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.
Did you take a single American history culture in college?
American culture broadly was based upon three different settlement patterns which formulated in the colonial era.
1. Yankees were people who started out in New England. They spread westward through Upstate New York, and settled all around the Great Lakes, pushing as far inward as the Dakotas. They also are the ancestors of the Mormons (who came from New England stock), and left a large impact on both San Francisco culture (due to the preponderance of New Englanders among the early settlers), and to a lesser degree the Pacific Northwest.
2. Midland culture filtered westward from Philadelphia, and is still clearly recognizable in a broad band through the lower Midwest (in areas which didn't directly touch the Great Lakes) as far out as Missouri and Iowa. Further west it tended to blend more with Yankee influence.
3. Southern culture came in two varieties, the lowland southern form, and highland southern (appalachian). For the most part, both stalled out in Texas, although in the 20th century, migrations of southerners to parts of California (such as the "Okies" to the Bakersfield area) added more of a southern feel.
Regardless, for the most part, the original settlers "set the tone" which everyone who follows assimilates into. It's why, for example, the Latino accent in NYC isn't really all that different from the old white ethnic NYC accent, which was itself picked up by Eastern European/Italian immigrants from earlier groups, and so on. The first large-scale white migration to the Los Angeles area, for example, was people from the Midwest, thus the local generic accent is more similar to a generic Midwestern accent than anything else.
Later immigrants, including Asians and Latinos, don't matter. NYC has tons of Asians and Latinos. Is it no longer northern? Is Chicago no longer northern because it has a whole swathe of Mexican neighborhoods? Is Texas not part of the south because it has huge Tejano areas?
Further, for all the massive Latino influence upon somewhere like Southern California, it's not as if you're seeing Anglos and Asians shifting to speaking Spanish. Hell, second/third generation Latinos usually speak little to no Spanish at all. Veeners of Latino influence are being added, the same way that New York City got bagels and dozens of Yiddish insults from Jews. But it doesn't change the fundamental base of the West in Northern (which, yes, means non-southern) culture.
Here's a few things you missed out on.
Dust Bowl Migrants from Oklahoma and Arkansas made up the second largest number of migrants after Midwesterners during the growth of Southern California. They settled mainly in Central and Eastern LA county and moved to the IE after White flight. Some of their influence could still be seen in the Inland Empire and East SD.
Southrrn California in the last 30 years has been reinvented by the Asian and Latin American immigrants. These groups did not assimlate to the Anglo American culture, and created their own subcultures. Outside of San Diego and some Anglo American enclaves. Southern California doesn't really fit in General American culture. Its become a Cosmopolitan mix of different subcultures that's different from most of America.
culturally & politically the west coast has more in common with the northeast
not that they are exactly the same but over all have more liberal and progressive values than the rest of the nation as a whole .
no, i'm mexican. why would i take a US history course?
Mexican in Thailand? Surprising, but whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foadi
according to everything i've ever read on the subject, socal anglos are midwest and south. and blacks are south. bay area is new england influenced, not socal.
fairly accurate, although the Mormon influence on SoCal means there's some New England-based influence as well. But really, the "culture" of nonwhite minorities isn't considered relevant in these cases. I know I've brought up in discussions of Maryland/DC being Southern or Northern that black culture is very southern in both, to the rejoinder that "blacks don't count" insofar as the North/South discussion.
When we talk about the "region" of the U.S., we mean mainstream "white" culture. This includes fully assimilated minorities, like the children/grandchildren of immigrants. It excludes those who aren't assimilated, who can include people like the Amish who have been here for centuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foadi
east texas is south. i don't think south or west texas have ever been considered south.
If you're going to split the state into regions, this is true. But the state as a whole has so many commonalities with the South (including, you know, being part of the CSA) which trumps things considerably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeridianX
culturally & politically the west coast has more in common with the northeast
not that they are exactly the same but over all have more liberal and progressive values than the rest of the nation as a whole .
You should be careful using contemporary politics as a guide to understand culture. As I said, the Dakotas and Utah are both areas culturally descended from Yankee stock, but despite many underlying commonalities (such as a communitarian spirit), they are very different now on politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipcat
Dust Bowl Migrants from Oklahoma and Arkansas made up the second largest number of migrants after Midwesterners during the growth of Southern California. They settled mainly in Central and Eastern LA county and moved to the IE after White flight. Some of their influence could still be seen in the Inland Empire and East SD.
There were many southerners who migrated to SoCal. But they tended to assimilate into the Anglo culture as a whole, except for places they were totally dominant and moved into an almost uninhabited area. Hence why the only place whites in California talk a little southern is the southern branch of the Central Valley.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipcat
Southern California in the last 30 years has been reinvented by the Asian and Latin American immigrants. These groups did not assimlate to the Anglo American culture, and created their own subcultures. Outside of San Diego and some Anglo American enclaves. Southern California doesn't really fit in General American culture. Its become a Cosmopolitan mix of different subcultures that's different from most of America.
Presuming immigration slows down, that will change. Everyone assimilates to the local U.S. cultural norm eventually, except for blacks, due to the longstanding black/white dichotomy in American culture.
Presuming immigration slows down, that will change. Everyone assimilates to the local U.S. cultural norm eventually, except for blacks, due to the longstanding black/white dichotomy in American culture.
Mexican Americans have their own Chicano culture that's been around for nearly 100 years in Los Angeles. Most still speak in a Mexican type of accent even if they know little to no Spanish. They make up the largest group in Southern California and dont have to assimilate to the local Anglo American culture. Unlike the other immigrant groups. Mexico is only a few hours away, and most Mexican Americans still have relatives in Mexico keeping the cultural connection.
There's been a massive White flight out of Southern California in the last 30 years, and the local culture has been changed by the non White immigrants. Its become a true polyglot. There are street signs that have Chinese letters on them(in Monterey Park), Strip Malls that have Korean lettering, Spanish on nearly every sign in Los Angeles. Its been that way for the nearly 26 years I lived in So Cal
. The immgrants here are creating their own Amercanized cultures, not assimilating to the local White culture.
My point is that Anglo American culture is weak in the Los Angeles area. And in the next 25 years will be weaker in So Cal due to White flight.
your line of reasoning implies that if you it's not southern, it's northern. it's that bad.
the reality is that it is western.
1) No.
2) Whatever.
3) Yes, but irrelevant to the question.
Look at the question posed by this thread. Consider what the "North/South divide" exactly is. Hint: that divide took the lives of over 2% of the Nation's population. Consider the "West" is part of that Nation. Consider the West Coast states were admitted as free states.
What side of that specific "divide", the most defining schism in American history, does the West fall on? Considering foreign nations took sides on the divide, claiming one region of our own nation was somehow exempt from that either/or cultural and political affiliation is simply not an answer.
Do yourself and see the movie "42". On her visit to the South, Rachel Robinson is stunned to see a "Whites Only" restroom, because she had never seen one in California. That was 1947. You can't simply can't claim the her home state did not align itself more closely with one side of that divide than the other.
Do yourself and see the movie "42". On her visit to the South, Rachel Robinson is stunned to see a "Whites Only" restroom, because she had never seen one in California. That was 1947. You can't simply can't claim the her home state did not align itself more closely with one side of that divide than the other.
I think that's a poor argument. If we're going to talk about racial strife as defining a tendency towards the South or North then California is by far more in line with the Southern sentiments given its former policies against Asians and Latinos. California has a bit of a nasty history with lynchings, intimidation, economic and political efforts to enforce racial hierarchies which puts it much closer to the South's less than sparkling record. Just because a woman was surprised by a sign it doesn't mean there wasn't a less blatantly or legally marked, but equally enforced, racial line drawn in California during the 1800s and early 1900s.
I think that's a poor argument. If we're going to talk about racial strife as defining a tendency towards the South or North then California is by far more in line with the Southern sentiments given its former policies against Asians and Latinos. California has a bit of a nasty history with lynchings, intimidation, economic and political efforts to enforce racial hierarchies which puts it much closer to the South's less than sparkling record. Just because a woman was surprised by a sign it doesn't mean there wasn't a less blatantly or legally marked, but equally enforced, racial line drawn in California during the 1800s and early 1900s.
But that "less blatantly or legally marked" difference is not insignificant. Personal and institutional racism is endemic to the whole nation. No place is exempt and any progress is incremental. With those realities in mind and for purposes of identifying on what side of "north/south divide" the west coast properly falls, there simply was (and is) no regionally specific, "that's how things are donedown here" cultural identity that encouraged resistance to change to the extent it did in the South. That is an important distinction and one that should not be ignored just to spare the feelings of Southerners.
Once you go west of Minnesota, the "North/South" cultural debate immediately loses water, because starting with the Dakotas, all the states from south to north become heavily conservative. Until you hit the west coast, in which case it's pretty much all liberal from north to south. Sure, southern/northern means much more than solely political stances, but the general idea is the north is snobby and looks down on the south and the south hates the north and wants to be independent of the north. Going by this logic, the west coast most definitely is more related to the north than the south.
The west coast though really was influenced by all over the place, people from all over the country moved there during the gold rush, as well as during the building of railroads.
Wow, are people really linking slavery to anything that happened in California? Nothing west of Texas was a slave state.
Yeah anything past the plans is pure western. I know Bakersfield was influenced by like culture during the dust-bowl, and Wyoming had Texan migrants but most of the west is more northen influenced hence why the west stayed in the union while Texas was the only state west of the Mississippi to join the Confederate States.
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.
