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: 
View Poll Results: Is East Texas the Deep South?
Yes 116 73.89%
No 41 26.11%
Voters: 157. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:13 AM
 
846 posts, read 372,399 times
Reputation: 1078

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe View Post
Hot fries and water.



Culturally; Dallas and Tyler/Longview are just as similar as Beaumont/Port Authur and Houston. I don't think you could really say Tyler is more like Houston than Dallas. Houston is located in different region as well from Northeast; yet it's being considered as part of east Texas.
Houston, however, is only located in a different region nominally, not literally. Dallas is located in a different region than East Texas. Houston is located in a different region than Northeast Texas, which to me, marks a difference between the two.

Quote:
I've said it before, but Tyler felt very much like Central Texas [Waco] with just more trees.
Many central texas towns feel just like east texas, including waco, hearne, and bryan/college station.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:30 AM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,937 posts, read 5,917,127 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe View Post



Culturally; Dallas and Tyler/Longview are just as similar as Beaumont/Port Authur and Houston. I don't think you could really say Tyler is more like Houston than Dallas. Houston is located in different region as well from Northeast; yet it's being considered as part of east Texas. I could make just as a strong arguement for Dallas as you guys have for Houston.

I've said it before, but Tyler felt very much like Central Texas [Waco] with just more trees.
All of those places are southern, and when you consider their relative proximity, it makes sense that each town would be more like one than the other.

The fact you continue to overlook is that whether or not it's still seen as such, today, Houston has been considered to be a part of East Texas. Dallas has never been part of it. It has always been North Texas. That's the point that solytaire and I continue to bring up that you don't seem to comprehend.

Today, being such a large and cosmopolitan area, Greater Houston is typically seen as its own region, but for most of the city's history, it has been considered part of Southeast Texas, and Southeast Texas is a subregion of East Texas. North Texas simply sits adjacent to it. It doesn't take a college degree to understand that.

YMMV, but Tyler didn't remind me of Central Texas at all, and I'm not even sure how that point is relevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:57 AM
 
Location: 77059
7,742 posts, read 18,451,986 times
Reputation: 3800
Quote:
Originally Posted by soletaire View Post
You're right, but Im well aware of both Dallas' and Fort Worth's cultural ties to East Texas...I would never suggest otherwise. I know we are speaking about cultural designations, but relative geography is a key determinant of culture (not the sole determinant of course).
One could make the argument based solely on geography that about half of Houston and even half of the metro (SW-S-SE parts), are an extension of the Gulf Coast plain that goes SW to around Corpus Christi. But generally towards the north is an obvious extension of East Texas "proper," which also fades east into southern LA towards the east, and then the western stretches fade into the east part of S. Central Texas to about Columbus. Port Arthur and most of Jefferson Co are unique again, sitting in the western-most extension of the massive marshes in extreme southern LA. But then there are vast areas west of Beaumont that are mostly similar to the south Houston-Corpus stretch.

As I've said before, and my opinion of course-- based on where I've lived, traveled, people I've met, etc- is SE TX is its own (mixed up) region unto itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2012, 12:10 PM
 
846 posts, read 372,399 times
Reputation: 1078
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone View Post
One could make the argument based solely on geography that about half of Houston and even half of the metro (SW-S-SE parts), are an extension of the Gulf Coast plain that goes SW to around Corpus Christi. But generally towards the north is an obvious extension of East Texas "proper," which also fades east into southern LA towards the east, and then the western stretches fade into the east part of S. Central Texas to about Columbus. Port Arthur and most of Jefferson Co are unique again, sitting in the western-most extension of the massive marshes in extreme southern LA. But then there are vast areas west of Beaumont that are mostly similar to the south Houston-Corpus stretch.

As I've said before, and my opinion of course-- based on where I've lived, traveled, people I've met, etc- is SE TX is its own (mixed up) region unto itself.
Quite frankly, I havent quite figured out the schulemburg/columbus/sealy/el campo/eagle lake area. I just cant pinpoint what region this area belongs to. In some ways it looks and feels like central tx, but in some ways its residents act a lot like south east texans making boudain and having crawfish boils and such, and then there is a slight coastal thing going on too. Just cant put my finger on it. They certainly are more influenced by Houston than Austin though, based on my experience there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2012, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,831 posts, read 19,964,074 times
Reputation: 6685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi View Post
All of those places are southern, and when you consider their relative proximity, it makes sense that each town would be more like one than the other.

The fact you continue to overlook is that whether or not it's still seen as such, today, Houston has been considered to be a part of East Texas. Dallas has never been part of it. It has always been North Texas. That's the point that solytaire and I continue to bring up that you don't seem to comprehend.


Like I said; I've never known Houston to be part of East Texas and have never seen such in any history or geography book. That's why I'm arguing my case.

Today, being such a large and cosmopolitan area, Greater Houston is typically seen as its own region, but for most of the city's history, it has been considered part of Southeast Texas, and Southeast Texas is a subregion of East Texas. North Texas simply sits adjacent to it. It doesn't take a college degree to understand that.

Lose the attude; it's not that serious.

Anyways, I've always seen Southeast TX as a seperate entity than that of East Texas. Kinda like how even though Dallas is centrally located; the central part of the state is split between mulitple regions [North, Central, South, etc]

YMMV, but Tyler didn't remind me of Central Texas at all, and I'm not even sure how that point is relevant.
Because you guys keep pointing out how East Texas is so different from other regions of Texas that I'm just not seeing; I used my own personal experience to back up my statement. Many parts of East Texas and Central/North Texas were settled by people of the same region [upper south]. Whereas the coastal/southeast parts of Texas were settled by those of the lower parts of the south. I remember TexasReb posting a map once showing this; I wish I could find it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2012, 01:22 PM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,937 posts, read 5,917,127 times
Reputation: 4853
[quote=blkgiraffe;24428404]Like I said; I've never known Houston to be part of East Texas and have never seen such in any history or geography book. That's why I'm arguing my case.

Lose the attude; it's not that serious.

Anyways, I've always seen Southeast TX as a seperate entity than that of East Texas. Kinda like how even though Dallas is centrally located; the central part of the state is split between mulitple regions [North, Central, South, etc
[/quote]

I don't have an attitude.

Southeast Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Southeast Texas is a subregion of East Texas located in the southeast corner of the U.S. state of Texas. The subregion is geographically centered around the Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown and Beaumont–Port Arthur metropolitan areas.
Plain as day.



Quote:
Because you guys keep pointing out how East Texas is so different from other regions of Texas that I'm just not seeing; I used my own personal experience to back up my statement. Many parts of East Texas and Central/North Texas were settled by people of the same region [upper south]. Whereas the coastal/southeast parts of Texas were settled by those of the lower parts of the south. I remember TexasReb posting a map once showing this; I wish I could find it.
I know exactly what map you're talking about, and it doesn't change any of my points.

You're the first person I've ever seen mentioning that you didn't notice many distinct differences in East Texas versus the rest of the state. It's rather clear to most others, as even the poll reflects.

The vegetation and environment of the region is obviously more like that of the Southeast US than the rest of the state (ET even has different dirt--the red clay that is a trait of Dixie), the weather is different, the accents are different, and of course the food is different. In a state that's known for it's beef barbecue, ET is the odd man out with its barbecue scene being dominated by pork. Hey, if you look closely, even the architecture seems to be different. The mannerisms and culture altogether seem more reminiscent of the more "soft" south than the more rugged, dry dirt, rough and tumble attitude of the rest of Texas.

I can't force you to change your opinion, but solytaire and I simply have more facts on our side of the argument.

Last edited by Nairobi; 05-23-2012 at 01:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2012, 02:02 PM
 
Location: 77059
7,742 posts, read 18,451,986 times
Reputation: 3800
In the Houston area the red clay dirt doesn't start until you get as far north as about The Woodlands. The rest of the Houston area has the "gumbo" black soil that is so popular for ruining home foundations. Port Arthur has the same gumbo but a it seems to have a tan color. In the furthest stretch of SE Houston it's a patchwork of gumbo & Galveston-style sand. As far as BBQ goes, in my experience as a native Houstonian- beef brisket with the perfect smoke ring was always king. It still is in our little establishments around me.

Architecture- I'll give you that one, think Nacogdoches and Galveston. However if we're talking about pre-WWII homes, you can find the same exact style in Beaumont, Houston, Sugar Land, League City, Galveston, San Antonio, McAllen, Dallas and even Frisco and likely hundreds of places across the whole South.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2012, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
16,499 posts, read 22,978,962 times
Reputation: 12798
Wikipedia cannot be considered a primary source for a serious researcher, primarily because of how it's created and edited. On some things it's a good starting point for further research, and they do their best to keep bias out, but when someone cites Wikipedia as an authority to bolster their own argument and then mentions that they themselves had a great deal to do with the entry in question, as I've heard done in this and other arguments, it does give anyone who is serious about research pause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2012, 03:02 PM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,937 posts, read 5,917,127 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone View Post
In the Houston area the red clay dirt doesn't start until you get as far north as about The Woodlands. The rest of the Houston area has the "gumbo" black soil that is so popular for ruining home foundations. Port Arthur has the same gumbo but a it seems to have a tan color. In the furthest stretch of SE Houston it's a patchwork of gumbo & Galveston-style sand. As far as BBQ goes, in my experience as a native Houstonian- beef brisket with the perfect smoke ring was always king. It still is in our little establishments around me.
I wasn't referring to Houston specifically when I was talking the barbecue and soil; just East Texas in general.

I have seen red clay and the light sand dispersed throughout much of the northern half of Houston (along with the Black Gumbo). As I can recall, you don't really start seeing the solid sheets of red until you're past Humble.

Barbecue in Houston is quite possibly the most multifaceted of any other city. Due to its relation to German Central Texas, brisket obviously plays a dominant role in our local, more conventionally "Texan" barbecue scene. Still, on the other side, you have the more traditionally southern variations (chopped, instead of sliced; sandwiches; sauces) and African-American influenced style of barbecue, which further solidifies our connection to East Texas and the rest of the south. The latter is the one I grew up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2012, 03:08 PM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,937 posts, read 5,917,127 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Wikipedia cannot be considered a primary source for a serious researcher, primarily because of how it's created and edited. On some things it's a good starting point for further research, and they do their best to keep bias out, but when someone cites Wikipedia as an authority to bolster their own argument and then mentions that they themselves had a great deal to do with the entry in question, as I've heard done in this and other arguments, it does give anyone who is serious about research pause.
As long as sources are cited on the page, Wikipedia can be reliable as a quick go-to for condensed information. I'm not sure if you're accusing me of it, but to be clear, I contributed nothing to that page that I linked to.

But since you seem to be suggesting that I'm off about something, then what is it? I notice that several of you are in the habit of going around threads and accusing people of not knowing what they're talking about, but you yourself have yet to provide anything of real value to this discussion. Let's hear it already.
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:


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