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)
 
Old 02-01-2014, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,247,479 times
Reputation: 11726

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA View Post
No, but Texas, being large in land area, was what allowed it to produce more cotton than each of those states.
As individual states, yes, but you seem to have missed my point that TX still produces more cotton than all of those states combined. Texas is not larger in land area than AL, GA, FL, SC, NC and VA combined.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2014, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,099 posts, read 4,737,517 times
Reputation: 5374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA View Post
Well, even if that is true, as stated before, Texas is not the Deep South. There is more criteria that is involved when you place a state in the Deep South.
Like being far to the south... like Texas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
1,321 posts, read 2,746,799 times
Reputation: 1464
The Tuskegee statistics on lynching, when related to the population in the various states, show a remarkable rearrangement.

MS 539 904,745 6.195 .0000068
KY 142 241,056 1.632 .0000067
AR 226 393,066 2.598 .0000066
FL 257 463,272 2.954 .0000063
TN 204 449,095 2.615 .0000058
GA 492 1,053,067 5.655 .0000053
LA 335 774,187 3.850 .0000049
TX 352 827,696 4.046 .0000048
WV 28 75,683 0.322 . 0000042
AL 299 870,631 3.437 .0000039
OK 40 130,649 0.494 .0000037
MO 69 242,880 0.793 .0000032
SC 156 782,410 1.793 .0000022
VA 83 701,234 0.954 .0000013
NC 86 836,781 0.988 .0000011
MD 27 331,985 0.310 .000009

The first number is the total number of black lynchings, the second number is the average black population averaged over the years of statistic keeping, the third number is incidents per year, and the last number is a "personal risk" number.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,247,479 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking of that, since those stats aren't common knowledge. But they are rather eye-opening in several ways. Georgia's really surprised me.
That's really the first thing I think of. I'm like "Where would my black ass not wanna be in 1920?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
Off-topic a bit, but it's interesting that SC had among the least number of lynchings in that period but among the highest rates of out-migration during the Great Migration years.
Probably a combination of racism and less economic opportunity than what existed in VA and NC at the time (and to the present day, really). I mean, there was also a lot of out-migration from VA and NC too, but those states also absorbed a lot of black migration from other southern states. In Lee Daniels' "The Butler," for example, the main character moves from Georgia to North Carolina before eventually making his way to Washington, DC. That type of migration was fairly common during that period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 05:08 PM
 
Location: A subtropical paradise
2,069 posts, read 2,199,967 times
Reputation: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieSkoon View Post

Incorrect.

Texas is indeed in the deep south.

Let's see how pointlessly cyclical our argument becomes shall we?
No, Texas is not in the Deep South; I don't know what possessed you to think otherwise.

Deep South - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas is in the western south, along with Oklahoma. The two are the least Southern of all the Southern states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
As individual states, yes, but you seem to have missed my point that TX still produces more cotton than all of those states combined. Texas is not larger in land area than AL, GA, FL, SC, NC and VA combined.
Well, as stated before, there is more to it than just cotton and lynchings when deciding whether or not a state is in the Deep South.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieSkoon View Post
Like being far to the south... like Texas.
No, the Deep South is a cultural designation, not a geographic designation.

Being to the far south, in fact, allows Texas to have more of the un-southern Mexican influence compared to many other Southern states; it allows Texas to be the state with the largest geographic border with Mexico

The far Southern parts of Texas, such as Corpus Christi, and Brownsville have no Southern influence whatsoever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,247,479 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA View Post
No, Texas is not in the Deep South; I don't know what possessed you to think otherwise.

Deep South - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas is in the western south, along with Oklahoma. The two are the least Southern of all the Southern states.
You realize that your link includes Texas in the "Deep South," right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA View Post
Well, as stated before, there is more to it than just cotton and lynchings when deciding whether or not a state is in the Deep South.
Being way down South, having slavery, fighting for the confederacy, producing more cotton than any other state, ranking third in lynchings, etc. don't do the trick?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,247,479 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobilee View Post
The Tuskegee statistics on lynching, when related to the population in the various states, show a remarkable rearrangement.

MS 539 904,745 6.195 .0000068
KY 142 241,056 1.632 .0000067
AR 226 393,066 2.598 .0000066
FL 257 463,272 2.954 .0000063
TN 204 449,095 2.615 .0000058
GA 492 1,053,067 5.655 .0000053
LA 335 774,187 3.850 .0000049
TX 352 827,696 4.046 .0000048
WV 28 75,683 0.322 . 0000042
AL 299 870,631 3.437 .0000039
OK 40 130,649 0.494 .0000037
MO 69 242,880 0.793 .0000032
SC 156 782,410 1.793 .0000022
VA 83 701,234 0.954 .0000013
NC 86 836,781 0.988 .0000011
MD 27 331,985 0.310 .000009

The first number is the total number of black lynchings, the second number is the average black population averaged over the years of statistic keeping, the third number is incidents per year, and the last number is a "personal risk" number.
So Texas had a higher "risk factor" than Alabama. That's saying something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 05:25 PM
 
6,611 posts, read 6,929,047 times
Reputation: 4077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA View Post
I don't need to own anything; I am not from Texas, or any other Southern State; I just visited the region long enough to know what it the Deep South (i.e. Mississippi) and what isn't (Texas).

I never said Atlanta and New Orleans didn't have their own cultural influences; All I said was that they didn't have the western essence Houston shares with the fellow Texas Triangle cities of San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas.
Oh okay...you were posting as if you were a resident of Texas. So you're just a visiting expert? There are a lot of those on city-data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 05:39 PM
 
Location: A subtropical paradise
2,069 posts, read 2,199,967 times
Reputation: 1329
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
You realize that your link includes Texas in the "Deep South," right?
I advise for you to see an optician. The states highlighted in the link were the original confederate states, which does include Texas. The states that were then highlighted in dark red show the states that are a part of the Deep South, in which Texas is clearly not included in. Here are some snippets from the source itself.

"When "Deep South" first appeared in print in the middle of the 20th century, it applied to the states and areas of Mississippi, north Louisiana, southern Alabama and Georgia, Northern and Central Florida. This was the part of the South many considered the "most Southern."

Later, the general definition expanded to include all of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, often taking in bordering areas of East Texas and the original inclusion of North Florida and Central Florida. In its broadest application today, the Deep South is considered to be "an area roughly coextensive with the old cotton belt from eastern North Carolina through South Carolina west into East Texas, with extensions north and south along the Mississippi"
- Wikipedia

Only a small sliver in East Texas around the Piney Woods, at best, can be considered the Deep South in the broadest definition. Much of the rest of Texas is in the Western South, the south crossed with a southwestern essence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Being way down South, having slavery, fighting for the confederacy, producing more cotton than any other state, ranking third in lynchings, etc. don't do the trick?
Sounds like Florida, and yet people go on and on about how it isn't that Southern of a state.

Yes it doesn't do the trick. Being way down south is only geographic, not cultural; and it means Texas gets the added Mexican influence that dilutes the Southerness. Slavery and the whole Civil War ordeal was rather watered down in Texas compared to the other states in the South, cotton really isn't solely a Southern thing (California produces a lot of it too), and lynchings were manly confined in the deep eastern section of the state.

The cities of El Paso, Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Brownsville, and Corpus Christi are all in the Western South, not the Deep South.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 05:45 PM
 
6,611 posts, read 6,929,047 times
Reputation: 4077
Some people are experts on everything. LOL!

I'm not sure why it would be such a passionate argument for someone that has only visited Texas.
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