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.
Every time "Go Western Day" comes in Houston, I laugh, because once you truly know about Houston's cultural affinities, you realize how tacked on the event is; it's such a farce for Houston.
So the city's "signature event" is a farce because blacks and rodeos go together like oil and water. Gotcha. Need a tissue?
Anyone with a remote sense of observance can see this thread is all about race. If you're using this echo chamber as input for a research paper in a class at a university that isn't in danger of losing its accreditation, you may want to reconsider.
Do you have more evidence that shows any influences Houston shares with Central Texas, other than the Central European immigrant population? Because so far, there is more evidence supporting Houston's alignment with the Atlantic South than to Central Texas from a cultural root perspective.
I dismantled your architecture argument previously. "Atlantic South Victorian"? Is such a distinctive variation documented, and furthermore whatever used to exist in Houston demonstrably different from Victorian architecture in the rest of the country? And regardless of how much has been demolished, the city overall has been much much more influenced by other styles (which are definitely non-distinctive to the Atlantic South) because they covered vastly larger areas of the city. The architecture argument is a complete fail. Our architectural ties with Louisiana and the Mississippi Valley vastly, vastly outweigh any association with the Atlantic Southeast.
The slave-based plantation economy and warm wet climate were shared coincidentally with the Carolinas and Virginia. The dominant crops in our region were cotton and sugar cane. Where was the tobacco of the Carolinas and Virginia? Not around here. Your argument that this justifies a strong relationship is false.
Not to mention Texas has a settlement history that is radically distinct from the Atlantic Southeast, which was driven by Britain. Ours was driven by the Spanish, with some French perhaps thrown in. Only Florida shares that distinction, really, in the Southeast.
I've already noted the major difference in immigration sources during the 1800s - immigrants who primarily arrived through Galveston and New Orleans, never setting foot in the Atlantic Southeast.
Our Native American tribes were radically different as well.
Meanwhile, with Central Texas (and the rest of Texas at least to the extent that it was meaningfully settled at different times over history) we share a very distinctive history of being an independent country gained through a war with Mexico, a state-level governance system that only coincides with the Atlantic Southeast during the period of the Confederacy, and internal circulation of peoples. We also suffered much more limited battle action during the Civil War compared to the Atlantic states.
Given all these points, how can you possibly state that Houston's relationship - other than coincidences regarding climate and vegetation (which is what resulted in the coincidental plantation systems) - with the Carolinas is stronger than with areas of Texas only 100 miles to the west and southwest, which share the things I noted above? Compared to our relationship with Louisiana, which is probably stronger than with either other region, in particular.
Houston was never a "cowboy" town like West and South Texas - but neither was much of central Texas. That said, cattle raising has been a strong element of agriculture, even in the greater Houston area, for at least 100 years. I'm not aware of a major cattle industry in the Atlantic states, where hog farming has traditionally been dominant.
I dont understand the racial sensitivity thing...I mean, how else are you suppose to define the characteristics of a region without discussing its demographics?...I cant imagine the racial content in this thread would be seen as offensive to anyone...was it the fact that the czechs and germans are being discussed that sent people over the edge? Or maybe it was the discussion about the large latino presence in Texas?..was that it?
It's just a sign that people can't follow a debate to save their lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detachable arm
So the city's "signature event" is a farce because blacks and rodeos go together like oil and water. Gotcha. Need a tissue?
Anyone with a remote sense of observance can see this thread is all about race. If you're using this echo chamber as input for a research paper in a class at a university that isn't in danger of losing its accreditation, you may want to reconsider.
Again, if you look at the culture and history of Houston, you can easily see how tacked on the Rodeo Show is, especially in the way that it is presented.
You seem confused; this thread is about Houston's cultural affinity, not about race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
I dismantled your architecture argument previously. "Atlantic South Victorian"? Is such a distinctive variation documented, and furthermore whatever used to exist in Houston demonstrably different from Victorian architecture in the rest of the country? And regardless of how much has been demolished, the city overall has been much much more influenced by other styles (which are definitely non-distinctive to the Atlantic South) because they covered vastly larger areas of the city. The architecture argument is a complete fail. Our architectural ties with Louisiana and the Mississippi Valley vastly, vastly outweigh any association with the Atlantic Southeast.
You didn't dismantle anything; you got dismantled, and I've been dismantling you for pages now. Try to keep up.
Again, the Victorian style that made up Houston's fabric was of the same variation that was seen on the Atlantic South. And many of those other styles seen in the city still resemble that seen in much of the Southeast.
I already said a few posts ago that Houston is closer culturally to Louisiana and the Mississippi Valley than it is to both Central Texas, or the Atlantic South. What I am saying, though, is that between the two regions, the Atlantic South is closer culturally to Houston than Central Texas is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
The slave-based plantation economy and warm wet climate were shared coincidentally with the Carolinas and Virginia. The dominant crops in our region were cotton and sugar cane. Where was the tobacco of the Carolinas and Virginia? Not around here. Your argument that this justifies a strong relationship is false.
Not to mention Texas has a settlement history that is radically distinct from the Atlantic Southeast, which was driven by Britain. Ours was driven by the Spanish, with some French perhaps thrown in. Only Florida shares that distinction, really, in the Southeast.
I've already noted the major difference in immigration sources during the 1800s - immigrants who primarily arrived through Galveston and New Orleans, never setting foot in the Atlantic Southeast.
Our Native American tribes were radically different as well.
At this point, it seems that you are grasping at straws; are you even putting the slightest bit of thought into what you are saying?
Other than that, yes, it is true that tobacco wasn't really present in the Houston area like it was in the Carolinas and Virginia. However, it also wasn't a key crop in Georgia's plantations either. Different parts of the whole Southern plantation region specialized in different crops; tobacco was the prominent crop mainly in the upper parts of the Atlantic South (Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina), while areas further South (Georgia, South Carolina) had rice and cotton as prominent crops, like the plantations in Houston had in addition to sugar cane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacc...and_Deep_South
Quote:
In the Chesapeake and North Carolina, tobacco constituted a major percentage of the total agricultural output. In the Deep South (mainly Georgia and South Carolina), cotton and rice plantations dominated. Stark diversity in the geographic and social landscapes of these two regions contributed to differences in their respective slave cultures.
Your whole crop argument is moot anyways because even with the differences between what was grown in Houston vs what was grown in Virginia, it still doesn't change the fact that both areas had the same general plantation root economic structure.
Texas as a whole had the Spanish influence, but the area where Houston is now did not see the significant established settlements, at least, not nearly as significant as places like San Antonio or El Paso. Instead, Houston, after incorporation, was settled by people coming from the Southeast states, including those on the Atlantic. European immigrants came, and settled through the Houston area, and into Central Texas, from ports on Galveston and New Orleans; European immigrants also came through the Atlantic South as well, contrary to your claim (Charleston, for example, had a substantial Jewish population, resulting from such immigration).
The Native American tribes in the Houston area differed from those in those Atlantic states the same way those tribes in the Atlantic states differed from each other; many different tribes across the South, from Virginia to East Texas, but in the end, all shared the way of life typical of Native Americans from the Southeast: http://i.stack.imgur.com/WUMIr.jpg
^See how the Houston area is under the area shaded as "Southeast?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
Meanwhile, with Central Texas (and the rest of Texas at least to the extent that it was meaningfully settled at different times over history) we share a very distinctive history of being an independent country gained through a war with Mexico, a state-level governance system that only coincides with the Atlantic Southeast during the period of the Confederacy, and internal circulation of peoples. We also suffered much more limited battle action during the Civil War compared to the Atlantic states.
Given all these points, how can you possibly state that Houston's relationship - other than coincidences regarding climate and vegetation (which is what resulted in the coincidental plantation systems) - with the Carolinas is stronger than with areas of Texas only 100 miles to the west and southwest, which share the things I noted above? Compared to our relationship with Louisiana, which is probably stronger than with either other region, in particular.
Houston was never a "cowboy" town like West and South Texas - but neither was much of central Texas. That said, cattle raising has been a strong element of agriculture, even in the greater Houston area, for at least 100 years. I'm not aware of a major cattle industry in the Atlantic states, where hog farming has traditionally been dominant.
True that Houston embodies a key part of Texas history, not only spending time in an independent country, but also even being the capital of said country. However, Houston also had strong ties to those Southeastern states even in that time, as the settlers of the city carried over ideals typical of those areas.
I will never say that Houston's ties to the South Atlantic exceed those of Louisiana; I already made it clear that Louisiana was the area Houston had the strongest ties with, more than either to Central Texas or the South Atlantic. But, between the South Atlantic, and to Central Texas, Houston, in the end, is closer in alignment to the South Atlantic, even if the region is further way than Central Texas; distance doesn't really matter in regards to this cultural influences.
It's just a sign that people can't follow a debate to save their lives.
Again, if you look at the culture and history of Houston, you can easily see how tacked on the Rodeo Show is, especially in the way that it is presented.
You seem confused; this thread is about Houston's cultural affinity, not about race.
You didn't dismantle anything; you got dismantled, and I've been dismantling you for pages now. Try to keep up.
Again, the Victorian style that made up Houston's fabric was of the same variation that was seen on the Atlantic South. And many of those other styles seen in the city still resemble that seen in much of the Southeast.
I already said a few posts ago that Houston is closer culturally to Louisiana and the Mississippi Valley than it is to both Central Texas, or the Atlantic South. What I am saying, though, is that between the two regions, the Atlantic South is closer culturally to Houston than Central Texas is.
At this point, it seems that you are grasping at straws; are you even putting the slightest bit of thought into what you are saying?
Other than that, yes, it is true that tobacco wasn't really present in the Houston area like it was in the Carolinas and Virginia. However, it also wasn't a key crop in Georgia's plantations either. Different parts of the whole Southern plantation region specialized in different crops; tobacco was the prominent crop mainly in the upper parts of the Atlantic South (Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina), while areas further South (Georgia, South Carolina) had rice and cotton as prominent crops, like the plantations in Houston had in addition to sugar cane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacc...and_Deep_South
This is the part that I dont understand why it keeps getting dismissed..the coastal prairie areas of Houston/Southeast Texas area and Southwest Louisiana together produced over 90% of the nation's rice crop at one point...but this was only AFTER the massive rice production in the Carolinas and Georgia had dwindled and those migrants from the southeast had brought their rice farming culture with them to Southeast Texas and the Carolinas. And at that time, before mass transit and ease of mobility became the norm which afforded the blending of cultures, your agrarian culture (Agriculture) largely determined a society's culture along with migration of course, which happened much more slowly in the days of horse and buggies.
This is the part that I dont understand why it keeps getting dismissed..the coastal prairie areas of Houston/Southeast Texas area and Southwest Louisiana together produced over 90% of the nation's rice crop at one point...but this was only AFTER the massive rice production in the Carolinas and Georgia had dwindled and those migrants from the southeast had brought their rice farming culture with them to Southeast Texas and the Carolinas. And at that time, before mass transit and ease of mobility became the norm which afforded the blending of cultures, your agrarian culture (Agriculture) largely determined a society's culture along with migration of course, which happened much more slowly in the days of horse and buggies.
Actually much of the rice farming in the immediate Houston area was started by Midwestern immigrants who moved to the Katy prairie.
It's just a sign that people can't follow a debate to save their lives.
Again, if you look at the culture and history of Houston, you can easily see how tacked on the Rodeo Show is, especially in the way that it is presented.
You seem confused; this thread is about Houston's cultural affinity, not about race.
You didn't dismantle anything; you got dismantled, and I've been dismantling you for pages now. Try to keep up.
Again, the Victorian style that made up Houston's fabric was of the same variation that was seen on the Atlantic South. And many of those other styles seen in the city still resemble that seen in much of the Southeast. You have not presented any evidence that such a distinctive variation existed, was particularly notable in Houston (relative to other variations of Victorian style). Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, neighborhoods with Victorian homes constituted such a small share of Houston, as of, say, 1930, that any influence is more than overwhelmed and dare I say marginalized relative to the more dominant styles of Craftsman and shotgun as to be irrelevant, especially as to other styles that may have been popular with those who migrated to Houston from other areas of Texas.
I already said a few posts ago that Houston is closer culturally to Louisiana and the Mississippi Valley than it is to both Central Texas, or the Atlantic South. What I am saying, though, is that between the two regions, the Atlantic South is closer culturally to Houston than Central Texas is.
At this point, it seems that you are grasping at straws; are you even putting the slightest bit of thought into what you are saying?
Other than that, yes, it is true that tobacco wasn't really present in the Houston area like it was in the Carolinas and Virginia. However, it also wasn't a key crop in Georgia's plantations either. Different parts of the whole Southern plantation region specialized in different crops; tobacco was the prominent crop mainly in the upper parts of the Atlantic South (Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina), while areas further South (Georgia, South Carolina) had rice and cotton as prominent crops, like the plantations in Houston had in addition to sugar cane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacc...and_Deep_South
Your whole crop argument is moot anyways because even with the differences between what was grown in Houston vs what was grown in Virginia, it still doesn't change the fact that both areas had the same general plantation root economic structure.
Texas as a whole had the Spanish influence, but the area where Houston is now did not see the significant established settlements, at least, not nearly as significant as places like San Antonio or El Paso. Instead, Houston, after incorporation, was settled by people coming from the Southeast states, including those on the Atlantic. European immigrants came, and settled through the Houston area, and into Central Texas, from ports on Galveston and New Orleans; European immigrants also came through the Atlantic South as well, contrary to your claim (Charleston, for example, had a substantial Jewish population, resulting from such immigration).
The Native American tribes in the Houston area differed from those in those Atlantic states the same way those tribes in the Atlantic states differed from each other; many different tribes across the South, from Virginia to East Texas, but in the end, all shared the way of life typical of Native Americans from the Southeast: http://i.stack.imgur.com/WUMIr.jpg
^See how the Houston area is under the area shaded as "Southeast?"Notice that the "Plains" sector extends into what are today Houston's western suburbs? And the "Southeast" sector extends to Nueces Bay - so Houston should have a strong affinity for the Coastal Bend area, by your reasoning? Not to mention that significant portions of coastal North Carolina and Virginia are not included in that sector - yet those are unquestionably areas you're classifying as more closely related to Houston than areas 100 miles west of here?
True that Houston embodies a key part of Texas history, not only spending time in an independent country, but also even being the capital of said country. However, Houston also had strong ties to those Southeastern states even in that time, as the settlers of the city carried over ideals typical of those areas.
I will never say that Houston's ties to the South Atlantic exceed those of Louisiana; I already made it clear that Louisiana was the area Houston had the strongest ties with, more than either to Central Texas or the South Atlantic. But, between the South Atlantic, and to Central Texas, Houston, in the end, is closer in alignment to the South Atlantic, even if the region is further way than Central Texas; distance doesn't really matter in regards to this cultural influences.
No doubt Houston had some immigration from the Atlantic Southeast during some period of time - but you clearly have not presented any case that it exceeds the cultural influence of Central or other parts of Texas, from which there was also immigration into Houston, bringing cultural influence with it.
So the city's "signature event" is a farce because blacks and rodeos go together like oil and water. Gotcha. Need a tissue?
Anyone with a remote sense of observance can see this thread is all about race. If you're using this echo chamber as input for a research paper in a class at a university that isn't in danger of losing its accreditation, you may want to reconsider.
You have not presented any evidence that such a distinctive variation existed, was particularly notable in Houston (relative to other variations of Victorian style). Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, neighborhoods with Victorian homes constituted such a small share of Houston, as of, say, 1930, that any influence is more than overwhelmed and dare I say marginalized relative to the more dominant styles of Craftsman and shotgun as to be irrelevant, especially as to other styles that may have been popular with those who migrated to Houston from other areas of Texas.
The Victorian homes built in Houston were of the Queen Anne style, a common variation seen in the Atlantic Coastal South. Such homes made up a substantial fabric of Houston, before they were, unfortunately, torn down. Houston dates back to the 1830s, that is more than enough time to accumulate a decent stock of Victorian homes. Of course, as time passed, other styles became en vogue, and were favored over the Victorian, but many of those newer styles still reflected what was occurring in the Southeast at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
Notice that the "Plains" sector extends into what are today Houston's western suburbs? And the "Southeast" sector extends to Nueces Bay - so Houston should have a strong affinity for the Coastal Bend area, by your reasoning? Not to mention that significant portions of coastal North Carolina and Virginia are not included in that sector - yet those are unquestionably areas you're classifying as more closely related to Houston than areas 100 miles west of here?
Actually, the "Plains" sector starts well west of the Houston area, further west than even Waller or Austin counties. And the Southeast sector does go into Nueces Bay; it just shows that the Native Americans there, and through much of the Southeast had the lifestyle typical of the region, even if they were in different tribes.
It was you who claimed that native American tribes in the Houston area were quote-on-quote "radically different" than those of the Atlantic South; that's why I posted the map, to show you that though various tribes lived throughout the region from Houston to the Atlantic, all had the characteristic lifestyle that typical of Southeastern US Native tribes, therefore debunking your notion of a "radical difference" between tribes in Houston and those on the Atlantic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
No doubt Houston had some immigration from the Atlantic Southeast during some period of time - but you clearly have not presented any case that it exceeds the cultural influence of Central or other parts of Texas, from which there was also immigration into Houston, bringing cultural influence with it.
Are you really this dense? There's still loads of evidence supporting Houston's alignment with the Atlantic South, while the only pieces of evidence for Houston's alignment with Central Texas are the Central European immigrant distributions between the two areas, and the fact that both areas shared history of being under an independent country. Given that you responded only to two points of many in my post, it is very clear that you are grasping for straws at this point. Just give up and take the L.
Actually much of the rice farming in the immediate Houston area was started by Midwestern immigrants who moved to the Katy prairie.
That sounds about right...particularly for the Katy area specifically...looks like a German immigrant planted Katy's first rice crop at the direction of a Midwestern land agent.
"Before Katy was connected by rail to Houston—and long before the suburbs came to Katy’s doorstep—the land was deemed fit only for grazing cattle. An early land agent for the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad named Adam Stockdick persuaded settlers to try their hand at farming a variety of crops and fruit trees in the prairie.*"
..."German immigrant William Eule dug Katy’s first well and grew its first rice crop.*"
doesnt really seem to apply to many other areas of the Houston area outside of Katy from what Ive read ...all told though, it looks like rice came with immigrants from the southeast, through Louisiana, westward and also from immigrants from the grain producing areas of the Midwest.
"Production, milling, and marketing flourished in South Carolina and Georgia for the next 200 years. Although there was early domestic cultivation of rice in Louisiana and Texas, commercial rice production began in Louisiana shortly before the*Civil War*and in the 1880s spread rapidly through the coastal prairies of southwest Louisiana into southeast Texas."
"Modern commercial production in Texas derived largely from the completion of the southern transcontinental railroad in 1883 and its acquisition by the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1885, coupled with the availability of cheap land on the coastal prairies, the introduction of modern rice mills, and an influx of immigrants from Louisiana and from the grain producing areas of the Midwest."
Ironically the delta portion of Arkanasas contains the same types of coastal prairie soil conducive to rice production as Houston and Louisiana, which together form the rice belt.
The Victorian homes built in Houston were of the Queen Anne style, a common variation seen in the Atlantic Coastal South. Such homes made up a substantial fabric of Houston, before they were, unfortunately, torn down. Houston dates back to the 1830s, that is more than enough time to accumulate a decent stock of Victorian homes. Of course, as time passed, other styles became en vogue, and were favored over the Victorian, but many of those newer styles still reflected what was occurring in the Southeast at the time.Was Queen Anne not seen elsewhere? It is common in the west (Califorinia etc.). Again, what is distinctively Southeast about that style? You have provided NOTHING to substantiate that assertion. To make your point, you would have to show that style to be particular to the Southeast, and that it was also particularly prominent, relative to other Victorian variations and other styles generally, in Houston. You have not at all done that.
Actually, the "Plains" sector starts well west of the Houston area, further west than even Waller or Austin counties. And the Southeast sector does go into Nueces Bay; it just shows that the Native Americans there, and through much of the Southeast had the lifestyle typical of the region, even if they were in different tribes.Incorrect, if you look at the map, the "Plains" sector starts on the Katy Prairie, east of the Brazos River. I'm guessing 25 miles or so east of the river.
It was you who claimed that native American tribes in the Houston area were quote-on-quote "radically different" than those of the Atlantic South; that's why I posted the map, to show you that though various tribes lived throughout the region from Houston to the Atlantic, all had the characteristic lifestyle that typical of Southeastern US Native tribes, therefore debunking your notion of a "radical difference" between tribes in Houston and those on the Atlantic.It was you who said that Houston specifically was affiliated with the COAST of the Atlantic Southeast, because of the seaport / near coastal location coincidence. Much of that area on your Native American map is shown as Northeastern - covering down to what appears to be most of the North Carolina coast. And a good chunk of the interior Southeast is shown as Cherokee, a very distinctive tribe that lived a very different lifestyle and culture from many coastal tribes, including the ones originally in the Houston area. Regardless if the maps classifies them both as "Southeast."
Are you really this dense? There's still loads of evidence supporting Houston's alignment with the Atlantic South, while the only pieces of evidence for Houston's alignment with Central Texas are the Central European immigrant distributions between the two areas, and the fact that both areas shared history of being under an independent country. Given that you responded only to two points of many in my post, it is very clear that you are grasping for straws at this point. Just give up and take the L.
Are you really that delusional? To assert that a part of the country, most of which is at least 1,000 miles away, had a sustained level of cultural influence over time that outweighed that from immigration and general circulation of peoples within Texas, and from areas a mere 100 miles away, primarily because there was a coincidental slave-based plantation economy in the region? An economy which was shared with parts of central Texas, all the way to Waco? And your previous argument that our distinctive mid-to-late century central European immigration (which, if anything, was in common with the Midwest), which was followed in the 1900s by increasing Hispanic immigration from Mexico (and later Central America) that was not occurring in areas east of Alabama until the last two decades - the fact that some other types of European immigration occurred in Charleston is somehow relevant? Your arguments are without reason.
Was Queen Anne not seen elsewhere? It is common in the west (Califorinia etc.). Again, what is distinctively Southeast about that style? You have provided NOTHING to substantiate that assertion. To make your point, you would have to show that style to be particular to the Southeast, and that it was also particularly prominent, relative to other Victorian variations and other styles generally, in Houston. You have not at all done that.
There were ways old homes in the Southeast were constructed pre-air conditioning, as comfort had to be maintained in the marine subtropical climate; the Victorian homes would hold many adjustments to allow for natural cooling of the home, such as reflective colors, and high roofs. Victorian style homes with such adjustments were common in the Southeast, then carrying over to Houston, which also has the same marine subtropical climate. Houston again, dates back to the 1830s; that means the city is old enough to maintain a substantial stock of such Victorian homes, as the style came en-vogue during Houston's existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
Incorrect, if you look at the map, the "Plains" sector starts on the Katy Prairie, east of the Brazos River. I'm guessing 25 miles or so east of the river.
Okay fine, to be generous, the "Plains" sector would go into counties like Austin or Waller. Much of the Houston metro would still be in the Southeast sector, meaning that the native tribes in much of the Houston area still wouldn't be radically different than those in the Atlantic Southeast, meaning that your main assertion in regards to Native tribes was debunked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
It was you who said that Houston specifically was affiliated with the COAST of the Atlantic Southeast, because of the seaport / near coastal location coincidence. Much of that area on your Native American map is shown as Northeastern - covering down to what appears to be most of the North Carolina coast. And a good chunk of the interior Southeast is shown as Cherokee, a very distinctive tribe that lived a very different lifestyle and culture from many coastal tribes, including the ones originally in the Houston area. Regardless if the maps classifies them both as "Southeast."
No, the Southeast sector includes most of the North Carolina coast, and goes up to include even a good chunk of Virginia; look at the border. Even if it didn't, much of the Atlantic South, in the form of the entire Atlantic states of Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida would still be included in the Southeast sector. You can nit-pick every little detail on the map if you want; it doesn't matter because I've already achieved my purpose with the map in debunking your notion that Houston's Native American tribes were radically different from those in the Atlantic South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
Are you really that delusional? To assert that a part of the country, most of which is at least 1,000 miles away, had a sustained level of cultural influence over time that outweighed that from immigration and general circulation of peoples within Texas, and from areas a mere 100 miles away, primarily because there was a coincidental slave-based plantation economy in the region? An economy which was shared with parts of central Texas, all the way to Waco? And your previous argument that our distinctive mid-to-late century central European immigration (which, if anything, was in common with the Midwest), which was followed in the 1900s by increasing Hispanic immigration from Mexico (and later Central America) that was not occurring in areas east of Alabama until the last two decades - the fact that some other types of European immigration occurred in Charleston is somehow relevant? Your arguments are without reason.
Remember, the argument is from a cultural root perspective; in that regard, Houston was more aligned with the Atlantic South than with Central Texas. Immigration and movements of all sorts occur to and fro Houston, but the city's root culture would still be one that more resembles the Atlantic South than Central Texas. Distance doesn't change that at all.
At this point, you are just saying things without even the slightest iota of thought put to them, getting carried away and side-tracked all over the place by minor details, while failing to disprove the main point. With that, you might as well just suck it up and take the L.
Last edited by Yn0hTnA; 07-10-2015 at 02:14 AM..
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.
