U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2009, 11:15 AM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,115,139 times
Reputation: 5741

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
I never said Texas was southern as a whole; I always speak on the parts that have more southern influence than western. I always just leave it as "Texas is Texas" because of how much influence different regions in the country have had on it.
We ALL agree that Texas is Texas, first and foremost.. On that, there is no doubt. But -- as a whole -- when it comes to being placed in a region, it essentially a Southern state. That is where our roots and basic history and culture come from.

If divided, sure. Some parts are "more Southern" than others. And some parts hardly at all (i.e. trans-pecos and, today, much of south Texas). Some, like far East Texas, are pure Deep South Dixie.

Speaking of -- and going off on that tangent -- I would like to wade in on the Wikipedia article about the Deep South (since it has been brought up).

Deep South - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had a hand -- along with many others -- in writing it (particularly the opening segment and "Cultural Variations" section), so I hope that might be my excuse for speaking on the topic! LOL

Texas was originally considered "Deep South" (although the term itself is actually of early 20th Century coinage...the original phrase was "Lower South.") But few today consider it to be part of this sub-region (other than East Texas). However, that fact is neither pro nor con in its ramifications or implications. Just a fact. And personally, I don't see why so much energy is expended in either connecting Texas to it, or seperating ourselves from it.

Both, in their own way, are true...

Last edited by TexasReb; 10-31-2009 at 12:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2009, 11:34 AM
 
Location: USA
2,779 posts, read 6,687,151 times
Reputation: 1869
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
We ALL agree that Texas is Texas, first and foremost.. On that, there is no doubt. But -- as a whole -- when it comes to being placed in a region, it essentially a Southern state. That is where our roots and basic history and culture come from.

If divided, sure. Some parts are "more Southern" than others. And some parts hardly at all (i.e. trans-pecos and, today, much of south Texas). Some, like far East Texas, are pure Deep South Dixie.

Speaking of -- and going off on that tangent -- I would like to wade in on the Wikipedia article about the Deep South (since it has been brought up).

Deep South - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had a hand -- along with many others -- in writing it (particularly the opening segment and "Cultural Variations" section), so I hope that might be my excuse for speaking on the topic! LOL

Texas was originally considered "Deep South" (although the term itself is actually of early 20th Century coinage...the original phrase was "Lower South.") But few today consider it to part of this sub-region (other than East Texas). However, that fact is neither pro nor con in its ramifications or implications. Just a fact. And personally, I don't see why so much energy is expended in either connecting Texas to it, or seperating ourselves from it.

Both, in their own way, are true...
Yes this is true TexReb-I don't know why we all keep wasting our time and energy trying to put things in place (we know who is right!) for the others in the US. They are going to think and believe as they want regardless. We all know the differences down here, but seriouly they don't. And they probably don't spend time during the course of the day reasoning out southern differences. Why, we don't either about other parts of the country. It is insignificant to us as it is them. But we sure like to have our say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2009, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Seattle
1,366 posts, read 2,929,248 times
Reputation: 1473
Here's my take (grew up in Pennsylvania, live in Los Angeles, have traveled throughout Texas and the Southeast pretty extensively).

I think the most obvious difference between Texas and the "South" is the Latin American influence that Texas has. This is pretty pervasive throughout Texas culture, although the further south and west you go in the state the more you notice it. Culturally, Texas is much "closer" in both distance and attitude to Mexico.

To me, Texas is more friendly to outsiders than the "South," but there seems to be some expectation that if you are moving to Texas you will make an effort to become part of Texas culture. This feels different to me than the "South," in that, if you move there you are still a "Yankee" or "someone from California." It is also different from California where there really isn't any social pressure to "fit in" with the culture, relatively speaking. To me, Texas has a stronger, more unified culture than the South. To me, as an outsider, being "Southern" is more of a birthright than a true cultural identity, whereas "Texas" represents more of a way of thinking and a way of life. Yes, being born in Texas counts for sure, but not to the same extent.

Texas also has a more western, frontier, cowboy type attitude than the South. I don't necessarily think it's more liberal or conservative, it's just slightly different. To me when you go west of the major metro areas, you feel like you're in a western state. The actual metro areas (Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio) don't exactly feel like "the West" but you do feel some influence. If you travel out to Midland, El Paso, etc. I think it feels very western there.

This "western" type of attitude extends a lot to business IMO. Many people came to California for the "gold rush." Similarly, a lot of people came to Texas for oil, "liquid gold." If you ask anyone in banking, mergers and acquisitions, they will tell you that Texans like making deals. They like business. It's a pretty business oriented culture. I feel like this is a different type of attitude than in the Southeast. It's hard to exactly put it to words since I think it's a pretty subtle difference but I think it's there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2009, 12:22 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,115,139 times
Reputation: 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpmeads View Post
well your welcome.
And thanks AGAIN! LOL

Quote:
I remember back in school, the Geography books would seem to switch back and forth between Texas being in the South and the Southwest.
*grins* Yeah, same here. Got confusing, didn't it? LOL

But seriouisly, that "fact" is always another reason why this whole "South/Southwest thing need not have ever been "dichotomy" as applies to Texas. Texas IS Southwestern...but in the original literal sense of the term...which meant the frontier/western part of the South. Hell, at one time, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennesee were the "southwest". It finally settled, sometime about the WBTS era to be the Trans-Mississippi part of the Confederacy. That is, Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana (later, when it became a state, Oklahoma).

But then, in the early 20th century, New Mexico and Arizona became states and, for obvious geographical reasons, became "Southwest" as well. And at THIS point (as the E. of Southern Culture points out), the "relationship to the South became increasingly unclear..."

That's where the confusion (at least IMHO) comes in. Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona are all considered "Southwest". Thing is, there are two different southwests. The Southwest of the South (i.e. Texas and Oklahoma, today...where the South is flavored with the frontier west era) and the Southwest of the West (New Mexico and Arizona, where there is nothing classically Southern about them). Two totally different critters but, unfortunately, because of the terminology, many don't make that very real distinction between the two entities....

Quote:
Hell, even in college football, Texas, T A&M, T Tech, and Baylor are all grouped in with Midwestern and Western colleges. All four of the universities used to be a part of the Southwestern Conference if I'm not mistaken.
It is a shame the old SouthWest Conference broke up. But maybe that is my natural nostalgic mentality! LOL.

But seriously, even the original existence of it sorta backs up some of my points about that that Southwest as applied to Texas and Oklahoma and Arkansas and Louisiana is much different from the way it goes to NM and AZ.

Originally, the SW Conference consisted of those states (LSU thought about it, and declined after consideration) which were the western part of the South.

But still, look at these conferences and who belongs today:

Southwest Conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Southwestern Athletic Conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southland_Conference

These have long standing in terms of history and sports affinity. Sure, today, UT (Hook 'em Horns! LOL) is with the Big 12. But it is Big 12 SOUTH, by gawd! LOL

Quote:
IMO, the best classification for Texas and Oklahoma is South Central.
Agreed! Where The South meets the West (with certain considerations, of course! LOL)

Last edited by TexasReb; 10-31-2009 at 12:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2009, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in the universe
2,161 posts, read 3,988,881 times
Reputation: 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by drshang View Post
Here's my take (grew up in Pennsylvania, live in Los Angeles, have traveled throughout Texas and the Southeast pretty extensively).

I think the most obvious difference between Texas and the "South" is the Latin American influence that Texas has. This is pretty pervasive throughout Texas culture, although the further south and west you go in the state the more you notice it. Culturally, Texas is much "closer" in both distance and attitude to Mexico.

To me, Texas is more friendly to outsiders than the "South," but there seems to be some expectation that if you are moving to Texas you will make an effort to become part of Texas culture. This feels different to me than the "South," in that, if you move there you are still a "Yankee" or "someone from California." It is also different from California where there really isn't any social pressure to "fit in" with the culture, relatively speaking. To me, Texas has a stronger, more unified culture than the South. To me, as an outsider, being "Southern" is more of a birthright than a true cultural identity, whereas "Texas" represents more of a way of thinking and a way of life. Yes, being born in Texas counts for sure, but not to the same extent.

Texas also has a more western, frontier, cowboy type attitude than the South. I don't necessarily think it's more liberal or conservative, it's just slightly different. To me when you go west of the major metro areas, you feel like you're in a western state. The actual metro areas (Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio) don't exactly feel like "the West" but you do feel some influence. If you travel out to Midland, El Paso, etc. I think it feels very western there.

This "western" type of attitude extends a lot to business IMO. Many people came to California for the "gold rush." Similarly, a lot of people came to Texas for oil, "liquid gold." If you ask anyone in banking, mergers and acquisitions, they will tell you that Texans like making deals. They like business. It's a pretty business oriented culture. I feel like this is a different type of attitude than in the Southeast. It's hard to exactly put it to words since I think it's a pretty subtle difference but I think it's there.
Good post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 08:19 AM
 
595 posts, read 991,661 times
Reputation: 147
Darn I thought Texas was in the south,If Texas is not in the south then were is Virginia ,South Carolina,Tennessee,Georgia,Louisiana,?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 08:44 PM
 
3,424 posts, read 5,229,548 times
Reputation: 1819
So this is my hangup...I notice that many peoples' rationale for why Texas is Southwestern is that the state has an overwhelming and undeniable latin influence. The presence of a respectable and significant latin culture is a fact that I agree with, and I think one would be hardpressed to argue against this fact.

But, if the abundance of latin influence is what excludes it from the South...Doesnt that mean that its healthy population of blacks also, without question, excludes it from the Southwest?

So that places Texas back in its own bracket, correct? Operating from this stance, since the latin population in Texas has, until extremely recently, been small and not predominate, (despite the fact that Texas was once a part of Mexico) does this then mean that a state like NC, who's small latin population is rapidly increasing as of only very recently, will soon also be separated from the larger South due to its recent demographic trends?

If Texas' distinction from the south is made due to its historical inclusion in Mexico, and thus separates it from the rest of the south...wouldnt every southern state then be defined by their previous historical affiliations?...Meaning that VA wouldnt be Southern, as it was owned by England for a while?...Louisiana and Mississippi wouldnt be Southern, as they were once property of France etc.? If no one defines other southern states by their residual cultures, then why define Texas by its latin culture stemming from its past inclusion in Mexico?

Im not saying that Texas' latin influences and ties to Mexico should be discounted...but Im just wondering why its historical ties are used to define it, and distinguish it in a way that is not used to distinguish other southern states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Houston
2,026 posts, read 3,675,924 times
Reputation: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post

Agreed! Where The South meets the West (with certain considerations, of course! LOL)
I think someone said earlier, Texas is South by Southwest. I've always thought that was a good way to describe the state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire View Post
So this is my hangup...I notice that many peoples' rationale for why Texas is Southwestern is that the state has an overwhelming and undeniable latin influence. The presence of a respectable and significant latin culture is a fact that I agree with, and I think one would be hardpressed to argue against this fact.

But, if the abundance of latin influence is what excludes it from the South...Doesnt that mean that its healthy population of blacks also, without question, excludes it from the Southwest?

So that places Texas back in its own bracket, correct? Operating from this stance, since the latin population in Texas has, until extremely recently, been small and not predominate, (despite the fact that Texas was once a part of Mexico) does this then mean that a state like NC, who's small latin population is rapidly increasing as of only very recently, will soon also be separated from the larger South due to its recent demographic trends?

If Texas' distinction from the south is made due to its historical inclusion in Mexico, and thus separates it from the rest of the south...wouldnt every southern state then be defined by their previous historical affiliations?...Meaning that VA wouldnt be Southern, as it was owned by England for a while?...Louisiana and Mississippi wouldnt be Southern, as they were once property of France etc.? If no one defines other southern states by their residual cultures, then why define Texas by its latin culture stemming from its past inclusion in Mexico?

Im not saying that Texas' latin influences and ties to Mexico should be discounted...but Im just wondering why its historical ties are used to define it, and distinguish it in a way that is not used to distinguish other southern states.
You've never lived in Texas have you? I've been to every state in the South except South Carolina. Texas as a whole isn't like any other state in the South. The Southern and Mexican culture are just two of the many influences of Texas culture. The state had flown the flag of Spain, France, Mexico, it's own independent country, and the United States before it flew the Confederate flag. And now, Southern pride is almost rare here. It's all about Texas.

I'm kind of annoyed by people from the Southern Atlantic states think Texas is just like them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 09:07 PM
 
3,424 posts, read 5,229,548 times
Reputation: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpmeads View Post
You've never lived in Texas have you?

No, I have never lived there...never even been before...tell me, whats it like there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 09:11 PM
 
3,424 posts, read 5,229,548 times
Reputation: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpmeads View Post
You've never lived in Texas have you? I've been to every state in the South except South Carolina. Texas as a whole isn't like any other state in the South. The Southern and Mexican culture are just two of the many influences of Texas culture. The state had flown the flag of Spain, France, Mexico, it's own independent country, and the United States before it flew the Confederate flag. And now, Southern pride is almost rare here. It's all about Texas.

I'm kind of annoyed by people from the Southern Atlantic states think Texas is just like them.
All jokes aside, me being a born and raised Texan has little to do with my initial inquiry...too, I dont think Texas' unique culture has as much to do with my question either. I would just like to know why Texas' prior allegiances distinguish it from the south whereas Mississippi, or Louisiana's, or VA's past allegiances and their residual cultures, dont exclude them from the south.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top