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.
Okay, but annoying? I honestly don't see Texans any worse than anyone else on these forums. Because the way we see it, everybody else can be very annoying.
It's like, everybody else gets to have pride in their state, and everybody else gets to defend their state, but when we do it all of a sudden we're annoying.
Personally, I think the Californians are the most annoying!
Like i said before i do not think any city does dominate the south that said even if Atlanta dominated every other state in the south that was not Texas you could say it is dominate over the south. Texas contains more people than Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and half of Louisiana put together. So to Say Atlanta seems it would be off. But the again Florida has its own dominant city's so like i said none.
Only thing I would add is that the "Southwest" needs to be qualified in this context as being Texas, and extending into Louisiana, southern Oklahoma and parts of Arkansas. That is to say, if Dallas (or Houston) have no inflence west of the Mississippi River, they have even less into the "true" American Southwest of New Mexico and Arizona.
I'd use the labels 'Western South" and "Eastern South." Differences (especially in Texas) for sure...but culturally and historically more akin to one another than any states north or west....
Riddle me this.....And Ill just preface this with the disclaimer that this is nothing to restart the civil war over (not you TexReb, but posters in general); just a pedantically, derivative questionat most. But:
GEOGRAPHICALLY speaking, if Texas is henceforth to be classified as sitting in the western south, then logic follows that Arizona & New Mexico would comprise the Southern West...right?
So inversely would it be accurate to assert that ALL states below the Mason-Dixon and east of Alabama (see: Florida, Georgia, Carolinas) would then be considered the Southern East?....Ergo, would Alabama/Tennessee/Mississippi not, by default, become the Eastern south? ... While Texas/Louisiana/Arkansas (Oklahoma?) retained the classification, of course: the Western South?
Just food for thought, not a mandate.
Last edited by solytaire; 01-02-2008 at 01:15 PM..
Houston anchors the Gulf Coast. Additionally, Houston is a major node of medical and energy services.
What's so hard about considering Dallas the Southwest. I mean, look at the names of some of the present and past companies that have been based in Dallas: Southwest Airlines, Southwestern Bell, etc. Also, Dallas, nor Houston, is perceived as the major regional city by people living in Florida, the Carolinas, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississipppi, or Virginia.
At that same tolken, Atlanta doesn't hold in sway in Texas, Oklahoma, or New Mexico and it doesn't hold as much sway as Dallas does in Arkansas or western Lousisiana.
As for the one poster saying that Atlanta doesn't hold as much sway in the Southeast as Miami, they couldn't be further from the truth. First of all, Miami is a center for international commerce and intergovernmental relations between the Carribean Basin and Latin America, and North America. It's not oriented towards the Southeast despite its location. Also, further proof that Atlanta is seen as the anchor in the Southeast even in Florida is that a large portion of the graduates from Florida colleges and universities move to the Atlanta area for work.
Like i said before i do not think any city does dominate the south that said even if Atlanta dominated every other state in the south that was not Texas you could say it is dominate over the south. Texas contains more people than Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and half of Louisiana put together. So to Say Atlanta seems it would be off. But the again Florida has its own dominant city's so like i said none.
Georgia,Florida, the Carolinas, and Tennessee combined have an area of 230,000 sq miles compared to Texas 260,000. But have a combined population of over 46,000,000. That's more people than any state in the union including California or Texas.
While I would not say Atlanta dominates this entire region that's only because Miami has a strong influence in most of Florida.
One might argue that Georgia is the dominate city in the Georgia, Carolinas, Tennessee, Alabama, North Florida, North Mississippi region. (Atlanta is actually closer to north Florida cities than Miami. So many Atlantans visit Pensecola,Fla that it's nicknamed Atlanta Beach). This is an area with a greater population than Texas.
Houston anchors the Gulf Coast. Additionally, Houston is a major node of medical and energy services.
Houston anchors the Gulf Coast. Houston and Dallas anchor the western south. Not the southwest.
Quote:
What's so hard about considering Dallas the Southwest. I mean, look at the names of some of the present and past companies that have been based in Dallas: Southwest Airlines, Southwestern Bell, etc.
There are a lot of things in Texas that are described as "Southwest _____", but for anybody who knows first hand about the dfferences between Texas and the rest of the southwest would not throw Dallas in that category. Dallas is the south. Period. Phoenix anchors the southwest.
Quote:
Also, Dallas, nor Houston, is perceived as the major regional city by people living in Florida, the Carolinas, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississipppi, or Virginia.
You do not know that. I'm sure there are plenty of people in these areas who view Houston and Dallas as the most prominent southern towns for the simple fact that they have more power. And people in Virginia don't likely look to Atlanta. They look to D.C., since they're in the mid-Atlantic.
Quote:
At that same tolken, Atlanta doesn't hold in sway in Texas, Oklahoma, or New Mexico and it doesn't hold as much sway as Dallas does in Arkansas or western Lousisiana.
I doubt any southern city holds any sway in New Mexico. And I would say that all of Louisiana and some of Mississippi is influenced by Houston and Dallas. For example, music native to Texas is very popular in both states.
The way I see it, when you really think about it, Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta all have some influence and "sway" all over the south. Because each of those three cities has something it specializes in. For instance, I know some people who grew up with me and chose the Atlanta area for school/career, and there are tons of Georgia natives who chose to live in Houston. If you live in the south and you're looking for a career in IT, your eyes would likely be on Dallas. If you're looking for a career in marketing or journalism, your eyes might be on Atlanta. And if you've always dreamed of being in medicine, energy, or finance, you'll likely be interested in Houston.
To me, all major cities are a beacon of light throughout the whole south.
Riddle me this.....And Ill just preface this with the disclaimer that this is nothing to restart the civil war over (not you TexReb, but posters in general); just a pedantically, derivative questionat most. But:
GEOGRAPHICALLY speaking, if Texas is henceforth to be classified as sitting in the western south, then logic follows that Arizona & New Mexico would comprise the Southern West...right?
So inversely would it be accurate to assert that ALL states below the Mason-Dixon and east of Alabama (see: Florida, Georgia, Carolinas) would then be considered the Southern East?....Ergo, would Alabama/Tennessee/Mississippi not, by default, become the Eastern south? ... While Texas/Louisiana/Arkansas (Oklahoma?) retained the classification, of course: the Western South?
Just food for thought, not a mandate.
LOL Good question, Solytaire. And for sure you are not being facitious, are you? *grins*
But seriously, we are not talking about geography (othewise Texas would be indisputedly South Central), but cultural (which embraces history, etc). So let me start from the beginning! And bear with me, ol buddy! LOL Because I am going try to kill a couple of birds with one one stone!
The sub-region 'Western South" (far as I know) was originally coined by Raymond Gastil in his 1975 work "Cultural Regions of the United States". The country was divided into four major regions, and within each were sub-regions. While his smaller boundary lines might be quibbled with, the main point is that, yes, New Mexico and Arizona were, rightly, part of a larger West while Texas was part of, again rightly, the "South." This distinction is very important because, wellll "Southwest" is so damn confusing!
"The Encylopedia of Southern Culture." (I don't have a copy of it at home, so am going from memory) included an article on the evolution of the term "Southwest". Originally, it meant, the frontier states of the South, and consisted of Alabama, Missisippi, and Tennesee. Then went on to Louisiana and Arkansas. Finally, Texas.
Sometime after the War Between the States, it sort of solidified into being defined as Texas and, to a lesser extent, Arkansas, and to some degree, Oklahoma. The main point being that at no time was the term used to denote a wholely seperate region, but rather, a sort of "twin" to the "southeast, which together made up The South.
As time went on though, and westward migration continued, for geographical reasons, New Mexico and Arizona began to be called the Southwest and, as the article in Ency. Southern Culture put it (paraphrased from recollection), "the relationship to the South became increasingly unclear..."
This is sort of where it stands today. That is, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico all being considered "Southwestern", yet too often no historical and cultural distinction between the former and the latter two when applying the label. So it DOES get confusing. Those in the latter two states tend to reject any sense of "Southwestern brotherhood" with us, and likewise, most Texans don't think of ourselves being Southwestern in the same vein with them.
I don't want to keep belaboring the point, but Texas is southwest as in "western South". A place where Southern history, religion, culture, folkways, traditions, etc are flavored with Western dress, wide-open spaces, and free-spirited individuality (for the most part, that is. East Texas is where the Deep South of the southeast begins). On the other hand, New Mexico and Arizona are the true hispanic/indian influenced Southwest of the West.
Assuming you are still awake here ..and to address your original question. Yeah, the states east of the Mississippi River and south of the Ohio and Potomic River are the "Eastern South." (NOT southern EAST" as that denotes a whole different "Greater" region! LOL) as a twin of the Western South, together making up "The South"
BUT of course, usually those in the "eastern South" don't have to make such distinctions -- as do those of us in Texas, when seemingly having to claim our undisputed Southern birthright -- when they are also called "Southeast"!
Oh man...I need to go have a beer. As the old Dobie Gray song goes...I seem to have gotten lost in the rock and roll...and am drifting away!
mpope & texasreb's comments regarding the southwest vs western south are right on the money.
there was a lot of discussion about airports earlier - this just came out today:
Atlanta airport remains busiest in U.S. - Yahoo! News (broken link)
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.
