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.
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.
Nobody is arguing with you. I never excluded the southern part of Florida in my post as I referenced the areas around Lake Okeechobee and the native African American population in Miami.
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.
OUTSTANDING post, South to West, and wish I could give you another rep point (but apparently I did sometime back, and can't for the time being! LOL).
Anyway, the musical connection -- in all its implications -- is one I hadn't thought of initially as to being one of many things which bonds Texas to the South at large. The "country music" is a given of course, but the "blues" is one which is often overlooked. Here is a good link and excerpt on the subject:
During the middle to late 1800s, the Deep South was home to hundreds of seminal bluesmen who helped to shape the music. Unfortunately, much of this original music followed these sharecroppers to their graves. But the legacy of these earliest blues pioneers can still be heard in 1920s and '30s recordings from Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia and other Southern states. This music is not very far removed from the field hollers and work songs of the slaves and sharecroppers. Many of the earliest blues musicians incorporated the blues into a wider repertoire that included traditional folk songs, vaudeville music, and minstrel tunes.
As you mention, cotton is another aspect which has not been given its proper "due" in traditional Texas history and culture. I love those old "western movies" as much as anybody (which were actually filmed in Arizona and southern California), but on the flip side, they did a great injustice to true Texas history. That is, not only gave rise to the notion that Texas was one big wasteland of desert and cactus, but that the ranching and cowboy culture was the norm.
In fact, the movie "Places in the Heart" (with Sally Fields and Danny Glover) is a MUCH better portrayal of life in Texas than "Lonesome Dove". For every true cowboy, there were at least a hundred other Texans who made their living -- or some part of it -- on cotton in some form or fashion. Go back a generation or two, and the numbers of Texans who remember picking, chopping, and/or gin'n cotton as a regular part of existence as compared to those who rounded up strays is not even a fair comparrison. With apologies to Roy Rogers and John Wayne! LOL.
*AHEM* This is an "old table" and I would be curious to see if it has changed over the years, but consider this one:
Ratio of Cotton Farms to All Farms
Mississippi: 82.9% Alabama: 80.4% Texas: 70.5% South Carolina: 70.0% Louisiana: 69.6% Arkansas: 69.2% Georgia: 67.4% Oklahoma: 42.3%
North Carolina: 27.6% Tennessee: 27.3% Florida: 9.5% Virginia: 2.0% Kentucky: 0.2% SOURCE: Regionalism and the South: Selected Papers of Rupert Vance. Contributors: John Shelton Reed - author, Daniel Joseph Singal - author, Rupert Bayless Vance - author. Publisher: University of North Carolina Press. Place of Publication: Chapel Hill, NC. Publication Year: 1982. Page Number: 101.
Enough for now, but excellent post and points, my friend!
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.
this is kind of my point with Texas.
TexasReb has good arguments, but they only apply to Texas being historically southern - that doesn't mean it still is. Places change. It's economy is so diversified and vast, it's not an agrarian state at all. Like it or not, it has a huge latino population and is not plurality Catholic. Plus all the other things I showed which distinguished Texas from Southern states. Just because Texas was once a cotton state has no relevance to the modern economy. Hell, most states were once agrarian - that doesn't mean New England is "British" because that's what they did back when it was part of the UK.
IMO FL is not "Southern" either - but like texas it DOES have commonalities with the South. I'm just trying not to be simplistic about this.
TexasReb has good arguments, but they only apply to Texas being historically southern - that doesn't mean it still is. Places change. It's economy is so diversified and vast, it's not an agrarian state at all. Like it or not, it has a huge latino population and is not plurality Catholic. Plus all the other things I showed which distinguished Texas from Southern states. Just because Texas was once a cotton state has no relevance to the modern economy. Hell, most states were once agrarian - that doesn't mean New England is "British" because that's what they did back when it was part of the UK.
IMO FL is not "Southern" either - but like texas it DOES have commonalities with the South. I'm just trying not to be simplistic about this.
TXguy...you are a good and worthy opponent but let's backtrack. Your original contention was that Texas was not part of the South. Fair enough. We hashed and hashed it out...and I am content to let others review as to which of us made the better case.
IMHO, you are shifting your position and arguments in response to the fact yours are being eaten alive. And again, I mean this in no note of disrespect. Only to say your original points have been thoroughly refuted.
Gist of it, getting back to the original point you apparently wanted to make? We all agree, I think, that Texas is Texas. BUT...when regional affiliations are considered? WHAT region would you place Texas in? And for what reasons?
Mine is easy. It is part of the South. And I have given the reasons...which date back 150 years and continue. Not the "southeast"...but the South. The two are not synoymous....
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.
>>>>>
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.
<<<<<
Yes, Sir....and dang proud of it! No, just playin', of course.
On another note, I think you make some good points Keyser. I will respectfully disagree with you on the southerness of the Maryland accent. (And yes, I have been to Baltimore and the surrounding area.) I personally did not see a hint of southern culture at all. I felt like Baltimore had much much more in common with say Boston than Chapel Hill in N.C. and other more "progressive" (<----whatever that means, LOL) cities to the south.
I had two friends from the geographically southern part of Maryland (the part of Maryland that supposedly shares southern characteristics) and they had nothing of a southern accent....it was not too far from what I heard in most of the northeast. They got upset with me for telling them straight up that they did not have a southern accent at all. On the other hand, the first time that they met me and heard my accent they thought I was from the Georgia Pines or something. I quickly corrected them and told them that my accent was not Georgian, but pure Okie....a southern dialect to truly behold!
Oh, and of course I disagree with the OP about Texas not being truly southern. Many transplants that are moving here would love to make it something it never has been....a Yankee stronghold (it's happening in my homestate of Oklahoma as well).
To all the transplants: Sorry, there are too many folks that are from here and love this part of the country to let that happen.
TexasReb has good arguments, but they only apply to Texas being historically southern - that doesn't mean it still is. Places change. It's economy is so diversified and vast, it's not an agrarian state at all. Like it or not, it has a huge latino population and is not plurality Catholic. Plus all the other things I showed which distinguished Texas from Southern states. Just because Texas was once a cotton state has no relevance to the modern economy. Hell, most states were once agrarian - that doesn't mean New England is "British" because that's what they did back when it was part of the UK.
Let me add to what I wrote last night. Not withstanding that Texas is still a "cotton state", the analogy you make concerning New England and Britain is a non-sequitur. Reason being that New England was never considered part of Britain (except via a colonial connection same as South Carolina or Georgia). Whereas, from its original statehood, Texas was always considered part of the American South.
Anyway, yes, in your original post you made several distinctions which you felt distinguished Texas from other states of the South. IMHO however, they fell far short of making a convincing case. The dental hygiene example was extremely superficial and most of the others either failed to tell the whole story (religious demographics) or were items which could just as easily be applied to other states which too have always been considered part of the traditionally defined South (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, etc).
Sure, I used some historical examples to demonstrate how Texas is tied to the South, but historical ties are strong ties and endure in ways that, at the least, can neutralize certain modern day trends which need more time to be clarified in how they impact. But...I also used some modern day examples which, I think, more than offset the examples you make. Here are several more:
Language may be the most lasting of all. The "Texas accent" is -- for all its proud automony in legend -- only one of many sub-varities of what is broadly classifed as "Southern American English."
Texas learning institutions are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and Texas voting patterns have always been much more aligned with that of other Southern states than with those of any other region.
And while I know this one might sound trivial, the tradition of eating black-eyed peas on New Years Day is very reflective of how Southern folkways are deeply entrenched in Texas culture. Same with the prevelance of BBQ and catfish joints...
*considers* Of course, in all fairness, as concerns the former, the fact Texas BBQ tends to be beef rather than pork, does make for a huge chasm! LOL
IMO FL is not "Southern" either - but like texas it DOES have commonalities with the South. I'm just trying not to be simplistic about this.
What about Virginia? Or Kentucky? Or even North Carolina? Or, gawd forbid (no pun intended...hee hee) Louisiana in the realm of a heavy Catholic population? In all these states some of the original examples you used can refute these states' membership in the "Southern family" as well.
Oh well, let me make clear again, TXguy, I am not disrespecting your opinions at all. I will be the first to agree that Texas can be considered a region unto itself. However, when it does comes to regional affiliation, Texas belongs to the South. As a whole, it has almost nothing in common with the modern day West, Southwest, and certainly not -- and never did -- the Midwest.
Really, the only thing I take issue with is that you seem to have too high an opinion of your own opinions. The opinions themselves are fine and you argue them well (even if I disagree with them). However, the way you titled the orginal thread, and how you ended your original post, leads me to believe that you are not one accustomed to being disputed or challenged. Like a college professor insulated in his own world where s/he is used to having their word taken as gospel truth.
To be specific, the thread itself: "In this thread I will show you..." And ending the first post with "hope you enjoyed the lesson." Yes, I realize such can be taken as facitious and in a humorous and self-effacing sort of way. And I might have taken it just that way had you not continued in subsequent posts with phrases like and/or akin to "I demonstrated" and/or "I have shown"..etc.
Geez, podner and fellow Texan, chill out! LOL Your "audience" is not a bunch of freshmen undergrads who have no prior knowlege of the subject at hand and need guidance on the matter. Many of us have long experience and even scholarly credentials in the realm of Southern studies, and have formed our own varying opinions accordingly.
And I say this with sincere good will and respect!
When exactly will the term Yankee be retired? It's not 1860 anymore. Besides, to the rest of the world, we're all Yankees. Yes, that includes Southerners.
When exactly will the term Yankee be retired? It's not 1860 anymore. Besides, to the rest of the world, we're all Yankees. Yes, that includes Southerners.
I usually agree with you Spade on most things concerning Texas/Southern culture and such. But in this case -- even though I see where you are coming from -- I can't agree that the common use of the term "yankee" as being anything which should cast the same in a negative light.
"Yankee" is just simply part of the historical Texas/Southern vernacular. Same as "yank" is with, as you note, the British when referring to Americans.
*grinning a bit* In fact, several weeks ago we had some "Aussie" friends come by and visit us on their annual trip to the states and, occasionally in address, one of them would say something like "Well, yank, I see what you are saying, but...". Or "I agree with you there, yank."
Naturally, this "label" was a bit of a comic culture-shock to a Texas boy...LOL...but I accepted it as just part of their natural idiom and slang. In fact, it made for an interesting topic of conversation in its own right. That is, how we Southerners tend to label non-Southerners as "yankees"...while Midwesterners confine it to those in the Northeast...who in turn apply it to New Englanders!
Anyway, I have some very good friends who are northern (hell, my own kids are "half-yankee"...and by birth, I suppose my grandson is full blown! ). I don't think of the term as being particularly disparaging. Oh sure, it CAN be...but when it is, it applies more to "attitudes" than to a particular individual.
That is to say, when I come across some northern transplant who loves our milk and honey, but makes a point to tell all within earshot of how backward we are and how much better it was where they came from? Then yeah, my initial reaction is to give them directions to I-35 and to take it north thru Oklahoma and then god speed from there, you damn yankee [CENSORED]
But the above is rare, really. When I use the term "yankee" it is usually meant in no more a critical or cutting way than would be the case of how northerners in turn might -- and often do -- refer to me as "Tex" or "Reb." Hell, there are some northern friends of mine who might actually think I was mad at them if I didn't good-naturedly refer to them as "yankees."
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.
No, just playin', of course.
). I don't think of the term as being particularly disparaging. Oh sure, it CAN be...but when it is, it applies more to "attitudes" than to a particular individual. 
