texas east of the Trinity, and the Florida Panhandle are the only parts in their respective states that have loads of people very proud to be southern, and fit with your definitions of the South.

All in all, the area of Texas that has lots of people like you that identify strongly with the South is a very minuscule portion in the Eastern part of the state. The rest of the state either has a distinctly Texan culture that blends the South and the Southwest (West Texas, Panhandle, Texas Triangle Metro area), or has a culture that has no trace of Southern whatsoever (Pecos Region, South Texas south of San Antonio). But its okay, you can be southern if you want to be. No one is stopping you from going after "it"(the South). Just know that by doing so, you are showing yourself off as nothing more than a scrub.

Last edited by Yn0hTnA; 12-24-2013 at 06:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2013, 09:06 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,108,570 times
Reputation: 5741
Oh good lord!

You change to suit and everyone knows and sees it! Most of all you say is simply a repeat -- as others have said -- of WHAT others have said. Heck, you don't even say where YOU are from. But I am going to try one more time to make sense to you.

BUT..yes, you are entitled to your opinion. Hell, there is no "truth" answer anyway, as the ideas of regions are always subjective. Some put Arkansas in the Midwest, some put Virginia in the Northeast, and etc. The MAIN criteria is shared commonalities of history and culture and make the said states more akin to one another than another region.

There are four broad regions of the United States: The South, the West, the Midwest, and Northeast.

Can we agree on that? Texas, as it is, belongs to the South. Its development, even in the western parts, belong more to the American South than to the far West of Colorado and Arizona. Same as Kansas belongs more to the Midwest with Iowa and Ohio.

True, one could call, accurately, both Texas and Kansas, "western states"...but their real regional affiliation is not of the same west of each other, and certainly not of the Rocky Mountain states.

Put another way, both South Carolina and Massachusetts are "Eastern" states, but they are obviously not in the same "East". Just as a Wyoming, Kansas, and Texas are not in the same sort of "West."

Quote:
=Yn0hTnA;32739299]No, my point has always been:
1.) Geography wise; half of Texas is Southern, the other half is Western. The two halves are divided by the Balcones Escarpment. In the case of Oklahoma, there are Southern and Western halves, but they are not split by the escarpment.
*shrug* Where did we disagree on that one? I might put the divide more along the 100th meridian, but I don't see you argument on that one, in the sense I ever said different.

Quote:
2.)Culture wise; the only part of Texas that is truly southern (that is, the only part of Texas that can even be considered to have strong antebellum ideals) is Texas east of the Trinity River. The only part of Texas that is Southwestern is West Texas. The rest of Texas has a distinctly Texan Culture that is a blend of Southern, Southwestern, and Spanish/Mexican culture.
And THIS is where we come to the fight. The formation of Texas, even west Texas was shaped by the American South, not the interior Southwest. This "distinctly Texas" culture you speak of is, yes, TEXAS. We all agree on that. BUT...the point is that it is the South moved west. THAT is the key to the basic identity of Texas.

It is the epitome of the "Southwest" in the sense of being the "western South.". Totally unlike the "Southwest" of New Mexico and Arizona, which are, really, the "southern West.". Two totally different critters.

Quote:
Texas and Oklahoma share in common more than just topographical similarities with the Southwest; An aspect of Southwestern culture is a strong Native American presence, which both Texas and Oklahoma have.


Glad you brought that up. There is no "strong" Native American presence in Texas. I believe there are three Indian reservations in Texas, and all are about -- combined -- the size of one small county. Most of the Indians of Oklahoma were from the southeastern United States and became assimilated early on.

Prove me different in terms of the elements of the debate...

On the other hand? Here is a link you might find interesting....

***************
Edited by Joseph Carleton Wilder
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PRESS
THE SOUTHWEST CENTER
TUCSON

From The Southwest Defined

****************

There should be much less of an argument regarding the Southwest's eastern and western boundaries. Texans may not like it, but there is no convincing or substantial physical and qualified cultural evidence that the Southwest extends eastward beyond the 104th Meridian West. The Llano Estacado clearly belongs to the Great Plains, and the headwaters of the Canadian and Cimarron rivers roll toward the same direction as does the culture of northeast New Mexico face: eastward. Combined with the Southwest's southern boundary coordinate of 29 N., this border would enclose the western two-thirds of the "horn" of Texas, a region which includes El Paso, one of the most "Southwestern" of all Southwestern towns.

******************

Historically, too, no place on the southern border of the region has served more as a gateway to the Southwest than has El Paso, Texas. From its earliest occupation, it has always been recognized as such; indeed, "El Paso" in English means "portal' or "passageway." Moreover, since 1581, when Chamuscado and Rodriguez, the first Spaniards to enter the region by way of the ancient corridor, "The Great River of the North" (El Rio Grande del Norte), to the present day, El Paso, culturally as well as physically, has belonged more with Southwestern cities Albuquerque and Tucson than with Dallas or Houston. However, the Spanish did explore and settle much of southern Texas, and that fact plus close historical ties with Mexico, remains the most legitimate-and only-claim the rest of Texas can present as a credential for membership in "the Southwest." And in many other ways Texas simply doesn't qualify, despite such vestigial Hispanic enclaves as San Antonio and Nacogdoches.

******************

The physiographic Southwest houses cultural traits that give it a unique regional identity. Several very distinctive and conspicuous ethnological features dominate the region. Evidence of prehistoric Amerindians, in particular the "sedentary" people who established "permanent" homes and who enjoyed a high level of prehistoric social organization and food-obtaining technology, are unique to this area. These people developed advanced architectural styles as well as highly refined craftsmanship in pottery, fabrics, basketry, and jewelry. No place else within the United States contains such impressive remnants of prehistoric culture.
In the Southwest can be found the United States' largest number of contemporary Native Americans. Many of these people still live on "reservations" in their traditional pueblos, hogans and wickiups. Moreover, a certain set of well-documented nineteenth- and twentieth-century American Indian linguistic patterns are unique to the region, too. In other words, the physiographic Southwest features a distinct, substantial, and highly visible American Indian population, both prehistoric and contemporary.
No other region within the United States possesses such an old and conspicuous vestige of sixteenth- to nineteenth-century Spanish empire influence than does the Southwest. Dating back to 1539, the impact of Hispanic occupation can be seen throughout the region, particularly in the upper Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. As part of the area's cultural landscape, a growing Hispano-Mexican population and social presence continues to become increasingly potent and visible
********************************

Current demographic statistics do not provoke any great revision in determining that area which we can call the "Hispanic Southwest." Place names in southern Texas and California suggest a rich and enduring Hispanic heritage in those two states. But following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, hordes of white Americans rushed into these Hispanic areas of Texas, and, even though white Americans totally dominated these parts of Texas, they continued to use many existing Spanish place names. Most of California's Spanish place names were designated by Anglo real estate developers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in an attempt to capitalize commercially on the state's romance that visitors and newcomers to the region found so "quaint" and attractive. A meaningful cultural presence of Hispanic traditions cannot be derived merely from Spanish place names. And other qualifications- primarily physiographic, climatic, and prehistoric-preclude Texas and California from being placed within "the Southwest."
**********************************************

Quote:
Also, established, and entrenched Spanish mission culture can be found throughout Texas, even in the deep Eastern woods, all the way to the Pacific coast of California. This historical Spanish culture featured ranchero and vaquero ideals, which Texas has, and such culture is an aspect of the broad Southwestern culture. Both Texas and Oklahoma have the rugged, frontier, "live, let live" attitude that the Southwest has as well.
Quote:
I could go on and on about the cultural similarities if you want me to.
See above. The Southwest of Texas (and most of Oklahoma), is to be distinguished from that of New Mexico and Arizona. The former affected the latter in some limited ways, but the opposite was not true at all. There is a western South and a southern West.

I don't know what is so hard to get about that.

Quote:
Well, good for your "edumacated kin." But as stated before, what differentiates Texas and Oklahoma from the true Southern States like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Carolinas, etc, is the fact that the two states didn't share a strong defined antebellum history(where the Gone With The Wind ideals came from). The two states were always rugged frontier lands that had very different histories from the South. .


LMAO Goodgawdamighty. YES...there is a western South, eastern South, Deep South, and an Old South and an Upper South and Mountain South and Cajun South and lord...so what???

What there ALSO is, is a region of history and culture that generally stretches from Texas to Virginia and into the border states where the same have MUCH more in common with one another than they do with neighboring regions (i.e. far West, Midwest, Northeast).

Also? There is a Self-Identification aspect. Texans and Oklahomans identify with the South. New Mexicans and Kansans identify, respectively, with the West and Midwest.

Quote:
Texas was once Mexico, and became its own country after that.
So? The 13 colonies were once England, and Louisiana and Arkansas were once France. Texas was also once France and Spain. So what is your point?

Every thing and place belonged to somewhere else before it became something else...

Quote:
while Oklahoma was a sanctuary for Native Americans.
Quote:
When the South easterners moved west, they kept some of their traditions, but were forced to adapt to the rugged frontier of the two states. In addition, they mingled with the established Spanish and Native American culture in Texas and Oklahoma, respectively.


See above on native American culture in Oklahoma, and to note as well, most allied with the Confederacy.

Quote:
In Texas, this mixing and assimilation created a distinctly Texan culture found nowhere else in the country.
Of course. Who said different? Texas is Texas, we all know that. But region wise? It is Southern. Just as, the French-candian of Louisiana created a distinct culture. But it is Southern.

Quote:
As stated before, things like the Southern Baptist presence only add to the melting pot of Southern, Southwestern and Mexican ideals that Texas is.
Quote:
Oh, and Texas is a Majority-Minority state that is dominated by Catholics. Food for thought.
Texas is not dominated by Catholics. Added up, by church membership, Texas is majority protestant, evangelical, and Southern Baptist by the anglo and black population, which formed the character of the state. Unlike in the northern and Midwestern where

The blunt fact is, the reason for the large Catholic population today, in Texas, is from the rapidly arriving Hispanic population, and no tell how much is illegal. Also, the influx of new comers from the northern states in urban areas and cities. And this could reverse very quickly.

Texas is part of the Southern Bible Belt, for better or worse. Again, most native Texans -- whose roots go back -- are Protestant and Bible Belt so.

[quote] And then unlike the rest of the "Original seven" Florida and Texas quickly progressed and became immigration stations, moving ahead in culture, and distancing themselves from the segregation mentality the rest of the South held. This is why the Jim Crow laws weren't as strong in Texas and Florida as they were in say Alabama, Georgia, Carolinas, Arkansas, etc. [/QUOTE}

Actually, law wise, in the days of Jim Crow, it was Tennessee that had the most "liberal" laws in the South. Because of Texas' large size, the legislature allowed for quite a bit of local control. For instance, as Lady Bird Johnson once said, her part of East Texas was no different than Mississippi or Alabama, while western parts of Texas, with a tiny to nothing black population, could declare themselves "integrated" although it really involved nothing!

But with that said, I think forced integration was a mistake and a tyrannical move, and no one, black or white, really wanted it... but oh well, I am just glad now a choice system has come back...

Quote:
The strong Antebellum culture was able to develop to a great effect in both Tennessee and Arkansas because both became states relatively early before the Civil War compared to both Texas and Florida. And look at you, saying my years are wrong; 1845 was the year Texas and Florida were admitted to the union.
No, YOU are wrong. Texas was one of the original Confederate States. Arkansas, Tennesee, North Carolinia, and Virginia, turned it down initially.

Quote:
All in all, the area of Texas that has lots of people like you that identify strongly with the South is a very minuscule portion in the Eastern part of the state. The rest of the state either has a distinctly Texan culture that blends the South and the Southwest (West Texas, Panhandle, Texas Triangle Metro area), or has a culture that has no trace of Southern whatsoever (Pecos Region, South Texas south of San Antonio). But its okay, you can be southern if you want to be. No one is stopping you from going after "it"(the South). Just know that by doing so, you are showing yourself off as nothing more than a scrub.
Welllll, in the spirit of CHRISTMAS, I am sorry to make you look like a fool and post statements that are so easily disputed. You haven't said anything that hasn't been totally disproven. Yes, I realize you hate to have to admit you have had your butt handed back over to you. And others have said as much as well. That is, you have no profile, you don't really do much except adjust your points to parrot what others have done to make the said fool out of you. LOL

And also to say, again, there is no "right" answer to the question, anyway. It so depends on far too many criteria.

But whatever, you can have the last word. It is Christmas Eve, and I have better things to do. Anyway,

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2013, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
6,839 posts, read 6,181,041 times
Reputation: 6119
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post

And THIS is where we come to the fight. The formation of Texas, even west Texas was shaped by the American South, not the interior Southwest. This "distinctly Texas" culture you speak of is, yes, TEXAS. We all agree on that. BUT...the point is that it is the South moved west. THAT is the key to the basic identity of Texas.

It is the epitome of the "Southwest" in the sense of being the "western South.". Totally unlike the "Southwest" of New Mexico and Arizona, which are, really, the "southern West.". YES...there is a western South


1) Where in the history of the migration of the interior US has said migration occurred west to east? So there really isn't any significance to your claim that the "south moved west" instead of vice versa.

I have already indicated that Arizona territory seceded and joined the Confederacy because the "south moved west." We have already established that in it's later territorial days Arizona was a huge cotton producer (still is) and ironically, occurred about the same time that the west Texas cotton industry began (circa 1900) and the cotton production in points east in Texas began to diminish.

2) What exactly constitutes the "the western south"? And if it is Texas and Oklahoma, how do you define the east and west parts of the two states as they obviously different in many ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2013, 01:04 PM
 
Location: A subtropical paradise
2,069 posts, read 2,197,388 times
Reputation: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Oh good lord!

You change to suit and everyone knows and sees it! Most of all you say is simply a repeat -- as others have said -- of WHAT others have said. Heck, you don't even say where YOU are from. But I am going to try one more time to make sense to you.
No, my position has always been maintained that Texas and Oklahoma form their own unique region and are not a part of the South, nor are they a part of the Southwest. YOU are making the argument that Texas and Oklahoma are EXACTLY like the southern states, but just moved west. It may seem that way through someone like you who has a fetish with the south, but not to the majority of people who don't. There is a lot more than just Southern culture in Texas and Oklahoma that contribute to making them their own regions separate from states like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
And THIS is where we come to the fight. The formation of Texas, even west Texas was shaped by the American South, not the interior Southwest. This "distinctly Texas" culture you speak of is, yes, TEXAS. We all agree on that. BUT...the point is that it is the South moved west. THAT is the key to the basic identity of Texas.

It is the epitome of the "Southwest" in the sense of being the "western South.". Totally unlike the "Southwest" of New Mexico and Arizona, which are, really, the "southern West.". Two totally different critters.


Glad you brought that up. There is no "strong" Native American presence in Texas. I believe there are three Indian reservations in Texas, and all are about -- combined -- the size of one small county. Most of the Indians of Oklahoma were from the southeastern United States and became assimilated early on.

Prove me different in terms of the elements of the debate...

On the other hand? Here is a link you might find interesting....

***************
Edited by Joseph Carleton Wilder
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PRESS
THE SOUTHWEST CENTER
TUCSON

From The Southwest Defined

****************

There should be much less of an argument regarding the Southwest's eastern and western boundaries. Texans may not like it, but there is no convincing or substantial physical and qualified cultural evidence that the Southwest extends eastward beyond the 104th Meridian West. The Llano Estacado clearly belongs to the Great Plains, and the headwaters of the Canadian and Cimarron rivers roll toward the same direction as does the culture of northeast New Mexico face: eastward. Combined with the Southwest's southern boundary coordinate of 29 N., this border would enclose the western two-thirds of the "horn" of Texas, a region which includes El Paso, one of the most "Southwestern" of all Southwestern towns.

******************

Historically, too, no place on the southern border of the region has served more as a gateway to the Southwest than has El Paso, Texas. From its earliest occupation, it has always been recognized as such; indeed, "El Paso" in English means "portal' or "passageway." Moreover, since 1581, when Chamuscado and Rodriguez, the first Spaniards to enter the region by way of the ancient corridor, "The Great River of the North" (El Rio Grande del Norte), to the present day, El Paso, culturally as well as physically, has belonged more with Southwestern cities Albuquerque and Tucson than with Dallas or Houston. However, the Spanish did explore and settle much of southern Texas, and that fact plus close historical ties with Mexico, remains the most legitimate-and only-claim the rest of Texas can present as a credential for membership in "the Southwest." And in many other ways Texas simply doesn't qualify, despite such vestigial Hispanic enclaves as San Antonio and Nacogdoches.

******************

The physiographic Southwest houses cultural traits that give it a unique regional identity. Several very distinctive and conspicuous ethnological features dominate the region. Evidence of prehistoric Amerindians, in particular the "sedentary" people who established "permanent" homes and who enjoyed a high level of prehistoric social organization and food-obtaining technology, are unique to this area. These people developed advanced architectural styles as well as highly refined craftsmanship in pottery, fabrics, basketry, and jewelry. No place else within the United States contains such impressive remnants of prehistoric culture.
In the Southwest can be found the United States' largest number of contemporary Native Americans. Many of these people still live on "reservations" in their traditional pueblos, hogans and wickiups. Moreover, a certain set of well-documented nineteenth- and twentieth-century American Indian linguistic patterns are unique to the region, too. In other words, the physiographic Southwest features a distinct, substantial, and highly visible American Indian population, both prehistoric and contemporary.
No other region within the United States possesses such an old and conspicuous vestige of sixteenth- to nineteenth-century Spanish empire influence than does the Southwest. Dating back to 1539, the impact of Hispanic occupation can be seen throughout the region, particularly in the upper Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. As part of the area's cultural landscape, a growing Hispano-Mexican population and social presence continues to become increasingly potent and visible
********************************

Current demographic statistics do not provoke any great revision in determining that area which we can call the "Hispanic Southwest." Place names in southern Texas and California suggest a rich and enduring Hispanic heritage in those two states. But following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, hordes of white Americans rushed into these Hispanic areas of Texas, and, even though white Americans totally dominated these parts of Texas, they continued to use many existing Spanish place names. Most of California's Spanish place names were designated by Anglo real estate developers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in an attempt to capitalize commercially on the state's romance that visitors and newcomers to the region found so "quaint" and attractive. A meaningful cultural presence of Hispanic traditions cannot be derived merely from Spanish place names. And other qualifications- primarily physiographic, climatic, and prehistoric-preclude Texas and California from being placed within "the Southwest."
**********************************************



See above. The Southwest of Texas (and most of Oklahoma), is to be distinguished from that of New Mexico and Arizona. The former affected the latter in some limited ways, but the opposite was not true at all. There is a western South and a southern West.

I don't know what is so hard to get about that.
Like I said, I never said that the whole of Texas and Oklahoma can be put into the Southwest with New Mexico and Arizona; I said that while both states have the Southern influence you speak of, unlike the states in the Southeast, both states also have a lot of Southwest influence, enough in that it distinguishes them from the Southeastern states. Added to the cultural polymerization is the established Native American and Mexican culture, and with the fact that the area was once part of the Spanish vice-royalty, we have a unique region that comprises only of Texas and Oklahoma.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
LMAO Goodgawdamighty. YES...there is a western South, eastern South, Deep South, and an Old South and an Upper South and Mountain South and Cajun South and lord...so what???

What there ALSO is, is a region of history and culture that generally stretches from Texas to Virginia and into the border states where the same have MUCH more in common with one another than they do with neighboring regions (i.e. far West, Midwest, Northeast).

Also? There is a Self-Identification aspect. Texans and Oklahomans identify with the South. New Mexicans and Kansans identify, respectively, with the West and Midwest.



So? The 13 colonies were once England, and Louisiana and Arkansas were once France. Texas was also once France and Spain. So what is your point?

Every thing and place belonged to somewhere else before it became something else...



See above on native American culture in Oklahoma, and to note as well, most allied with the Confederacy.



Of course. Who said different? Texas is Texas, we all know that. But region wise? It is Southern. Just as, the French-candian of Louisiana created a distinct culture. But it is Southern.
And here is the thing; the only part of Texas that shares much in common with the Southeast is the part of Texas east of Trinity River, around areas like Beaumont-Port Arthur, Marshall, Texarkana, etc. Much of the rest of Texas has either the distinct Texan Culture that combines the South, Southwest, and Hispanic/Indian influence (Texas Triangle Area, West Texas), a pure southwestern culture (Pecos Texas), a Midwest influence (Panhandle), and areas that might as well be Mexico (South Texas). As for Oklahoma, only the Southeastern part is like Dixie. The rest of the state is the same Southwest-Southern polymerization that Texas is. East Texas east of the Trinity, and Southeast Oklahoma are the only parts of their respective states where people identify REALLY strongly with the South. People in West Texas, despite your claims, have more of a rugged frontier, "live-let-live" lifestyle, just like the Southwest.

Texas's being a part of Mexico puts it in company with states like Arizona and New Mexico. All were once part of the same country that was a successor the the Spanish Vice-royalty that dominated the area. This is just one of many aspects of Southwestern culture Texas has.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Texas is not dominated by Catholics. Added up, by church membership, Texas is majority protestant, evangelical, and Southern Baptist by the anglo and black population, which formed the character of the state. Unlike in the northern and Midwestern where

The blunt fact is, the reason for the large Catholic population today, in Texas, is from the rapidly arriving Hispanic population, and no tell how much is illegal. Also, the influx of new comers from the northern states in urban areas and cities. And this could reverse very quickly.

Texas is part of the Southern Bible Belt, for better or worse. Again, most native Texans -- whose roots go back -- are Protestant and Bible Belt so.
The largest single denomination in Texas is the Catholic Church, and contrary to your belief, the Catholic population in Texas was always established, starting with the presence of the Spanish vice-royalty. Yes, the Southern protestant culture later started invading, but also arriving into the state were lots of Germans, who were Catholic, and kept the denomination strong in Texas. Lots of Mexicans in Texas today aren't illegal, rather, they are part of the ranchero and Tejano populations that were an established part of the state and they had a strong Catholic faith. In addition, many Catholic immigrants today come from Asian countries like the Philippines, and Vietnam, South American countries like Brazil and Columbia, European Countries like Italy, Spain, and France, and African Countries like Nigeria, and Ghana, so no illegals as you foolishly claim.

The only part of Texas that is the Bible Belt is the northern half of the state. The rest of Texas, including the largest population centers of Houston, DFW( a Catholic island in a Protestant sea), Austin, and San Antonio is not in the Bible Belt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Actually, law wise, in the days of Jim Crow, it was Tennessee that had the most "liberal" laws in the South. Because of Texas' large size, the legislature allowed for quite a bit of local control. For instance, as Lady Bird Johnson once said, her part of East Texas was no different than Mississippi or Alabama, while western parts of Texas, with a tiny to nothing black population, could declare themselves "integrated" although it really involved nothing!

But with that said, I think forced integration was a mistake and a tyrannical move, and no one, black or white, really wanted it... but oh well, I am just glad now a choice system has come back...



No, YOU are wrong. Texas was one of the original Confederate States. Arkansas, Tennesee, North Carolinia, and Virginia, turned it down initially.
And there's that. The ONLY part of Texas that lives and breathes Southern, enough to harbor the backwards segregation mindset, is the Eastern portion east of the Trinity, especially around the Piney Woods region, the region Lady Bird Johnson's town (Karnack, TX) was in. Therefore, its easy to see why Lady Bird Johnson made that analogy. The rest of Texas, however, either had no segregation, or had it to an extremely minor presence compared to states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Much of Texas desegregated early, well before the 60s (Thank God! ).

Why do you think integration was a mistake? You seem like an intelligent being, so why harbor such backwards sentiments?

1845 was the year that Texas and Florida joined the United States of America. Please brush up on your history since you did not know that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Welllll, in the spirit of CHRISTMAS, I am sorry to make you look like a fool and post statements that are so easily disputed. You haven't said anything that hasn't been totally disproven. Yes, I realize you hate to have to admit you have had your butt handed back over to you. And others have said as much as well. That is, you have no profile, you don't really do much except adjust your points to parrot what others have done to make the said fool out of you. LOL

And also to say, again, there is no "right" answer to the question, anyway. It so depends on far too many criteria.

But whatever, you can have the last word. It is Christmas Eve, and I have better things to do. Anyway,

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night!
Au contraire; the only one really making a fool out of himself/herself is you. All you have done is drink the Kool-Aid and make your arguments biased towards your Southerness, failing to realize that while Texas and Oklahoma have strong southern influence, that is only part of the cultural mix that includes strong Southwestern, Mexican/Spanish, and Native American influence as well. And its so obvious. Eddie gein sees it too.

Who are these "others" you speak of ? Maybe you should stop smoking all that coal you got down your stocking this morning because I see its causing some hallucinations. It doesn't matter what you have to say about me; you've already shown your true colors as a complete scrub with a humbug up his/her *** this Christmas season. Aww, you still mad? Its okay; you can continue smoking the piles of coal you have up under your tree if it makes you feel better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2013, 03:28 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,108,570 times
Reputation: 5741
Quote:
=eddie gein;32743644]1) Where in the history of the migration of the interior US has said migration occurred west to east? So there really isn't any significance to your claim that the "south moved west" instead of vice versa.
What in the heck are you talking about? I am sorry if you miss a very simple point and application. The migration of this country moved east to west. Now, without going back to look it up, I, perhaps, mistyped. If so, let me make it clear:

The settlement of this country went east to west. A state, like say, Kansas, was settled by those from the eastern Midwest states. That formed the basic culture and history.

On the other hand, It was southeasterners who settled Texas. THAT is the point. That western Texas (most of it, at any rate), is basically the South moved west. Just as Kansas is the Midwest moved a bit west. But both belong to the regions where most of the pioneers came from. .

Quote:
I have already indicated that Arizona territory seceded and joined the Confederacy because the "south moved west." We have already established that in it's later territorial days Arizona was a huge cotton producer (still is) and ironically, occurred about the same time that the west Texas cotton industry began (circa 1900) and the cotton production in points east in Texas began to diminish.
Again, this makes no sense, and is historically inaccurate. Arizona NEVER seceded in the sense that Texas -- or any other Southern state did -- and joined the Confederacy. It was declared a territory claimed by the Confederacy, by Texans.

And what in the world do you mean that "we have established" that Arizona was a major cotton producer early on. Arizona was not a cotton producer until well into the 20th Century, and it was not even the same type cotton. It was never part of the old "Cotton Belt" and never considered itself so.

Which comes back to the original point, that you are seemingly not getting. That is, you seem to try and use irony to make your point. The thing is, the irony has no basis. Cotton is grown in Kansas, and California, but NEITHER state ever had a Southern identification and history like Texas, and residents today feel a totally different sense of self-identification.

The same is true of Arizona. As was said earlier, cotton is only ONE factor. Your point is extremely simplistic. There are people in Ohio that use the term "y'all" as the second person plural pronoun. Does that make it Southern? Of course not, and same analogy holds true with cotton grown in Arizona.

On the other hand? As said, Texas has always had a Southern identity, settlement, religious and political pattern, speech, etc, etc, pattern, that MAKEDLY distinguish it from Kansas or Colorado or Arizona.

Quote:
2) What exactly constitutes the "the western south"? And if it is Texas and Oklahoma, how do you define the east and west parts of the two states as they obviously different in many ways.
Of course they are obviously different. If one sliced of the trans-pecos "horn" then I would agree it is the true interior SW, of New Mexico and Arizona. If one cut off the area north around Amarillo, it might be considered a part of the Lower Midwest.

BUT, any STATE belongs in a region, and the vast majority of Texas was shaped by settlement from the South. Heck, far as that goes, even Amarillo and Midland have schools named for Confederate heros and Confederate monuments on their county courthouse lawns.

Well, whatever, here is a good one. It comes from the best seller by Raymond Gastil titled "Cultural Regions of the United States:

"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."

But anyway, again! LOL...it is Christmas Day and I want to spend it with my family, not debate. We can continue this another time, if you want.

Merry Christmas!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2013, 04:37 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,108,570 times
Reputation: 5741
Quote:
=Yn0hTnA;32745030]No, my position has always been maintained that Texas and Oklahoma form their own unique region and are not a part of the South, nor are they a part of the Southwest. YOU are making the argument that Texas and Oklahoma are EXACTLY like the southern states, but just moved west. It may seem that way through someone like you who has a fetish with the south, but not to the majority of people who don't. There is a lot more than just Southern culture in Texas and Oklahoma that contribute to making them their own regions separate from states like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, etc.
LMAO. Do you not get ANYTHING? Of course they are separate regions, in the sense there is a western South and eastern South. Something like the original Southeast and Southwest athletic conferences.

Both part of the South, yet have a separate identity as well. Nothing contradictory about that. Any more than Nebraska and Ohio are not both Midwestern, yet have an "eastern" and "western" identity.

Quote:
Like I said, I never said that the whole of Texas and Oklahoma can be put into the Southwest with New Mexico and Arizona; I said that while both states have the Southern influence you speak of, unlike the states in the Southeast, both states also have a lot of Southwest influence, enough in that it distinguishes them from the Southeastern states. Added to the cultural polymerization is the established Native American and Mexican culture, and with the fact that the area was once part of the Spanish vice-royalty, we have a unique region that comprises only of Texas and Oklahoma.
See repeated posts. Indian culture -- Native American if you want, either will work -- had almost no influence on the historical and political and cultural development of Texas. Actually, the southeastern states had more Native American influence. I asked you earlier, and ask again:

How many Indian Reservations are in Texas? And how large are they, and what kind of population do they have. The blunt truth is, that Hollywood "Western" movies" are NOT the truth about Texas history.

Yes, there is an Hispanic influence for sure...but relatively speaking, it is NOTHING like the true SW. After the Texas Revolution, most Mexicans left the state and today, there really is -- whether politically correct or not to say it -- no way to tell how much is legal.

Bottom line is, like the rest of the South, it was an Anglo and Black duality that formed and shaped Texas.

Quote:
And here is the thing; the only part of Texas that shares much in common with the Southeast is the part of Texas east of Trinity River, around areas like Beaumont-Port Arthur, Marshall, Texarkana, etc. Much of the rest of Texas has either the distinct Texan Culture that combines the South, Southwest, and Hispanic/Indian influence (Texas Triangle Area, West Texas), a pure southwestern culture (Pecos Texas), a Midwest influence (Panhandle), and areas that might as well be Mexico (South Texas). As for Oklahoma, only the Southeastern part is like Dixie. The rest of the state is the same Southwest-Southern polymerization that Texas is. East Texas east of the Trinity, and Southeast Oklahoma are the only parts of their respective states where people identify REALLY strongly with the South. People in West Texas, despite your claims, have more of a rugged frontier, "live-let-live" lifestyle, just like the Southwest.
I honestly can't believe any one person can be so obstinate and ignoring of what has been presented countless times.

*whew* . Would you like me to ONCE AGAIN present the years of surveys and polls that show even a majority of West Texans identify with the South, as opposed to the West?

And if you claim I ever claimed there was no difference in the western and eastern South? The, well, sir, we would cross sabers at dawn for such falsehood.

THAT is the point I have been trying to make; Texas is -- as a whole -- a state where the essence of the South blends with the frontier spirit of the west.

BUT, it is NOT the same west as of Colorado or Utah or Montana or Arizona. Any more than Kansas is of that "west", or that South Carolina and Massachusetts is of the same "East."

Quote:
Texas's being a part of Mexico puts it in company with states like Arizona and New Mexico. All were once part of the same country that was a successor the the Spanish Vice-royalty that dominated the area. This is just one of many aspects of Southwestern culture Texas has.
No, it doesn't. See above. Two totally different critters.

Quote:
The largest single denomination in Texas is the Catholic Church, and contrary to your belief, the Catholic population in Texas was always established, starting with the presence of the Spanish vice-royalty. Yes, the Southern protestant culture later started invading, but also arriving into the state were lots of Germans, who were Catholic, and kept the denomination strong in Texas. Lots of Mexicans in Texas today aren't illegal, rather, they are part of the ranchero and Tejano populations that were an established part of the state and they had a strong Catholic faith. In addition, many Catholic immigrants today come from Asian countries like the Philippines, and Vietnam, South American countries like Brazil and Columbia, European Countries like Italy, Spain, and France, and African Countries like Nigeria, and Ghana, so no illegals as you foolishly claim.
Nope, there is no contrary belief to it. When the evangelical protestant population -- according to church membership -- easily outnumbers Catholics.

And again, the increasing numbers of Catholics are due to an increasing number of Hispanics, who, to bed blunt -- don't really feel much true "Texas" spirit, anyway. Some areas fly the Mexican Flag over the Texas Flag and it is increasing all the time. Texas Independence Day is ignored in favor of Cinco de Mayo.

So what the hell do I care what those think and join?

Quote:
The only part of Texas that is the Bible Belt is the northern half of the state. The rest of Texas, including the largest population centers of Houston, DFW( a Catholic island in a Protestant sea), Austin, and San Antonio is not in the Bible Belt.
My point, too, even if in different ways. The "interior southwestern" aspects of Texas, just as the increasing "Catholic" population is overwhelmingly those of northern immigration and/or Hispanic newcomers -- no telling how many illegal -- and no telling too, how many would be gone in a heart-beat if circumstances (jobs, border enforcement, etc) were too change.

Quote:
And there's that. The ONLY part of Texas that lives and breathes Southern, enough to harbor the backwards segregation mindset, is the Eastern portion east of the Trinity, especially around the Piney Woods region, the region Lady Bird Johnson's town (Karnack, TX) was in. Therefore, its easy to see why Lady Bird Johnson made that analogy. The rest of Texas, however, either had no segregation, or had it to an extremely minor presence compared to states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Much of Texas desegregated early, well before the 60s (Thank God! ).
LOL This diversion will not work. The issue of Jim Crow and segregation laws (again, go back and read what I actually wrote) were pretty much correlated to the black/white population of the district itself. Actually, Tennessee had the most "liberal" laws in the former Confederate States. Many west Texas school districts -- where there were little or no black citizens -- declared themselves "in compliance" with the "with all deliberate speed" of the Brown decision, but they could also do so with no social consequences. So Texas was kinda in a unique situation, due to its size and different demographics...

Quote:
Why do you think integration was a mistake? You seem like an intelligent being, so why harbor such backwards sentiments?
I ask the same question from the opposite viewpoint. When, again, did I ever say integration was a mistake? Far as I am concerned, Integration is fine...so long as it is voluntary.

Do I oppose forced busing? Damn right I do. Do I oppose "quotas" -- also known under the euphemism of "affirmative action"? You bet I do.

Quote:
1845 was the year that Texas and Florida joined the United States of America. Please brush up on your history since you did not know that.
I stand corrected on that one. You are right. Both were accepted as states in 1845. Although, the terms of entry were under very different circumstances.

Quote:
Au contraire; the only one really making a fool out of himself/herself is you. All you have done is drink the Kool-Aid and make your arguments biased towards your Southerness, failing to realize that while Texas and Oklahoma have strong southern influence, that is only part of the cultural mix that includes strong Southwestern, Mexican/Spanish, and Native American influence as well. And its so obvious.
See above and other posts. And fer gosh sakes, how in the world could New Mexico and Arizona influence Texas. And Mexico? Yes, there are a few things, but again? SEE again. Mississippi and Alabama are states named after Indian tribes. Sorry buddy, but you seem extremely dense on this simple fact of history. Louisiana is named after the King of France...and belonged to them at one time.

Good lord, what more do you want in order to realize how you seem to defeat your own points???

Quote:
Who are these "others" you speak of ? Maybe you should stop smoking all that coal you got down your stocking this morning because I see its causing some hallucinations. It doesn't matter what you have to say about me; you've already shown your true colors as a complete scrub with a humbug up his/her *** this Christmas season. Aww, you still mad? Its okay; you can continue smoking the piles of coal you have up under your tree if it makes you feel better.
ROFLMAO. Ok, kiddo! Have a good evening and night. I truly apologize if I made you look silly. But ok. Merry Christmas to you and yours. I have no more time to spend with you. After all, I have grandchildren who make better sense and I'd rather sing to them than argue with you!

Have a good one, and maybe we can continue this another time!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 12:20 AM
 
Location: NorCal by way of L.A. and Atlanta
96 posts, read 102,909 times
Reputation: 83
Southernmost southern:
Ocala & Tampa, FL

Westernmost southern:
Houston, TX

Outside The South:
Bakersfield, CA

Last edited by CaliWestCoast; 12-26-2013 at 12:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 05:48 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
6,839 posts, read 6,181,041 times
Reputation: 6119
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
What in the heck are you talking about? I am sorry if you miss a very simple point and application. The migration of this country moved east to west. Now, without going back to look it up, I, perhaps, mistyped. If so, let me make it clear:

The settlement of this country went east to west. A state, like say, Kansas, was settled by those from the eastern Midwest states. That formed the basic culture and history.

On the other hand, It was southeasterners who settled Texas. THAT is the point. That western Texas (most of it, at any rate), is basically the South moved west. Just as Kansas is the Midwest moved a bit west. But both belong to the regions where most of the pioneers came from. .



Again, this makes no sense, and is historically inaccurate. Arizona NEVER seceded in the sense that Texas -- or any other Southern state did -- and joined the Confederacy. It was declared a territory claimed by the Confederacy, by Texans.

And what in the world do you mean that "we have established" that Arizona was a major cotton producer early on. Arizona was not a cotton producer until well into the 20th Century, and it was not even the same type cotton. It was never part of the old "Cotton Belt" and never considered itself so.

Which comes back to the original point, that you are seemingly not getting. That is, you seem to try and use irony to make your point. The thing is, the irony has no basis. Cotton is grown in Kansas, and California, but NEITHER state ever had a Southern identification and history like Texas, and residents today feel a totally different sense of self-identification.

The same is true of Arizona. As was said earlier, cotton is only ONE factor. Your point is extremely simplistic. There are people in Ohio that use the term "y'all" as the second person plural pronoun. Does that make it Southern? Of course not, and same analogy holds true with cotton grown in Arizona.

On the other hand? As said, Texas has always had a Southern identity, settlement, religious and political pattern, speech, etc, etc, pattern, that MAKEDLY distinguish it from Kansas or Colorado or Arizona.



Of course they are obviously different. If one sliced of the trans-pecos "horn" then I would agree it is the true interior SW, of New Mexico and Arizona. If one cut off the area north around Amarillo, it might be considered a part of the Lower Midwest.

BUT, any STATE belongs in a region, and the vast majority of Texas was shaped by settlement from the South. Heck, far as that goes, even Amarillo and Midland have schools named for Confederate heros and Confederate monuments on their county courthouse lawns.

Well, whatever, here is a good one. It comes from the best seller by Raymond Gastil titled "Cultural Regions of the United States:

"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."

But anyway, again! LOL...it is Christmas Day and I want to spend it with my family, not debate. We can continue this another time, if you want.

Merry Christmas!
OK here are my "simplistic" points that you apparently aren't "getting."

Yes, we know migration goes east to west. THEREFORE: The migration into Texas came from the south. AND: The Anglo migration into New Mexico and Arizona came from the south via Texas.

Thus, the territory of Arizona seceded from the Union at the onset of the Civil War. Obviously, it wasn't a state but the anglos where were settled there chose to secede.

POINT: Southern New Mexico and Arizona share some of the same "southernness" that Texas does during that period of time in terms of their early anglo culture.

Yes, I know that those southerners/Texans who settled southern New Mexico and Arizona didn't start growing cotton on until the early 1900s until there was irrigation. But, they didn't grow cotton on the high plains or in southwest Texas until the 1900s either...............For the exact same reason.

Therefore, your "cotton growing" theory doesn't apply to WEST Texas any more than mine does to Arizona.................And again points out to the differences between east and west Texas.

The "western South" you espouse ends somewhere in central Texas to me. However, if you want to say there is a "southwestern south" I would say would wholeheartedly be on board. It just makes no sense to me that you don't want to differentiate between the piney woods culture and the culture in the "almost desert" culture/high plains culture of west Texas.

To use a "southwest" example of the same thing. I would say that the cultures of southern and northern Arizona aren't the same even though they are both in Arizona
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 06:04 AM
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
9,781 posts, read 16,231,639 times
Reputation: 2833
I would say Abilene, TX is where the true south begins.
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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