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.
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."
Personally, I've never heard anyone from Texas saying "yankee." I've heard southerners I know (Georgia, Alabama) using it frequently.
Maybe that's because I'm in Houston/Austin and most of those people are from yankee stock.
TexasReb, this will by my last response to your thoughtful arguments. This expands on my earlier critique that your arguments focus too much on the past.
At the time of the Civil War, Texas was **very** sparsely populated. And no major battles took places on Texas soil.
Why is this important? Because even if I accept your argument that a state's history is what defines its southernness, Texas is quite distinguishable from the states that are acknowledged to be southern. It formed its identity mostly after the civil war, while the south formed its historical identity prior to and during the civil war. AL, MS, GA, NC, et al all had a very similar agrarian/plantation/hierarchical society with lots of well-defined class distinctions and economic ties. TX was mostly a barren wilderness, with a few plantations in the east. Its people did not share the same moral code of honor, genteelness, etc. that defined Southern culture.
Its history is also unique in that it was both a part of the Spanish empire, later mexico, and then its own republic before it joined the union. The other questionable "southern" states of Louisiana and Florida (LA is still borderline South imo) also have unique vintage.
Of course, I'm not accepting the argument that history matters all that much to current identity. But even if I did, Texas is distinguishable from the other southern states.
TexasReb, this will by my last response to your thoughtful arguments. This expands on my earlier critique that your arguments focus too much on the past.
At the time of the Civil War, Texas was **very** sparsely populated. And no major battles took places on Texas soil.
Why is this important? Because even if I accept your argument that a state's history is what defines its southernness, Texas is quite distinguishable from the states that are acknowledged to be southern. It formed its identity mostly after the civil war, while the south formed its historical identity prior to and during the civil war. LA, AL, MS, GA, NC, et al all had a very similar agrarian/plantation/hierarchical society with lots of well-defined class distinctions and economic ties. TX was mostly a barren wilderness, with a few plantations in the east. Its people did not share the same moral code of honor, genteelness, etc. that defined Southern culture.
Of course, I'm not accepting the argument that history matters all that much to current identity. But even if I did, it's distinguishable.
Actually, TXguy, there are some parts of this post of yours I will agree with...although with major qualifications. Especially the part of Texas and the cotton plantation culture. In fact, in that day and age, Texas was an all out "cotton state" and a "fire-eating" original member of the Confederacy. Yet, you too have a point about lots of it being unsettled and forming a certain seperate identity later....
Also, in passing, concerning the earlier one about "yankees"..I will share something (gotta dig it outta my files first!) that you might find a bit humorous.
As it is though, I gotta go take care of some things on the "honey-do" list, so will have to elaborate on all this later! LOL Have a good one, and catch ya a bit later!
TexasReb, this will by my last response to your thoughtful arguments. This expands on my earlier critique that your arguments focus too much on the past.
At the time of the Civil War, Texas was **very** sparsely populated. And no major battles took places on Texas soil.
Why is this important? Because even if I accept your argument that a state's history is what defines its southernness, Texas is quite distinguishable from the states that are acknowledged to be southern. It formed its identity mostly after the civil war, while the south formed its historical identity prior to and during the civil war. AL, MS, GA, NC, et al all had a very similar agrarian/plantation/hierarchical society with lots of well-defined class distinctions and economic ties.
Your points are acknowleged. However, they are a bit abbreviated. True Texas was very sparsely populated when compared to its accepted boundaries. Yet, the eastern section which was populated was pure cotton plantation country. That is to say it was, like in the other cotton states, the dominating economic force. The reason so many from the southeast migrated to Texas ante-bellum was that the cotton potential in Texas was second (if not eclipsing) that of the Mississippi delta area. At that time, Texas was undisputedly considered a Lower South cotton state. It didn't vary much from that of the other Lower South states. This is reflected in the fact it went all out for secession to a degree that only in South Carolina did the vote in favor surpass it.
On the other hand, states like North Carolina, Arkansas, Virgigina and Tennessee, actually rejected secesssion until the incident at Ft. Sumter forced a chosing of sides (afterwards, of course, all fought bravely and devoted).
Point is, there was never any question about Texas being a Southern state. You keep making verbage distinctions between Texas and the rest of the South which don't exist in this realm.
But? When you speak of distinctions? I can draw the same 'twixt the Deep South and the Upper South. Earlier, you added North Carolina in with AL, MS, etc. In the day though, it was Texas which was much more akin. NC, TN, VA, AK, were extremely reluctant to secede. Even North Alabama and northern Georgia were anamolies in this regard.
Quote:
TX was mostly a barren wilderness, with a few plantations in the east. Its people did not share the same moral code of honor, genteelness, etc. that defined Southern culture.
Yes, it was. That is to say, the western half being barren wilderness. However, when it was settled, it was Southern stock which did the settling. Which is why even West Texas today -- even though it for sure doesn't fit that classic "moonlight and magnolias" image -- is much more Southern than not.
I have to ask, how do you figure that the people of early Texas did not share into that moral code of honor, genteelness, etc??? I am sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. Yeah, I suppose many were more prone to use a Bowie knife than meet at 20 paces and wait for the other fellow to shoot first, but they were Southerners, for gosh sakes. LOL Did they lose their sense of personal honor and what constituted a violation of it when they moved into Texas. Actually, if anything, those rough frontiersmen from the Deep and Mountain South who made Texas into what it is, were probably even more "touchy" when it came to matters of personal honor...
Quote:
Its history is also unique in that it was both a part of the Spanish empire, later mexico, and then its own republic before it joined the union. The other questionable "southern" states of Louisiana and Florida (LA is still borderline South imo) also have unique vintage.
Sure, I agree with this basic point. But as has been mentioned by several of us, the South has never been a monolithic entity. Rather, it is a collection of states bonded together by certain commonalities of history and culture which easily disinguish the same from states of the Northeast, Midwest, Southwest and Mountain West. While we may -- and certainly do -- differ with one another, generally speaking, people from the states which formed the Old Confederacy (and including certain border states/areas as well) are going to feel more at home in each others than they will in those of the north or west...even if the latter might be closer as the crow flies.
Quote:
Of course, I'm not accepting the argument that history matters all that much to current identity. But even if I did, Texas is distinguishable from the other southern states.
Yes, it is. And I am PROUD of Texas' being Texas! But when it comes to distinguishing, many Southern states are distinguishable from one another. It seem you accept that the paradigm of the South is defined by the Old Deep South. I don't.
If such were true...then the Deep South purists would have a point in limiting the whole proud definition of the South to only three or four states! LOL
Oh man...back to the honey-do list. Gotta mow the damn grass before it gets too cold!
>>>>>
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!
I would argue, but....Maryland's a Southern state, in the classic & modern definition. Doesn't matter if it's not sterotypically Southern the way the uninformed see it. The Southern history & influence is there.
Oklahoma wasn't, or isn't today. Close, but no cigar.
This argument is so old and tiresome...Texas would be taking a step up to be included in the South...
Shall we conclude, from your mature remarks, that you have a negative opinion of Texas? And/or the South? Or are you just doing a good imitation of a high school sophomore?
Shall we conclude, from your mature remarks, that you have a negative opinion of Texas. And/or the South? Or are you just being contrary?
Many liberals see Texas as Satan's playground. In liberal circles in the Northeast bashing Texas, Wal-Mart, and White christians is among their favorite hobbies to do.
Many liberals see Texas as Satan's playground. In liberal circles in the Northeast bashing Texas, Wal-Mart, and White christians is among their favorite hobbies to do.
I had just edited my post when you quoted it! LOL. Anyway, there does seem to be something in the big city northeast and west coast mindset which disdains the South almost reflexively. It seems to be, as LBJ put it in his memoirs, almost woven into the fabric of their world vision. I don't say that to pick a fight, but just an observation based on solid experience..
When I first saw this thread and its somewhat partisan statement, my first thought was "I hope Texas Reb sees this site and comments." I have not been dissappointed. He along with Lovin Decatur are my two favorite posters I have found in all of CM.
Txguy 2009, as a dyed in the wool southerner from Georgia who has spent a fare portion of his adult life in Texas, I feel qualified to make the following proclomation: Texas Reb has so thoroughly disproven your haughty title statement of this thread that it goes up there with other epic one-sided victories like Reagan's 84 landslide victory and Georgia Tech's 222-0 football win over Cumberland in 1916.
My question to you txguy, what axe do you have to grind with the rest of the south to try and so vehemently separate Texas from the rest of the south when the plain facts state otherwise? Of course Texas is unique. But it is still southern. Like has already been mentioned, the south is not one homogenous identity. Georgia is very different from Kentucky. Arkansas is very different from South Carolina.
Heck, even within my own homestate, the piedmont region of Georgia is more akin to the piedmont region of both Carolinas and even Virginia than it is to the Coastal Plain area in south Georgia and the Blue Ridge Mountains in north Georgia.
In the same way, east Texas, especially the area around Tyler, Longview, Lufkin, etc is much more like my hometown in Georgia than it is the Hill Country, the panhandle or the Rio Grande Valley. No one state in the union is homogenous. I know Texans are proud of their state, prouder than just about any other state of itself, but it is not a homogenous entity. Perhaps that is one of the things to be proud of, but that just goes against your point. If Texas has that much diversity within itself, the south has that much diversity within the larger picture as well. And each state in the south has distinct regions that make each one unique.
There has been a negativity associated with all things southern that elitists from the east and west coasts have held and have been perpetuated by the media and hollywood. Perhaps you get your facts from these sources. The ridiculous statements you made of Atlanta earlier in this thread go to show that you are not well researched or very enlightened when you make comments.
Since the majority of my life has been spent either in Atlanta or close proximity to it and the DFW area, I cannot think of two American cities that are more alike. Both are the two fastest growing metro areas, they are almost identical in size if you consider just Dallas (sorry Fort Worth, but I gotta set you aside for a moment to make my further comparisons). Dallas and Atlanta have a heavy influx of residents from outside the south, the northern suburbs are growing disproportionately to the southern burbs, the wealthiest areas are just north of the central city (Highland Park and Buckhead respectively), they are both majority white with a strong minority population that primarily lives south of the central city. Both are very liberal in the inner core and surrounded by pedominately conservative evangelical suburbs. Both have a strong history of being economic engines for their region and are constantly evolving and changing.
There are differences, sure, both have unique qualities, but the similarities are striking. I know these two cities better than I know any other city in America, so I am not just spouting smoke. The biggest difference that I see is that the minority population in Dallas is heavily represented by Hispanics while in Atlanta, the minority population is primarily AA, and Atlanta has real trees.
Just a few more points to prove that Texas is southern:
People say "ya'll"
Sweet Tea and grits
Church is a way of life
Adults are referred to as Mr. and Miss, never just the first name, even adults speaking to senior adults. Yes Ma'am, no ma'am, yes sir and no sir are used (sadly diminishing in all southern areas I am afraid to say)
Pecan Pie
High School and College Football
Beauty pageants, homecoming parades, proms
Country music
Big Hair
OK, I'll stop and let some others add to this list.
Sorry, txguy. The hypothesis of your thread is now thoroughly and completely disproven. It should be shut down except that Texas Reb might come back and add something else wonderfully rich and interesting to read and Lovin Decatur might come put you in your place like only a southern belle can do, and I don't want to miss either one of those.
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.
). 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. 
No, just playin', of course.
