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.
Check the map...and the history...and you'll find out differently. This isn't simply an opinion thing - it's historical fact.
According to the Wikipedia article, it's not anymore. Besides that, just because Texas might have been included in the Deep South doesn't mean it's still included today. I thought I had already pointed that out.
By unflattering characteristics? Like what? Take the "rust belt", how is it "unflattering" for it to be where auto manufacturing and the steel industry were much more prevalent than other parts of the country?
How is the "sun belt" used in an unflattering manner? Because it is has more mild winters and longer summers?
I would argue as vehemently that Iowa is not part of the rust belt and that Kansas isn't part of the sun belt. So the point you're trying to make isn't true.
Read through a few city-data threads and you'll find out quickly that "sun belt" is not a flattering grouping. People use that term to refer to sprawling suburbia, cities that aren't "real", cities that don't have enough water, "new" cities, etc. Not many people are referring to the weather when they use the term...they are usually stereotyping the region in relation to some imaginary derogatory characteristic.
The Deep South is no longer a cohesive area...the reason it was in the past was due to it's plantation culture, and Texas was included in that culture. Look it up - I'm not the only one who is familiar with history.
Historic Deep South
You even posted a map from a source which says
Quote:
[...] large areas of Florida and Texas are often no longer included under the term.
According to the Wikipedia article, it's not anymore. Besides that, just because Texas might have been included in the Deep South doesn't mean it's still included today. I thought I had already pointed that out.
According to the article, the deep south is no more because the plantation lifestyle that was prevalent in the deep south is no more. But people still use the term in a negative way.
I've discussed this point already for the last 2 pages, and I'm growing tired of it. If you don't get it by now, you won't.
Last edited by Bo; 10-30-2009 at 07:54 PM..
Reason: Per TOS, Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker
Read through a few city-data threads and you'll find out quickly that "sun belt" is not a flattering grouping. People use that term to refer to sprawling suburbia, cities that aren't "real", cities that don't have enough water, "new" cities, etc. Not many people are referring to the weather when they use the term...they are usually stereotyping the region in relation to some imaginary derogatory characteristic.
But many of the cities in the sun belt are more sprawling than other cities.
Take the cities in the sunbelt and compare them to others which aren't in the sun belt. You will see more sprawl in Houston, Atlanta, DFW, Phoenix than Chicago, New York, Boston, Baltimore.
So the idea that sun belt has more sprawling cities is also not "imaginary" it is true.
According to the article, the deep south is no more because the plantation lifestyle that was prevalent in the deep south is no more. But people still use the term in a negative way.
I've discussed this point already for the last 2 pages, and I'm growing tired of it. If you don't get it by now, you won't.
I could say the same for you.
It's just a term people (even in the Deep South) use to describe the region. Yes some people use it as a derogatory term, but that's not true for everyone. I know for a fact that people from Mississippi do not consider the Texas as part of the Deep South. That is probably the same for the entire region but I can't speak from experience.
According to the article, the deep south is no more because the plantation lifestyle that was prevalent in the deep south is no more. But people still use the term in a negative way.
I've discussed this point already for the last 2 pages, and I'm growing tired of it. If you don't get it by now, you won't.
If it is "no more" why does the article point to recent events?
Quote:
Arkansan Mike Huckabee did well in the Deep South in 2008 Republican primaries, losing only one state (South Carolina) while running (he had dropped out of the race before the primary in Mississippi). He struggled, though, outside the South, winning just 12.9 percent of the delegate count.
Huckabee also didn't drop out until after the Texas Primary, which he lost. So if Texas were part of the definition then it should be included as a state he lost while in the race, but it isn't.
As for the term being "derogatory" so what? There are people who I have met who have used the term "North East" and "New England" in a derogatory way to speak negatively of states which tend to vote for Democrats. And guess what? Those regions still exist despite negativity associated with them based on the connotations in which they are used.
Last edited by Bo; 10-30-2009 at 07:53 PM..
Reason: updated quote to match original
The history of Texas proves our point. Texas wasn't founded as a southern state
Jluke? I hate to go against a fellow Texan, especially one I consider a friend and one with whom I have agreed with so much in the past (and vice-versa), but you are wrong on this one. And I realize that is a strong word to use...
Where do you come by that Texas wasn't founded as a Southern state?
Texas was Southern from the very first. One can argue it evolved into something different (its own self) over the decades, but to say it wasn't Southern from the start is just ridiculous. Please explain what you mean and how you come by this statement/conclusion.
Another thing, you seem to be alienating many fellow Southerners who -- like JohnAtl -- might otherwise "have (our) back." Same as many other Southern C-D's do and have in the past. Same as most Texans I know would be ready to jump in and defend our southeastern cousins if they were attacked by outsiders.
I don't mean to call you out, Jluke, cos, like I say, you and me have been on the same side lots of times, and I have a genuine respect for you. But in this case, you are making us Texans look like the most arrogant and condecending in the South. And we are NOT that way, fer gawds sakes.
Progressive? What does that mean? It is not necessarily a virtue...
Now, by gawd and high cotton, I am as much a Texan as you, Jluke, and I am proud of it. BUT... just because we have bigger cities and more diversity should not translate into us thinking ourselves "superior" to southeastern cousins. We all come from the same stock. And that is an undeniable fact.
Also, what is now defined (if such terms can be used) as "progressive" is not always a good thing. In fact, it often means we lose contact with our basic roots and values. If progressive means we are on a path to becoming a California or New York (or whatever) then I want no part of it. I prefer the old Texas...and its Southern values and roots...
Last edited by TexasReb; 10-30-2009 at 08:06 PM..
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.
