Poll: Why do some southerners try to pretend TX is the South? (Center: income, bill)
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.
Atlanta is failing - it has one of the highest vacancy rates and home foreclosure rates, and worse sprawl (like 24 counties!!!! all the way to alabama) of any city. It's economy is petering out - it seems its growth really stagnated since the 90s. Houston has been going for 20 some years, and so has Dallas and Austin. Atlanta also has horrible crime problems. It just cannot compete.
Yeah we're about to digress back to a small town, I bet you'd like that. Atl is still in this competition and get Austin outta here. I'll give you the foreclosure rate thing because we are 20 in the top 25 highest foreclosure rate list: Which U.S. City Ranks Highest in Foreclosure Rates-International Business Times. There's alot of cities higher than us on that list who can F with TX cities but ATL will be alright.
Because it sort of is.
I mean east Texas resembles Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama more then West Texas...
Strongly African American and Christian with BBQ and the works.
West Texas is more Hispanic, as opposed to AA. It Resembles New Mexico most, and has the whole Tex-Mex thing with a stronger Catholic identity.
The Pan Handle resembles Oklahoma, and probably Kansas a little.
So I mean...It's not bad, Texas is usually counted as South or West...
Don't get mad, its not a huge deal.
Texas is technically part of the south, even if the culture changes.
I find your thread a little offensive, but not enough to argue about it.
I don't consider Texas, South, Midwest, West or whatever.
Many Texans here identify themselves as southerners too keep that in mind.
Status:
"Gone to Caddo Lake. Off line a bit!"
(set 2 days ago)
8,921 posts, read 8,310,590 times
Reputation: 4194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Summers
I said no offense, you know? I was proving a point, you do know that right? The content below is what should make you shake your head and walk out of the room unless you agree with it:
Why do some Southerners erroneously claim TX is part of the South?
Because they know their region lacks prestige and want to include TX to bring it up
Jealousy of Texas' greater prestige makes Southerners vindictive and want to drag down TX with them
Ignorance
All of the above
I understand completely, Scott. BTW -- I encourage you (and anybody else) -- if you haven't already -- to take the OP up on the offer to review the original thread and indeed take a look at what is grandiosely self-described as a "painstaking" examination of "scientific data"
What was actually presented were a small handful of figures (which were later debunked as to either veracity and/or relevavance) which ranged from the superificial (dental health) to abbreviated stats (the erroneous contention Texas is a "Catholic State"). Too, as one poster astutely pointed out, others facets demonstrated little more than the relative wealth of certain states. I hasten to add I am not attacking the guy personally, and I am sure he is competent in whatever is his chosen field, but no one would confuse the case made as consisting of research which would be accepted as scholarly or valid in the realm of socio-cultural regional studies.
In fact, just on a whim while on a work break, I took all of 15 minutes to find several "facts" of the same general type used by the OP. They included:
Overall health ranking (since the OP touted this one in particular): http://www.americashealthrankings.org/2008/results.html (The least healthy are Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, followed by Florida, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Nevada and Georgia).
Top ten states in use of corporal punishment in public schools (which I support): U.S.: Corporal Punishment and Paddling Statistics by State and Race (http://www.stophitting.com/disatschool/statesBanning.php - broken link)
(Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, Missouri, Florida.
Since all the above "scientific data lists" overwhelmingly consists of Southern states, does it prove anything? Well, yes, it shows that for every type statistic presented originally, those of the same general worth can be found which are of equal consequence as per the topic at hand.
Bottom line is a state's regional identity is largely based on longstanding cultural and historical similarities. Not its comparative wealth nor carefully selected tables which will show anamalies in all regions of the country. But again, see for yourself. As well as later replies.
I understand completely, Scott. BTW -- I encourage you (and anybody else) -- if you haven't already -- to take the OP up on the offer to review the original thread and indeed take a look at what is grandiosely self-described as a "painstaking" examination of "scientific data"
What was actually presented were a small handful of figures (which were later debunked as to either veracity and/or relevavance) which ranged from the superificial (dental health) to abbreviated stats (the erroneous contention Texas is a "Catholic State"). Too, as one poster astutely pointed out, others facets demonstrated little more than the relative wealth of certain states. I hasten to add I am not attacking the guy personally, and I am sure he is competent in whatever is his chosen field, but no one would confuse the case made as consisting of research which would be accepted as scholarly or valid in the realm of socio-cultural regional studies.
In fact, just on a whim while on a work break, I took all of 15 minutes to find several "facts" of the same general type used by the OP. They included:
Overall health ranking (since the OP touted this one in particular):
americashealthrankings.org/2008/index.html. (The least healthy are Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas).
Top ten states in use of corporal punishment in public schools (which I support): U.S.: Corporal Punishment and Paddling Statistics by State and Race (http://www.stophitting.com/disatschool/statesBanning.php - broken link)
(Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, Missouri, Florida.
Since all the above consists of Southern states, does it prove anything? Well, yes, it shows that for every statistic presented by he OP, that stats can be found which are of equal consequence as per the topic at hand.
Bottom line is a state's regional identity is largely based on longstanding cultural and historical similarities. Not its comparative wealth nor carefully selected tables which will show anamolies in all regions of the country. But again, see for yourself. As well as later replies.
The point of the other thread was to say here are several elements, each of which all of the recognized southern states share. They are "necessary elements" of southern states. I then showed how texas LACKED several of these necessary elements. By definition therefore, texas is not a southern state.
What you are attempting to do is say here is a necessary element of being southern (lots of death row) that texas POSSESSES, therefore it's southern. But it doesn't work that way. Lots of states outside the south possess traits that all southern states possess. The point is to falsify southernness. "All southern states have trees. New york has trees. Therefore its southern." Extreme stupid example, but you get the point. Now, if somebody tried to argue that NY was southern, how would you debunk it? You would point out that all southern states possess a common trait that NY lacks.
Since this isn't an exact science, I used a lot of hard data to show how texas is unique.
You didn't debunk anything. You tried to argue that history, not science, matters. And you implicitly made the bizarre assumption that somehow hispanics aren't important to a state's identity, only whites. That's not scientifically sound, because nobody makes that assumption in any other context.
The point is that history is really useless, especially in the case of TX where it was so small and insignificant at the time of the civil war, and formed its identity mostly AFTER the civil war.
Status:
"Gone to Caddo Lake. Off line a bit!"
(set 2 days ago)
8,921 posts, read 8,310,590 times
Reputation: 4194
Quote:
Originally Posted by txguy2009
The point of the other thread was to say here are several elements, each of which all of the recognized southern states share. They are "necessary elements" of southern states. I then showed how texas LACKED several of these necessary elements. By definition therefore, texas is not a southern state.
What you are attempting to do is say here is a necessary element of being southern (lots of death row) that texas POSSESSES, therefore it's southern. But it doesn't work that way. Lots of states outside the south possess traits that all southern states possess. The point is to falsify southernness. "All southern states have trees. New york has trees. Therefore its southern." Extreme stupid example, but you get the point. Now, if somebody tried to argue that NY was southern, how would you debunk it? You would point out that all southern states possess a common trait that NY lacks.
Since this isn't an exact science, I used a lot of hard data to show how texas is unique.
You didn't debunk anything. You tried to argue that history, not science, matters. And you implicitly made the bizarre assumption that somehow hispanics aren't important to a state's identity, only whites. That's not scientifically sound, because nobody makes that assumption in any other context.
The point is that history is really useless, especially in the case of TX where it was so small and insignificant at the time of the civil war, and formed its identity mostly AFTER the civil war.
Status:
"Gone to Caddo Lake. Off line a bit!"
(set 2 days ago)
8,921 posts, read 8,310,590 times
Reputation: 4194
Quote:
Originally Posted by txguy2009
The point of the other thread was to say here are several elements, each of which all of the recognized southern states share. They are "necessary elements" of southern states. I then showed how texas LACKED several of these necessary elements. By definition therefore, texas is not a southern state.
As usual, I am at work and don't have unlimited time to reply. But will do so quickly. Anyway, sorry, but IMHO you just ever more self-destructing. For instance, how, just to take one of your examples, is "poor dental health" a "necessary element" of being Southern? The comparative wealth table? Is being poor a "necessary element" of being Southern? The closest thing you had on your handful of stats that was relevant and reasonably complete in its truthfulness was that Texas has a large number of Catholics in comparrison to most Southern states. However, even that one failed in that Texas is still a Protestant dominated state (with Southern Baptist far and away leading), the great majority of Catholics are newcomers and hispanic migrants (many illegal) and the state is very much part of the traditionally defined Bible Belt.
What you are attempting to do is say here is a necessary element of being southern (lots of death row) that texas POSSESSES, therefore it's southern. But it doesn't work that way. Lots of states outside the south possess traits that all southern states possess. The point is to falsify southernness. "All southern states have trees. New york has trees. Therefore its southern." Extreme stupid example, but you get the point. Now, if somebody tried to argue that NY was southern, how would you debunk it? You would point out that all southern states possess a common trait that NY lacks.
Yes, an extremely stupid example and extremely faulty reasoning. However, it doesn't make the point you intend. In fact, it does just the opposite. To wit:
First of all, I didn't use the term "necessary elements." You did in your opening paragraph to describe your own stats (and those have been addressed). No, my point was to show that anyone can come up with the same type stats and call them "necessary elements" of Southerness. However, I didn't do it with my examples, but you did with yours. What is the difference? This fallacy you are laborously attempting to demonstrate I am making is in reality a very large mirror you yourself are staring directly into. All you are doing is contradicting yourself.
Here is a prime example. Take one example you used. Dental Health. Ok, I went to a page showing overall state health rankings, and it shows Texas ranks solidly with other Southern states. How is your single item health data relevant when it makes whatever your point is about tooth health being intrinsic to Southern existence, but mine, which encompasses a much broader spectrum in the same area, isn't?
The same general point can be made with the death penalty example. You used several tables which show how in certain statistical areas Texas differs from some southeastern states and conclude it demonstrates the former is not part of the traditionally defined South. However, when the tables are turned (pun intended) showing striking similarities in other areas, it then dismissed?
The New York attempt? Once again -- like an example you used of New England in the earlier thread -- a non-sequitur. For one, New York was never considered Southern. But yes, I understand that was a stupid example and was intended so. So lets do it this way. As was pointed out to you on the earlier thread by Saint Marks, many non-Southern states possess qualities that Southern states possess. However, it was YOU who chose to ignore that fact in your presentation. But don't take my word, people can go back and read it for themselves. Your lecture on this point needs to be self-directed where it belongs.
Quote:
Since this isn't an exact science, I used a lot of hard data to show how texas is unique.
Most everyone knows Texas is unique. When was that said othewise? What is your point? If you had started from that premise, then there would not be anything to argue about.
Quote:
You didn't debunk anything. You tried to argue that history, not science, matters. And you implicitly made the bizarre assumption that somehow hispanics aren't important to a state's identity, only whites. That's not scientifically sound, because nobody makes that assumption in any other context.
Oh man...
Just a few sentences ago you said this was not an exact science. I agree. Yet in an earlier post you stated how you used a "painstaking" examination of "scientific data" to make your case. Now, you make some sort of bizarre appeal to science vs. history...when really, nothing you presented originally is science at all. But if you do chose to present it as such then the couple of counter-stats I provided must be taken as equally relevant, no matter how desperately you try to distinguish them.
But anyway, yes. In the study of regional culture and geography, long-standing historical and cultural elements play a very large and central role in it.
Ahhh, yes, bringing the race-card into it. The refuge of those who can make their points no other way. Here is what I wrote:
As it may though, unlike in the true SW states (New Mexico, Arizona, maybe southern California) the hispanic population boom is a fairly recent phenomenon, and no telling how much is illegal. The latter factor especially being one which can hardly be discounted when looking at Texas religious culture from a broad historical perspective. It is this contemporary (and uncertain) development -- not anything entrenched and long-standing --which accounts for a large Catholic population.
As Raymond Gastil in his book "Cultural Regions of the United States" (where he put almost the entire state of Texas in a sub-region of the "Greater South" aptly named the "western South") he noted the vast differences with the true SW (or "southern West" ! LOL), one of which was the hispanic influence. As he put it: 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."
And again, this is not to disparage any people and culture, but to note an historical demographic fact. From another angle, race-relations (both good and bad), as well as laws in Texas back in the pre-Civil Rights Days was like that of other Southern states...that is, overall, defined as a black/white duality. Sometime this wasn't pleasant, of course (Jim Crow Laws, for instance), but it was history.
Quote:
The point is that history is really useless, especially in the case of TX where it was so small and insignificant at the time of the civil war, and formed its identity mostly AFTER the civil war.
Texas wasn't small. Relative to its boundaries, it had a small population, but the total population was comparable to most of the other Confederate states. Yes, Texas formed a lot of its identity after the War. And that identity (not even withstanding the direct legacies of the War) were mostly shaped by Southerners and Southern culture.
Well, time to get back to work. Final note on the subject is to encourage others to look over the original thread and make their own minds up as to the best case presented and the best evidence provided (and by the way, I was not the only one participating).
You're still in denial that Catholics outnumber baptists in TX???????????? The defining element of the bible belt is dominance by baptists, and Texas does not have that.
Do all protestants together outnumber catholics? I don't know and it doesn't matter because lutherans/methodist/presbyterian, etc. do not matter for "bible belt" purposes.
And "illegals" are usually not in these surveys because they're conducted over landline telephone.
?What it is the south my peeps from Alabama and Georgia love Texas and it is the South not the midwest because were not near Kansas City or STL were close to New Orleans, Memphis, Jackson, Little Rock and why does it matter, I cant stand dumb ass questions
Status:
"Gone to Caddo Lake. Off line a bit!"
(set 2 days ago)
8,921 posts, read 8,310,590 times
Reputation: 4194
Quote:
Originally Posted by txguy2009
You're still in denial that Catholics outnumber baptists in TX???????????? The defining element of the bible belt is dominance by baptists, and Texas does not have that.
Do all protestants together outnumber catholics? I don't know and it doesn't matter because lutherans/methodist/presbyterian, etc. do not matter for "bible belt" purposes.
And "illegals" are usually not in these surveys because they're conducted over landline telephone.
LMAO In denial?
Oh well, you are once again, shifting your position to suit (which is not surprising). Your original point was not that Catholics outnumber Baptists, but that "Texas as a whole is Catholic." And that Texas was a "Catholic state." It isn't, as Protestants easily outnumber Catholics.
As it is though, now that you bring it up? According to this data, Baptists alone -- with Southern Baptist the largest affiliation -- indeed do outnumber Catholics (this is in the 2008-2009 Texas Almanac):
As you well know, I never made that claim initially (only that Protestants outnumber Catholics) and such can easily be verfied. But -- at least going by this source (which is apparently reliable enough to be included in the official state almanac) --Baptists alone do in fact hold a slight plurality.
The Bible Belt issue is an aside, but where did you come by your seeming position that only Baptists count? It is largely based on where in the country is generally fundamentalist/evangelical protestant churches are most common. Baptists are a major part of it to be sure, but in the South so are Methodists, Pentacostals, Church of Christ, etc.
Also, Texas is part of the Bible Belt and no one denies it.
Reliable data on numbers of religious aderents are not done by phone either, but by membership and attendence lists. Although, however, it does appear that the map data you provided was based on a phone survey (not saying there is anything wrong with that if the methodology is reliable). On the other hand, the table I gave appeared in the latest Texas Almanac and was done by a research center (Glenmary Research Center http://www.glenmary.org/grc/default.htm (broken link)) whose purpose are a study of religion in the United States).
The point of the other thread was to say here are several elements, each of which all of the recognized southern states share. They are "necessary elements" of southern states. I then showed how texas LACKED several of these necessary elements. By definition therefore, texas is not a southern state.
What you are attempting to do is say here is a necessary element of being southern (lots of death row) that texas POSSESSES, therefore it's southern. But it doesn't work that way. Lots of states outside the south possess traits that all southern states possess. The point is to falsify southernness. "All southern states have trees. New york has trees. Therefore its southern." Extreme stupid example, but you get the point. Now, if somebody tried to argue that NY was southern, how would you debunk it? You would point out that all southern states possess a common trait that NY lacks.
Since this isn't an exact science, I used a lot of hard data to show how texas is unique.
You didn't debunk anything. You tried to argue that history, not science, matters. And you implicitly made the bizarre assumption that somehow hispanics aren't important to a state's identity, only whites. That's not scientifically sound, because nobody makes that assumption in any other context.
The point is that history is really useless, especially in the case of TX where it was so small and insignificant at the time of the civil war, and formed its identity mostly AFTER the civil war.
What kind of sense does this make?...Just like all states "have trees", ALL states have residents with poor dental hygiene..so why are YOU using THAT (dental hygiene) as a qualifier for southern states?...lol..are you kidding me?...Even if I didnt think Texas is Southern, and even if I didnt think you were a clown, the overarching problem is that you still seem to put forth the most feeble minded reasoning for your arguments, and you even contradict those....you are an absolutely horrible debater dude...lol
Last edited by solytaire; 12-09-2008 at 11:40 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 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.
, I bet you'd like that. Atl is still in this competition and get Austin outta here. I'll give you the foreclosure rate thing because we are 20 in the top 25 highest foreclosure rate list: 
The refuge of those who can make their points no other way. Here is what I wrote: 
