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.
Hipanics are just as much a part of the state as others. I don't see why the fact we're Catholic because of hispanics makes a difference.
In fact, if it weren't for Hispanics, California/Arizona/NM wouldn't be Catholic states either.
Somehow I knew this argument would be made, and it is an emotional one too, in many ways, as you mentioned earlier others were doing. That is, to suggest (or maybe you didn't and I misunderstood) that to bring out the fact the reason for a high Catholic population in Texas is because of hispanics, is to also denigrate their culture or something (again, I apologize if I misunderstood).
First of all, Texas is not a "Catholic state", anyway. Protestants outnumber Catholics and anglo's and blacks are overwhelming likely to be protestant. With the Southern Baptist Church easily the largest protestant denomination. And no one dismisses Texas from the traditional Bible Belt (which is mostly Southern states where fundamentalist religion has always played a large role in the culture). By the way, Louisiana too has a large Catholic population which -- unlike in Texas -- is not hispanic. And while it makes them somewhat atypical from other "Deep South" states in the realm of religious demographics, it hardly negages their credentials as one! LOL
As it may though, unlike in the true SW states (New Mexico, Arizona, maybe southern California) the hispanic population boom is a fairly recent phenomenon, and no telling how much is illegal. The latter factor especially being one which can hardly be discounted when looking at Texas religious culture from a broad historical perspective. It is this contemporary (and uncertain) development -- not anything entrenched and long-standing --which accounts for a large Catholic population.
As Raymond Gastil in his book "Cultural Regions of the United States" (where he put almost the entire state of Texas in a sub-region of the "Greater South" aptly named the "western South") he noted the vast differences with the true SW (or "southern West" ! LOL), one of which was the hispanic influence. As he put it: 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."
And again, this is not to disparage any people and culture, but to note an historical demographic fact. From another angle, race-relations (both good and bad), as well as laws in Texas back in the pre-Civil Rights Days was like that of other Southern states...that is, overall, defined as a black/white duality. Sometime this wasn't pleasant, of course (Jim Crow Laws, for instance), but it was history.
Anyway, could this change in demographics (booming hispanic population) affect over the long term? (as it has in Florida, apparently). Quite possibly, if it continues (and there is no certainty one way or another if it will or won't. Immigration laws or lack of them will play a role in it). But I am looking at a broad historical picture when considering Texas' basic regional affiliation, not recent trends which have yet to become clear.
Oh well, gotta get to work. Hard to read and reply much during the workweek...usually gotta wait til the weekend!
Somehow I knew this argument would be made, and it is an emotional one too, in many ways, as you mentioned earlier others were doing. That is, to suggest (or maybe you didn't and I misunderstood) that to bring out the fact the reason for a high Catholic population in Texas is because of hispanics, is to also denigrate their culture or something (again, I apologize if I misunderstood).
First of all, Texas is not a "Catholic state", anyway. Protestants outnumber Catholics and anglo's and blacks are overwhelming likely to be protestant. With the Southern Baptist Church easily the largest protestant denomination. And no one dismisses Texas from the traditional Bible Belt (which is mostly Southern states where fundamentalist religion has always played a large role in the culture). By the way, Louisiana too has a large Catholic population which -- unlike in Texas -- is not hispanic. And while it makes them somewhat atypical from other "Deep South" states in the realm of religious demographics, it hardly negages their credentials as one! LOL
As it may though, unlike in the true SW states (New Mexico, Arizona, maybe southern California) the hispanic population boom is a fairly recent phenomenon, and no telling how much is illegal. The latter factor especially being one which can hardly be discounted when looking at Texas religious culture from a broad historical perspective. It is this contemporary (and uncertain) development -- not anything entrenched and long-standing --which accounts for a large Catholic population.
As Raymond Gastil in his book "Cultural Regions of the United States" (where he put almost the entire state of Texas in a sub-region of the "Greater South" aptly named the "western South") he noted the vast differences with the true SW (or "southern West" ! LOL), one of which was the hispanic influence. As he put it: 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."
And again, this is not to disparage any people and culture, but to note an historical demographic fact. From another angle, race-relations (both good and bad), as well as laws in Texas back in the pre-Civil Rights Days was like that of other Southern states...that is, overall, defined as a black/white duality. Sometime this wasn't pleasant, of course (Jim Crow Laws, for instance), but it was history.
Anyway, could this change in demographics (booming hispanic population) affect over the long term? (as it has in Florida, apparently). Quite possibly, if it continues (and there is no certainty one way or another if it will or won't. Immigration laws or lack of them will play a role in it). But I am looking at a broad historical picture when considering Texas' basic regional affiliation, not recent trends which have yet to become clear.
Oh well, gotta get to work. Hard to read and reply much during the workweek...usually gotta wait til the weekend!
No, no emotional argument. I was just pointing out that, as a matter of fact, Hispanics are just as much a part of a state's demographics as any other group.
It doesn't matter that it's relatively new (although that's a bit misleading since TX has had a huge hispanic population since its founding).
And it **is** a Catholic state. Go back to the demographic maps, it has the data plain and simple and even labels those four states, including TX, as "Catholic." A plurality of Texans are Catholic. No one denomination has a majority. But Catholicism is the single biggest one.
As far as the source of the white people, historically lots came from the south. But that trend is changing especially in the cities where a majority or at least a huge number are from other regions of the U.S., and foreign countries. I'm sure in rural areas most are historically southern, but that's not where most of the population is. This trend will only strengthen as time goes on and we keep getting 500k migrants per year.
But if Texas was the south, it has the most progressive cities hands down. Dallas and Austin? Nowhere in the south compares...Atlanta is mostly blacks who are not socially liberal, while Dallas and Houston and Austin are very progressive and gay friendly, more so than L.A. imo.
No, no emotional argument. I was just pointing out that, as a matter of fact, Hispanics are just as much a part of a state's demographics as any other group.
It doesn't matter that it's relatively new (although that's a bit misleading since TX has had a huge hispanic population since its founding).
And it **is** a Catholic state. Go back to the demographic maps, it has the data plain and simple and even labels those four states, including TX, as "Catholic." A plurality of Texans are Catholic. No one denomination has a majority. But Catholicism is the single biggest one.
As far as the source of the white people, historically lots came from the south. But that trend is changing especially in the cities where a majority or at least a huge number are from other regions of the U.S., and foreign countries. I'm sure in rural areas most are historically southern, but that's not where most of the population is. This trend will only strengthen as time goes on and we keep getting 500k migrants per year.
And as pointed out though, no telling how much of the hispanic population (and by extention, the cooresponding recent rise in Catholic church membership) is illegal. Regardless though, Texas is *not* a Catholic state. The Protestant denominations together outnumber Catholics. You can call this splitting hairs, but fact is, Texas is -- and always has been -- part of the so-called Bible Belt with a heavily majority protestant population among natives and those preceding them, especially Southern Baptist.
I saw the map you furnished, but it doesn't reflect the above very relevant fact in this realm..which makes it misleading. Here are two other maps:
In fact, Louisiana is a "Catholic state" by your criterion, and to a much more noteable and historic degree than Texas.
The hispanic population in Texas has never been (until recently) "huge". At least as compared with the true modern-day Southwest. The reason the Mexican government opened the area now the State of Texas to settlement to begin with was to populate it (and of course make money). This was done overwhelmingly by Southerners (black and white). After the Texas Revolution, most hispanics left the state for Mexico (although yes, many areas in South Texas were an exception) and for the longest time it was blacks who were easily the "majority minority."
The present day trends you mention must wait to be clarified. Presently, they are just that..trends. Although, granted, strong ones. Yet, the same trends (more new hispanics, heavy northern immigration) are also taking place in other states traditionally considered the American South (even in parts of the Deep South).
Many newcomers recent to Texas from California and northern states for job opportunities and such, are just as likely to leave if the favorable situation changes. In any case, many -- if not most -- do not consider themselves Texans nor feel any kinship with its history and culture. Further, while it may not be politically correct to say it, many present day hispanic immigrants feel the same way, some even hostile to it. And while I do not discount the influence of the new arrivals in certain areas and how it impacts the state, it hardly compares, IMHO -- in terms of priority and emphasis ala' regional groupings -- with the larger picture spanning over 150 years of statehood.
BTW -- I appreciate that we can exchange different points of view and perceptions in a civil manner. Although, the original question -- just as in macrocosm, the even larger one of exactly what states are indeed "the South" -- will never get settled to everyone's satisfaction! A lot of it is academic and at least noteably dependent on ones' own experience, observations, and priorities/definitions as to what exactly makes the South "Southern" at all.
But if Texas was the south, it has the most progressive cities hands down. Dallas and Austin? Nowhere in the south compares...Atlanta is mostly blacks who are not socially liberal, while Dallas and Houston and Austin are very progressive and gay friendly, more so than L.A. imo.
Atlanta has a very significant liberal white population as does suburban DeKalb County. Many neighborhoods inside of the city are somewhat reminiscent of Austin in fact. Given the younger, diverse, and educated demographic in Atlanta, this shouldn't be a surprise. Also Atlanta has one of the largest gay communities in the US.
As far as Texas being Southern, it most definitely is. It may not be Southeast, but it's definitely Southern. The state was settled and founded by Southerners, joined the Confederacy, and contributed heavily to the musical traditions of the South (i.e. blues in Dallas's Deep Ellum). Additionally, its economy has been tied heavily to the South's, especially given that Texas is the biggest cotton-producing state in the US.
Many people outside of the South falsely believe that the South is a monolithic place where the accents are the same as well as the people. Hollywood doesn't help at all given the countless number of horribly imitated Southern accents on the silver screen. Southerns are extremely diverse, representing cultures that have been present for centuries including Applachain highlanders, Gullah, Cajuns, Creoles, and some of the oldest Jewish communities in the US. Accents often change when traveling from town to town--even in the same state. For example, the Appalachain/Piedmont accent in Greenville, SC is very distinct from the coastal accents that you would hear in Charleston. Accents in Shrevport, LA are extremely different than accents in New Orleans.
Texans are another distinct group of Southerners with cultural influences not only from the Scots Irish who settled there, but also from Mexicans, Spaniards, and the Central Europeans who settled in Central Texas. Once people get past the fact that the South is diverse in people as well as terrain, they will more easily see that Texas is part of the South.
South-to-west, how would you classify the state of Florida. It seems that many do not believe it is southern. I know how it was found but all of the residents that I speak to look at themselves as Southerners.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,463 posts, read 44,090,617 times
Reputation: 16856
Quote:
Originally Posted by txguy2009
Exactly. Impossible to categorize.
But if Texas was the south, it has the most progressive cities hands down. Dallas and Austin? Nowhere in the south compares...Atlanta ismostly blacks who are not socially liberal, while Dallas and Houston and Austin are very progressive and gay friendly, more so than L.A. imo.
South-to-west, how would you classify the state of Florida. It seems that many do not believe it is southern. I know how it was found but all of the residents that I speak to look at themselves as Southerners.
Florida for the most part is Southern. The northern and central parts of the state are Deep South for sure--including the areas surrounding Lake Okeechobee in South Florida. It's true that a lot of in-migration from the North and abroad has overshadowed the Southern roots of the state, but it is Southern. Even in Miami, the local African American population (not including Carribean blacks) is very Southern in regards to dialect, cuisine, and history.
Other cities such as Orlando and Tampa have Southern roots, which are evident when exploring the older neighborhoods and noticing the architecture of the homes and buildings. A great example of Florida's Southern roots is Zora Neale Hurston. She grew up in a community on the outskirts of Orlando that greatly influenced her stories, which were based in the rural Deep South.
By that definition, Maryland should be considered the South, too. "Northern" culture is not native to the state. Many of the county symbols have an image of a tobacco leaf on it, for Christ's sake. Look at the historic plantations, mainly scattered throughout the eastern part of the state. The Baltimore accent, listen to it. It shares similarities with the Tidewater one, and though people group it with the Philadelphia accent -- it sounds different. Though it didn't join the Confederacy(officially anyway), an argument can be made that it was the first Southern state to be invaded during the war(depending on your perspective) it had strong Southern ties before and after, evidenced by the legal implementation of Jim Crow in the state. It's close to the "North", and "Northern" culture dominates most of the state now. But get off the beaten path of 95 every once in a while, and tell me those areas are "Northern". For those who say Maryland is not Southern and is part of the Northeast, I say take a look at its history, and the few relics of the South that exist today.
"Southern" doesn't exist anymore. If you want to find anything that closely resembles it, you have to go to rural areas. It's a urban-suburban/exurban-rural thing these days. To call Florida a Southern state and exclude the Southern part of the state just because the "Southerness" is different or not glaringly obvious is contradictory. I suppose all Southerners are heavily religious, are only of two colors, drink sweet tea and eat grits, say y'all, move slow refer to everyone from "foreign" places as "Yankees", too.
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.
Although, the original question -- just as in macrocosm, the even larger one of exactly what states are indeed "the South" -- will never get settled to everyone's satisfaction! A lot of it is academic and at least noteably dependent on ones' own experience, observations, and priorities/definitions as to what exactly makes the South "Southern" at all. 
