U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 04-24-2012, 10:59 AM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,937 posts, read 5,750,536 times
Reputation: 4853

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx View Post
No. East of 35 and North of 110, there is a huge Mexican presence. Both Dallas and Houston have huge barrios, and the cities themselves are roughly a third Hispanic. You can hear Mariachi music every night and twice on Sundays. Houston has multiple Spanish speaking radio stations. East Texas will undoubtedly be more southern than south or west Texas. I agree, but I very much doubt that there is a city with a population of over 30K people in the state of Texas where you cannot buy a pinata. Not true for other southern states.
Reread my post. I said that many of the current Mexican influences in much of eastern Texas are more recent. Even as young as I am, I've watched the Hispanic population boom before my eyes, and my far older relatives can tell you of a time when the city was largely just black and white, with only a few Mexicans.

In Eastern Texas, the Mexican influence is far more invasive than it is natural. Blacks are still the largest minority group in East Texas.

Quote:
I am not saying Texas is not southern. I am saying it is not "essentially" southern, and even in its most Southern parts, there will be a little (not predominant like in San Antonio, Laredo or El Paso, but a little) Mexican flavor, that will let you know that you are not in Arkansas. Even in far east Texas, there are Hispanic traces. A mission is established in Nacogdoches in 1716. Town and county names reveal their Spanish history - San Augustine, Angelina etc
Nacogdoches was founded by Spanish Europeans, and not Mexicans or Hispanics. Big difference.

Quote:
. . . There will be Negro Modela and Dos Equis for sale next to the Shiner and Lone Star in the gas stations. People will know what a fajita is, what are good nachos. They will know one or two words in Spanish. Chances are a Mexican worker built their house, certainly picked their black-eyed peas. Almost ALL agricultural labor ACROSS the state, and most construction is performed by Mexicans, often under shocking conditions.
I observed some of the same things when I lived in Georgia. Most of the homes I saw being constructed were being worked on by Mexicans. Atlanta area towns like Chamblee and Hapeville are anywhere from 40-50% Mexican.

Quote:
When a state's population is close to 40% Hispanic, it is impossible for that state to be just or essentially southern. And as you rightly point out, most Texans live in the Texas triangle, and the nearly 40% is true for that area. It is much higher in south and west Texas. I would argue that the long-standing, deep, intimate and ever-growing relationship with Mexico is one of the most important factors in making Texas, well distinctively Texas and not just another southern state, though there are of course southern elements.
I don't know anyone here who was suggesting that Texas was JUST like every other southern state, through and through, and no one is denying that Texas is a culturally complex place, but for most of us, it's downright southern where it counts. If anything, we can be proud of calling ourselves the most eclectic southern state there is.

 
Old 04-24-2012, 06:11 PM
Status: "Semi-retired. On and off line interchangeably" (set 3 days ago)
 
9,820 posts, read 11,161,735 times
Reputation: 5026
The real point is, how far back and by how much has it influenced the history/culture of the state?

Put another way, the real presece of the domination of a culture is a combination of how much historically, how recent, how strong. And -- as a corrallary -- how attached to the whole history of the area are the individuals of the said culture...?

In Texas, it was overwhelmingly that of the southeastern United States in a white/black duality. Yankees mattered almost nothing in the settlement part of the history, and the influence of hispanics is a comparatively recent phenomenon; the numbers in the Catholic church (depending on how measured) are almost entirely recent (as these things go) almost exclusively defined by northern transplants and the hispanic population.

In this aspect, as Raymond Gastil put it in his classic work "Cultural Regions of the United States." he generally placed Texas in a sub-region of the "Greater South" -- aptly named the "western South" -- where the essential elements of the South are blended with the traits of the "frontier West." To quote:

Unlike the Interior Southwest, neither aboriginal Indian nor Spanish-American culture played a central role in the definition of the area. The people of Texas are mostly from the Lower, Upper, and Mountain South and these Southerners easily outnumbered the Spanish speaking and Indian people even before the state joined the Union. Therefore, when we refer to a large Spanish-speaking population in Texas, we are primarily speaking of a relatively recent immigrant population, quite different from the core areas of the Interior Southwest."

What is wrong with that? In this sense, as Polo mentioned earlier and I (and many others have said many times before), Texas can be both Southern and Western...and no contradiction at all. It is just simply not the "West" of the Mountain states; it is much more akin to that of the Southern United States, than anything much connected with a Colorado, Utah, Arizona, etc...that did not even become states until long afterward.

I honestly don't know what is arguable about that unless one wants to persist in the delusion and/or PC history that Texas was some kind of fuzzy melting pot in the mold of California, or something.

It is equally irrating that a few seem to believe that if the obvious is stated (such as Texas' dominant history being Southern), then it must also translate into such being disrepectful of other influences. This just makes no sense...and is even insulting in its own right from the opposite direction. In fact, it borders on anyone who says otherwise to be insulting their own intelligence.

Of COURSE, Texas has many influences...but none match that of the southeastern western migration movement...both before and after the War.

Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx View Post
No. East of 35 and North of 110, there is a huge Mexican presence. Both Dallas and Houston have huge barrios, and the cities themselves are roughly a third Hispanic. You can hear Mariachi music every night and twice on Sundays. Houston has multiple Spanish speaking radio stations. East Texas will undoubtedly be more southern than south or west Texas. I agree, but I very much doubt that there is a city with a population of over 30K people in the state of Texas where you cannot buy a pinata. Not true for other southern states.
See above. When regionalizing Texas (if we must), then this aspect is -- again -- very recent in comparisson with the true SW states (as in that definied in the late 20th Century).

Quote:
I am not saying Texas is not southern. I am saying it is not "essentially" southern, and even in its most Southern parts, there will be a little (not predominant like in San Antonio, Laredo or El Paso, but a little) Mexican flavor, that will let you know that you are not in Arkansas.
And that is where we will disagree. BUT? With that said? I respect your ability to put together a great counter-argument, even in controversy. Anyway...

Point taken...but the French flavor of south Louisiana is probably as extensive as that of the hispanic of South Texas. (trans-pecos is just purely SW...I would never argue against that). Large parts of northwest Arkansas have a heavily Midwestern "flavor". There are large parts of the mountain areas of north Alabama, east Tennessee and up into Virginia that go against the "classic" notion of what the "South" is supposed to be.

This crazy idea that the "South" must be defined by the old classic imagery is probably the worst myth in American history. It ranks right up there with that Texas is a wasteland of cactus and desert! LOL But point is, the South has always been more of a part of the country that -- in almost all ways -- is defined by certain historical and cultural and linguistic and religious considerations that easily offset it from the Northeast, Midwest, and Far West.

I don't mean to be insulting in the least, the but blunt truth is, the hispanic presence and influence in Texas -- while obviously different from the rest of the South -- is not even to be compared to the interior SW states. Make no mistake about it though... I LOVE Tex-Mex. Some of my favorite aspects of my native Texas ancestry have some hispanic roots. But I can't re-write history when it simply isn't true. After the Texas Revolution and statehood, most Mexicans left the state. It wasn't until quite a few generations or so later, they started to come back....

Quote:
Even in far east Texas, there are Hispanic traces. A mission is established in Nacogdoches in 1716. Town and county names reveal their Spanish history - San Augustine, Angelina etc . . . There will be Negro Modela and Dos Equis for sale next to the Shiner and Lone Star in the gas stations. People will know what a fajita is, what are good nachos. They will know one or two words in Spanish. Chances are a Mexican worker built their house, certainly picked their black-eyed peas. Almost ALL agricultural labor ACROSS the state, and most construction is performed by Mexicans, often under shocking conditions.
Of course there are Spanish names, what we now know as Texas was once a Spanish then Mexican possession. Same as Louisiana was French...and etc. But read this (in terms of SW v. South):

*******************
Edited by Joseph Carleton Wilder
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PRESS
THE SOUTHWEST CENTER
TUCSON

From THE SOUTHWEST DEFINED

There should be much less of an argument regarding the Southwest's eastern and western boundaries. Texans may not like it, but there is no convincing or substantial physical and qualified cultural evidence that the Southwest extends eastward beyond the 104th Meridian West.

Place names in southern Texas and California suggest a rich and enduring Hispanic heritage in those two states. But following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, hordes of white Americans rushed into these Hispanic areas of Texas, and, even though white Americans totally dominated these parts of Texas, they continued to use many existing Spanish place names. Most of California's Spanish place names were designated by Anglo real estate developers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in an attempt to capitalize commercially on the state's romance that visitors and newcomers to the region found so "quaint" and attractive. A meaningful cultural presence of Hispanic traditions cannot be derived merely from Spanish place names. And other qualifications- primarily physiographic, climatic, and prehistoric-preclude Texas and California from being placed within "the Southwest."

**************************************

Quote:
When a state's population is close to 40% Hispanic, it is impossible for that state to be just or essentially southern. And as you rightly point out, most Texans live in the Texas triangle, and the nearly 40% is true for that area. It is much higher in south and west Texas.
Is it? Or is this high population a very recent (which it is) and temporary phenomenon? Regardless, it is nothing like the trends of that of the true SW...which I get the impression you may not even be arguing anymore.

Just to mention, I didn't point out the Texas triangle (actually, I think that area is becoming increasingly "non-Texan")...you might be thinking of another poster. See below for more...

Just out of curiosity, what would you say as concerns the Mexican Confederate units in Texas...? Do you have any ancestors there...

Quote:
I would argue that the long-standing, deep, intimate and ever-growing relationship with Mexico is one of the most important factors in making Texas, well distinctively Texas and not just another southern state, though there are of course southern elements.
I repeat -- you make a compelling argument -- which I always respect (I wish more did it like you do. I enjoy a good-natured scrap). But let's not try and BS each other too much, if we are going to have a respectful argument.

Unless I miss my bet, you are really not so much concerned with whether or not it is a Southern or Western or Southwest state (however defined), but how it applies to a relationship and future developements with Mexico...and immigration. This is your cause celebre'...and fine and dandy if it is...even though I will oppose it in all ways possible.

Fact is though -- whatever the future may bring -- there is no question that the hispanic influence on Texas -- nor any other -- did not really come close to equalling that of the Southern anglo/black settlement and the formed traits associated. Same as the traits of Texas/South did not come close to equalling that of the Native Americans and Mexicans in the true SW.

There is nothing for anyone on either side to be upset about...

G'night y'all!
 
Old 04-24-2012, 06:23 PM
 
13,328 posts, read 13,299,849 times
Reputation: 3424
Why can't it just be both?
 
Old 04-26-2012, 12:31 AM
 
1,024 posts, read 1,127,357 times
Reputation: 1771
Texreb,

The only point I can draw from these threads is that Texas is its own region, and cannot comfortably be confined to either Southern or Western or Southwestern or Western South or Southern Southwestern. It is too big, too diverse, its historical influences are too many and too singular. The Gastil book is now nearly 40 years old. Regionalism in the U.S. looks very different in 2012. Obviously East Texas is more Southern, and actually when I am east of Houston, I start to feel like I am no longer in Texas, but in the South, until I see oil derricks, let alone refineries, which are also all over the area when one crosses the Sabine into Louisiana, but oil derricks are such a feature of the American west. You still see them in parts of Los Angeles, the outskirts of Denver and oil has played such an important role, arguably as important a role as cattle or cotton in the making of Texas, and oil is part of the story of the American West, not the American south. The Trans-Pecos, to my mind the most beautiful part of the state is part of the interior Southwest ( we agree here), but the part of Texas between the Trinity and the Red Rivers feels culturally, topographically, if not quite demographically part of the Great Plains, as does the panhandle. Except for Baptists, there is nothing southern about Lubbock or Amarillo. This part of Texas has more in common with western Kansas than it does with east Texas. From San Antonio south, you are in a version of Tamaulipas, where English is spoken, with better roads and less narco-violence. Central Texas and the Hill country is its own weird German/Czech event from food to architecture. Texas is too big and varied for the entire state to be confined to any region. Only the east and increasingly only the rural east can be classified as comfortably southern.

That said: here are my quibbles. The Hispanic influence in Texas is WAY more significant than the French influence in Louisiana, which is vestigial, archaic and increasingly simply nostalgic. It is not like French speakers are moving to Louisiana in droves, or there is a political movement like there is in Quebec. The Hispanic influence on Texas is both historic and living. People of Hispanic ancestry make up nearly 40% of all people living in Texas, and that is not counting the "illegals" or undocumented workers. The French influence on Louisiana strikes me as a slightly more intense version of the continued German presence in Central Texas. Fredericksburg or Boerne are the equivalent of Lafayette. The two most German towns in Texas are like the most French town in Louisiana. Spanish is a living language in Texas WAY more than French is in southwestern Louisiana, or German in central Texas and way more than it is in any other southern state and ALSO way more than it is any southwestern state. Only in California are you going to encounter as much bilingualism as you will encounter in Texas. Of course, the south is diverse, NOLA, which is a city I love feels deeply Southern but also deeply Caribbean - a more prosperous Port au Prince or Kingston. When I am in Atlanta, which is a big cosmopolitan city, I still know I am in the south. When I am in Houston, not so much. I am in Texas. It is brasher, more mixed up - more friendly but also ruder.

It depends on how you slice the history and geography. 50 years ago, Texas was probably more southern, 100 years ago, definitely more southern, 150 years ago cataclysmically but contestedly southern, 200 years ago, not remotely southern. Now, not so southern. 50 years from now, probably not remotely southern again. History provides many ironic reversals. Heck, this is the largest state in the Union to reliably vote for the party of Lincoln!

Last edited by homeinatx; 04-26-2012 at 12:40 AM..
 
Old 04-26-2012, 03:09 AM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,937 posts, read 5,750,536 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx View Post
When I am in Atlanta, which is a big cosmopolitan city, I still know I am in the south. When I am in Houston, not so much.
This statement proves that our differences in opinion are more about perception than they are solid facts.

I'm a native of the latter and have lived in the former. I knew I was in the south and felt that I was in the south in both Houston and Atlanta. Neither felt distinctively more southern than the other.

I always find it funny whenever these discussions come up, and people mention how Atlanta, for being such a big city, still feels very southern. You can simply go over to their forum and find the residents asking one another "is our city still the south?" The consensus that they reach mirrors that of Houstonians': any distinct southern traits are only quite noticeable in some areas, but the city as a whole has become far too saturated with transplants to ever feel like a true southern town. In this particular situation, Houston and Atlanta are for more alike than most people realize.

I also get a chuckle out of the ridiculous notion that a significant presence of Hispanics somehow equals "not southern", as if Hispanics aren't able to be influenced by southern culture. Most people who live in Houston can tell you that's a load of bull.
 
Old 04-26-2012, 07:44 AM
Status: "Semi-retired. On and off line interchangeably" (set 3 days ago)
 
9,820 posts, read 11,161,735 times
Reputation: 5026
Homeintex,

I just this morning got a chance to read your reply, and once again appreciate that at least you back up your opinions with facts as you see them...whether we agree or not(which we do in some places and not in others).

Anyway, I gotta get to work and no time to respond at the moment, but will do so at first opportunity.

Just to mention before signing out, that one big area of contension that you seemingly find "at loggerheads" is that the South is synonymous with the Southeast and that -- where Texas is concerned -- the South and west must be mutually exclusive of one another. The oil thing is definitely one of these areas. (There are others, which will be addressed later, but this one just leapt out at me! LOL).

Anyway, again, gotta run and will rejoin later. Enjoying the discussion/debate.

Y'all all have a good day!


Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx View Post
Texreb,

The only point I can draw from these threads is that Texas is its own region, and cannot comfortably be confined to either Southern or Western or Southwestern or Western South or Southern Southwestern. It is too big, too diverse, its historical influences are too many and too singular. The Gastil book is now nearly 40 years old. Regionalism in the U.S. looks very different in 2012. Obviously East Texas is more Southern, and actually when I am east of Houston, I start to feel like I am no longer in Texas, but in the South, until I see oil derricks, let alone refineries, which are also all over the area when one crosses the Sabine into Louisiana, but oil derricks are such a feature of the American west. You still see them in parts of Los Angeles, the outskirts of Denver and oil has played such an important role, arguably as important a role as cattle or cotton in the making of Texas, and oil is part of the story of the American West, not the American south. The Trans-Pecos, to my mind the most beautiful part of the state is part of the interior Southwest ( we agree here), but the part of Texas between the Trinity and the Red Rivers feels culturally, topographically, if not quite demographically part of the Great Plains, as does the panhandle. Except for Baptists, there is nothing southern about Lubbock or Amarillo. This part of Texas has more in common with western Kansas than it does with east Texas. From San Antonio south, you are in a version of Tamaulipas, where English is spoken, with better roads and less narco-violence. Central Texas and the Hill country is its own weird German/Czech event from food to architecture. Texas is too big and varied for the entire state to be confined to any region. Only the east and increasingly only the rural east can be classified as comfortably southern.

That said: here are my quibbles. The Hispanic influence in Texas is WAY more significant than the French influence in Louisiana, which is vestigial, archaic and increasingly simply nostalgic. It is not like French speakers are moving to Louisiana in droves, or there is a political movement like there is in Quebec. The Hispanic influence on Texas is both historic and living. People of Hispanic ancestry make up nearly 40% of all people living in Texas, and that is not counting the "illegals" or undocumented workers. The French influence on Louisiana strikes me as a slightly more intense version of the continued German presence in Central Texas. Fredericksburg or Boerne are the equivalent of Lafayette. The two most German towns in Texas are like the most French town in Louisiana. Spanish is a living language in Texas WAY more than French is in southwestern Louisiana, or German in central Texas and way more than it is in any other southern state and ALSO way more than it is any southwestern state. Only in California are you going to encounter as much bilingualism as you will encounter in Texas. Of course, the south is diverse, NOLA, which is a city I love feels deeply Southern but also deeply Caribbean - a more prosperous Port au Prince or Kingston. When I am in Atlanta, which is a big cosmopolitan city, I still know I am in the south. When I am in Houston, not so much. I am in Texas. It is brasher, more mixed up - more friendly but also ruder.

It depends on how you slice the history and geography. 50 years ago, Texas was probably more southern, 100 years ago, definitely more southern, 150 years ago cataclysmically but contestedly southern, 200 years ago, not remotely southern. Now, not so southern. 50 years from now, probably not remotely southern again. History provides many ironic reversals. Heck, this is the largest state in the Union to reliably vote for the party of Lincoln!
 
Old 04-26-2012, 08:26 AM
 
1,024 posts, read 1,127,357 times
Reputation: 1771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi View Post
This statement proves that our differences in opinion are more about perception than they are solid facts.

I'm a native of the latter and have lived in the former. I knew I was in the south and felt that I was in the south in both Houston and Atlanta. Neither felt distinctively more southern than the other.

I always find it funny whenever these discussions come up, and people mention how Atlanta, for being such a big city, still feels very southern. You can simply go over to their forum and find the residents asking one another "is our city still the south?" The consensus that they reach mirrors that of Houstonians': any distinct southern traits are only quite noticeable in some areas, but the city as a whole has become far too saturated with transplants to ever feel like a true southern town. In this particular situation, Houston and Atlanta are for more alike than most people realize.

I also get a chuckle out of the ridiculous notion that a significant presence of Hispanics somehow equals "not southern", as if Hispanics aren't able to be influenced by southern culture. Most people who live in Houston can tell you that's a load of bull.
Of course, Hispanic people can be influenced by southern culture and in Texas they are, but that influence is a two way street and the resulting cultural hybridty is, for me, one of the things that makes Texas Texas and not "essentially" or even "predominantly" southern. I am fine with a phrase like "where the south meets the west." I think the state's position as a border state is historically as important and is currently more important in determining its regional character than its always already contested southern roots. How southern can the state that arguably invented and definitely popularized nachos and the margarita be? Texas is a big place comprised of many different people and legacies. It is their particular overlappings, conflicts, mergings that makes Texas unique: Neither southern, nor western, nor southwestern, nor Mexican, nor great plains and/or all of the above. I am saying it should be its own region - its big and distinctive enough. That's all.
 
Old 04-26-2012, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,516 posts, read 16,190,800 times
Reputation: 7263
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdomcome1 View Post
Western by far.....only a small fraction of the state would I consider southern (Houston and East Texas areas)

You have it flipped. It is Southern by far.

The small fraction in actuality is the western portion. The Southern portion of the State accounts for more than 20M people. The Western portion of the State accounts for what??? What is the population of El Paso to The Panhandle? 1M people???

Most people in Texas are in the Southern Part. SE Texas has about 8M people. North Texas to the Louisiana border has more than 10M people. Central Texas east of Austin has another 1M people.

Unless you are counting Coyotes as residents, you are wrong; most Texans are Southern.
 
Old 04-26-2012, 10:57 AM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,937 posts, read 5,750,536 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx View Post
Of course, Hispanic people can be influenced by southern culture and in Texas they are, but that influence is a two way street and the resulting cultural hybridty is, for me, one of the things that makes Texas Texas and not "essentially" or even "predominantly" southern. I am fine with a phrase like "where the south meets the west." I think the state's position as a border state is historically as important and is currently more important in determining its regional character than its always already contested southern roots. How southern can the state that arguably invented and definitely popularized nachos and the margarita be? Texas is a big place comprised of many different people and legacies. It is their particular overlappings, conflicts, mergings that makes Texas unique: Neither southern, nor western, nor southwestern, nor Mexican, nor great plains and/or all of the above. I am saying it should be its own region - its big and distinctive enough. That's all.
The only problem with that, as I've said time and time again, is that calling Texas its own region seems to suggest that we are a culturally monolithic place where everyone shares the same ideals, mannerisms, customs, etc., when that's obviously not true. Texarkana and Lubbock aren't the same and don't really have much in common with one another, so how accurate is it to say that they are both in the same region, and that region is called "Texas"?

We are a not a region but a very large and unique state where a wide range of different cultures find their crossroads in the middle, and calling Texas a predominantly southern state does not conflict with that, in my opinion.

We can have our cake and eat it too. We're Texas.
 
Old 04-27-2012, 07:42 AM
Status: "Semi-retired. On and off line interchangeably" (set 3 days ago)
 
9,820 posts, read 11,161,735 times
Reputation: 5026
Homeintex,

A very busy week at work (very alliterative, huh? LOL), so once again, it won't be until this evening or tomorow when I can reply in more detail to your points (which are certainly valid ones as you personally interpret and assign priority to them) even though I mostly disagree. But anyway, just checking mail this morning and after re-reading a couple of things, I did want to get a couple of preliminary points made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by homeinatx View Post
The Gastil book is now nearly 40 years old. Regionalism in the U.S. looks very different in 2012.
True the Gastil book was written in the 70's...but that doesn't invalidate the data and historical facts he provided when grouping cultural regions. Most importantly via the earlier quote is that -- unlike in the interior SW states -- native and spanish American culture never played a central role in the development of the area. Settlers from the South easily formed the largest group, outnumbering all others combined. Their attitudes, culture, etc, made up the formation of the state in those terms both before and after the War. That is simply a matter of sheer numbers, if nothing else.

Quote:
Heck, this is the largest state in the Union to reliably vote for the party of Lincoln!
LOL Yes, but it shifted in tandem with other "Solid South" states to the "party of Lincoln". Hell, the NE is now the stronghold of the party of Breckenridge! What a flip-flop, huh?

Anyway, gotta go to work. Talk to you later. Y'all have a nice day!

Last edited by TexasReb; 04-27-2012 at 08:15 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.


 

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 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 > Texas

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top