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.
I posted earlier that many Texans probably do identify with more than one regional identity. When I was in school in a district in Texas, I was taught that Texas was a "Southwestern" state, even though many say I was, and am, in the most "Southern" part of the state, so I will always hold that identity (Southwestern that is).
As far as Texas being Southern simply because it was once part of the "Confederacy" . One, Texas was also an independent nation at one time, which I think has more to do with the "Texas" identity than a brief affiliation with the CSA, and two, Sam Houston told Texas "not" to go Confederate and he was right...
Of course you're free to hold that opinion based on your life experiences in the state of Texas. My opinion differs, based on my life experiences in the state of Texas.
I doubt we'll be able to convince each other that we're "right." And that's OK too. Though for the life of me I can't figure out how anyone could objectively look at the geographical state of Texas and say it was ONLY Southwestern - it's clearly right smack dab in the middle of the American southern states with half on the southwestern side and half on the southeastern side.
Of course you're free to hold that opinion based on your life experiences in the state of Texas. My opinion differs, based on my life experiences in the state of Texas.
I doubt we'll be able to convince each other that we're "right." And that's OK too. Though for the life of me I can't figure out how anyone could objectively look at the geographical state of Texas and say it was ONLY Southwestern - it's clearly right smack dab in the middle of the American southern states with half on the southwestern side and half on the southeastern side.
I absolutely agree that many hold more than one regional identity, and that is fine with me. I know that there is a sizable portion of Texas that would identify as Southern first and foremost. I have over the years made some concessions to Southern influences myself. With me though, My order of regional identities is Texan first, Southwestern would be second, and Southern would be third.
I couldn't care less what they call their magazine or Texas, but based on the fact that they made a list of 'best' cities w/o differentiating requirements - that pretty much kills legitimacy right there. Now, if it said '10 best kids to raise a family for less' or '10 best cities for urban living' or whatever, it might make more sense.
I couldn't care less what they call their magazine or Texas, but based on the fact that they made a list of 'best' cities w/o differentiating requirements - that pretty much kills legitimacy right there. Now, if it said '10 best kids to raise a family for less' or '10 best cities for urban living' or whatever, it might make more sense.
Yeah, I'm bored - you would be too if you were stuck at home with a torn Achilles tendon. One can only watch SO MUCH HGTV...
So the Federal Government considers the District of Columbia to be part of the South? That is both hilarious and ironic.
LOL I agree (although there is a little more history to it than that, but that is another topic), but yes, Maryland, Delaware and D.C. are included in the Census Bureau South, and that is the criteria Southern Living magazine uses in terms of its coverage!
=Jack Lance;33363807]Wow , you make a guy work to post with you don't you....All the stats are great "but" if the same respondents were given other choices for regional identities such as Western, Southwestern, or perhaps Texan as a regional identity, what would the result be?
LOL Did you bother to read that in this one, there WAS a choice. Here it is again:
************
From the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, In Vol. 7, Number 3 of this journal (September 1987), in the article Changing Usage of Four American Regional Labels, Professor James R. Shortridge (Department of Geography, University of Kansas) seeks, through a statistically random analysis of identification cards sent out with a product, to identify contemporary trends of regional self-identification in terms of the four labels East, West, South, and Midwest. Here is a ranked list in terms of percentage of people who chose South as their primary regional identification.
More than 50%: 1. Arkansas 56/77 72.73% 2. South Carolina 66/91 72.53% 3. Texas 526/739 71.18% 4. North Carolina 87/145 60%
*********************
Satisfied? Now so far as the other --- Southern Focus Poll goes -- one goes...? Did you not read the whole intent behind it? Apparently you didn't. So let me summarize it (although you can go back and read it yourself in terms of intent). There was a two-fold reason/intent....
1. The Southern Focus Poll isolates the South in terms of questions on various issues; same as Gallup and Harris, etc, do. The SFP defines the South -- for polling purposes -- the exact same way the Gallup bunch does it. That is, the 11 Old Confederate States plus Kentucky and Oklahoma. They decided to actually DO a survey -- which spanned 7 years -- to ascertain whether or not their definition of the South had a real basis. Thus, they put two bland and neutrally worded questions to those contacted:
A. Do you consider your community to be in the South?
B. Do you consider yourself a Southerner?
2. The poll was also intended (as a second consideration) of defining the South -- as there are literally scores of definitions -- by the unique approach of delineating its boundaries as to where a majority of respondents said they lived in the South, and considered themselves Southerners.
In both considerations, the results confirmed that there was indeed a separate Southern identity -- both in terms of confirmation for isolated polling purposes, as well as giving strong credibility to yet another among dozens if not hundreds of definitions of just what constitutes the South. Satisfied?
Quote:
All the stats are great "but" if the same respondents were given other choices for regional identities such as Western, Southwestern, or perhaps Texan as a regional identity, what would the result be?
Well, to start, the choice of "Western" has already been addressed above. So far as Texan goes? It is a given that that such (Texan) would be first choice. Same as likely would South Carolina be picked by residents of South Carolina and Virginians with Virginia and so on and etc.
In any case the choice "Texan" (or any other separate state identity) is not relevant to the larger question. Which is -- as all states are placed within a larger region -- which one would Texas belong with, as a whole?
I think we will all mostly agree it would not be the Midwest and certainly not the Northeast. LOL
But anyway, the key to placing a state into a given region is just how much it has in common -- historically/culturally/politically -- to other states also considered part of the same region.
For instance, yes, Texas is "western", but does it share the same features as the states of the Rocky Mountain or interior SW states? If so? What are they?
The "Southwest" presents a different problem, simply because the meaning/defintion has shifted so much over the years, and it unclear what it really means, anymore. Yes, a majority of residents of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma would almost certainly answer "yes" if asked if they lived in the Southwest.
BUT? Do most residents of the former pair (AZ and NM) consider themselves to share a common bond with Texas and Oklahoma, and vice-versa? Is it the "same" Southwest? The whole history of shifting and evolving definitions of "Southwest" just don't bear this out. Texas (and later Oklahoma) were taken to be "Southwest" as in "western South", incorporating a solidly Southern foundation with a frontier "western" (post-bellum) character!
On the other hand? There is nothing "Southern" (as commonly thought of) about New Mexico and Arizona. The are only "southern (lower case intentional) as in they are in the southern part of the West. Southwest as in "southern West".
Quote:
The US Census bureau is not omniscient and I do not accept their regional designations as gospel. :
LMAO. Thanks for enlightening me on that one, JL. But since you seem to take a didactic tone (which you often do with all you converse with), if you will note from earlier posts? I do not accept it either. I have a totally different definition of the South, as I know many others do.
BUT...this is not about whether you or I accept it or not...it is about what Southern Living magazine considers the South, thus the reason there was a separate article about Texas. I happen to agree with the inclusion, but understand that some don't. But bottom line is that is the reason why there was a list of "Top Ten Texas Cities".
Quote:
Plus I do think one could consider themselves to be more than one of the above, and I'm sure many do.:cool
And yes, true. I agree on some levels. For instance, if I were asked if I was a "westerner" with the alternative being "easterner", I would definitely say the former. But that sorta brings in nuances, as in that while I consider myself a Southerner, I would also say I am a "westerner"...and see no contradiction at all, because the history/culture of Texas allows for it. Same as a Kansan can answer both Midwestern and "western" and no contradiction, or a Georgian "Southern" and eastern" and all.
But that really doesn't address your real point, does it? What I gather is that what you are really asking is can a person consider themselves of dual definition in the sense of feeling themselves both, say, Midwestern and Southern, sharing a true historical/cultural identification with both?
I would emphatically say yes. Historically speaking, it manifested as in just how divided of how border states were when it came to picking sides during the War, particularly in the border states. (LOL, something like the old Mary McGregor song of the 70's "Torn Between Two Lovers"? ).
=Jack Lance;33366939] I posted earlier that many Texans probably do identify with more than one regional identity. When I was in school in a district in Texas, I was taught that Texas was a "Southwestern" state, even though many say I was, and am, in the most "Southern" part of the state, so I will always hold that identity (Southwestern that is).
And that is fine, JL. But the question I would put to you is what other states do you consider part of the same "Southwest" you identify with? And for what and by what criteria?
I hasten to add I will never ask a question of another poster that I would not be first willing to answer myself. In this case? It boils down to that settlers from the southeastern states -- both before and after the War, were easily the overwhelming majority. They brought their attitudes and culture with them. On the other hand, what did New Mexico and Arizona contribute to the formation of Texas? (they didn't even become states until well after Texas was pretty much settled)
Quote:
As far as Texas being Southern simply because it was once part of the "Confederacy" . One, Texas was also an independent nation at one time, which I think has more to do with the "Texas" identity than a brief affiliation with the CSA,...
LOL. Do you honestly think that is all there is too it? That it was simply once a part of the Confederacy? C'mon. The reason Texas joined the Confederacy -- and was one of the original seceding states -- was absolutely because our whole development was the manifestation of a solid bond to the other Southern states.
And this same general affinity continued and still does, with the experiences of Reconstruction, and later on, the Solid South politically, the dominance of the Southern Baptist Church, the linguistic affiliation, the "down home" traditions (such as eating black-eyed peas on New Years day, just to name one of a hundred), and etc. etc.
But again, to repeat the question -- in contrast -- in what ways did NM and AZ influence Texas when stacked up against the above?
Quote:
Sam Houston told Texas "not" to go Confederate and he was right
Are we going to go there again, JL? Tell me, what course should Texas have taken, given the alternatives and situation of the day? Not that stemming when one has the luxury -- as you do -- of not only "arguing from result", plus not having to actually deal with it, on a personal basis, as one is a century removed from it all. How convenient.
Quote:
Sam Houston told Texas "not" to go Confederate and he was right
So should Texas have remained in the Union and fought with the North? Please answer this. What were the realistic options?
And Sam Houston never said any such thing. LOL Geez, at least stick to actual -- even if paraphrased -- actual quotes. Houston opposed secession, true, believing it to be "rash action" at the time. But once it all got going, he supported his state and region in where his loyalties were. This was very typical (and admirable) of "Southern Unionists" throughout the South. They may have resisted secession initially -- and for good reasons on lots of levels -- but once it was a done-deal, they accepted the verdict and supported the new Confederacy. Houston did the same.
I will try to be brief and, I will try not to preach with this reply, will you? lol
I think many Texans do consider Texas a region all to itself and not just a state identity. Texas is larger in area than other regions like the Northeast, New England or middle Atlantic states, as a few examples, and as unique in spirit that I do think it is different in many cases than what you post as an example of the South Carolinian.
Texas does have historical ties to New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arizona as well. The Eastern 2/3rds of present day NM was once claimed by Texas, and Arizona was formed out of the New Mexico territory, which in turn was formed out of the Mexican Cession, which of course was a direct result of Texas's admission into the US. I would say these are direct historical ties with a union that is still intact today. Take the CSA out of the equation and ask yourself how "southern" Texas is. Is it Dixie?
Like I told Kathryn I was taught in middle school that Texas was in the Southwest region of the US. I assume that since text books are approved at the state level that students all over the state were being taught the same as I was, maybe I am mistaken. I don't think so, and that tells me at least in the 1970's that the state establishment of Texas did not see this state as Southern, or at least they did not want to teach their kids that Texas was Southern for whatever reason. Maybe others who remember their middle school geography can chime in on when this may have changed.
I understand it was Southern living or whatever magazine that posted a list of "Texas" Cities. It was Middesean(sp) Who posted that the magazine was listing cities that were not southern. I asked for a clarification, was he saying none of those Texas cities were southern, or was he saying that some Texas cities are not southern while others are , he confirmed the latter then all hell broke lose when you chimed in and now short replys are impossible.
I hope you have a great weekend and I can't wait for your learned reply !
I will try to be brief and, I will try not to preach with this reply, will you? lol
I think many Texans do consider Texas a region all to itself and not just a state identity. Texas is larger in area than other regions like the Northeast, New England or middle Atlantic states, as a few examples, and as unique in spirit that I do think it is different in many cases than what you post as an example of the South Carolinian.
Texas does have historical ties to New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arizona as well. The Eastern 2/3rds of present day NM was once claimed by Texas, and Arizona was formed out of the New Mexico territory, which in turn was formed out of the Mexican Cession, which of course was a direct result of Texas's admission into the US. I would say these are direct historical ties with a union that is still intact today. Take the CSA out of the equation and ask yourself how "southern" Texas is. Is it Dixie?
Like I told Kathryn I was taught in middle school that Texas was in the Southwest region of the US. I assume that since text books are approved at the state level that students all over the state were being taught the same as I was, maybe I am mistaken. I don't think so, and that tells me at least in the 1970's that the state establishment of Texas did not see this state as Southern, or at least they did not want to teach their kids that Texas was Southern for whatever reason. Maybe others who remember their middle school geography can chime in on when this may have changed.
I understand it was Southern living or whatever magazine that posted a list of "Texas" Cities. It was Middesean(sp) Who posted that the magazine was listing cities that were not southern. I asked for a clarification, was he saying none of those Texas cities were southern, or was he saying that some Texas cities are not southern while others are , he confirmed the latter then all hell broke lose when you chimed in and now short replys are impossible.
I hope you have a great weekend and I can't wait for your learned reply !
I should not make assumptions about what you saying but I think it would be silly to think that "Beautiful Northwest Houston" has more in common with Arizona or New Mexico than it does the south.
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.
.
But since you seem to take a didactic tone (which you often do with all you converse with), if you will note from earlier posts? I do not accept it either. I have a totally different definition of the South, as I know many others do. 
).
Tell me, what course should Texas have taken, given the alternatives and situation of the day? Not that stemming when one has the luxury -- as you do -- of not only "arguing from result", plus not having to actually deal with it, on a personal basis, as one is a century removed from it all. How convenient. 
