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.
The Dallas mayor is geographically challenged. Dallas is certainly not Southwestern. It's where East Texas begins, just as Fort Worth is "where the West begins". Western Texas and eastern New Mexico are not much different in equivalent latitudes, but it's better to just say that Texas is a place unto itself, having several regions. It is the crossroad between Mexico, the Great Plains, the Old South, and the West.
The Dallas mayor is geographically challenged. Dallas is certainly not Southwestern. It's where East Texas begins, just as Fort Worth is "where the West begins". Western Texas and eastern New Mexico are not much different in equivalent latitudes, but it's better to just say that Texas is a place unto itself, having several regions. It is the crossroad between Mexico, the Great Plains, the Old South, and the West.
The Mayor identifies North Texas as Midwestern (Great Plains) but those people eventually migrate to the big city (Chicago) to make it big time. Soon we'll see him next to Obama in Chicago as Obama announces his appointment to a cabinet position.
And in the end, no one's mind is ever changed. It is all a matter of IMHO for everyone anyway, and in mine, Texas is essentially a Southern state. With some parts much more Southern than others, and a few hardly at all. But overall, historically and culturally Southern. And most sociological surveys show when given the choice (between the broad regional labels, South, Midwest, West, and East), a majority of Texans self-identify as such.
The Southwest label is accurate far as it goes, but it depends on what one means by "Southwest"....as there has always been a lot of changing application in this area. Originally, it meant the Southern frontier states of Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee. Its longest lasting definition generally applied to Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas...and referred to the western parts of the South. If by Southwest one means "Western South" then it is entirely accurate. Qualities of both the South and the western frontier. So in this regard Texas is certainly both both Southern and Southwestern. And yes, "Western" in the frontier sense of the word (although not in a regional class with the Rocky Mountain or Interior SW states).
On the other hand, if it means being regionalized with New Mexico and Arizona (states with nothing classically Southern about them?) then it is innacurate and/or misapplied from both an historical and cultural point of view (except for the trans-pecos region).
Yeah. The ole Texas is south or southwest or west or its own country.
Texans wanted to be southern but some Universities were part of the Southwest conference. So Texas quit the Southwest conference and joined the Big 12. Now it's just BIG.
Actually, Willy, in the day the Southwest Conference was formed, the historical SW states were considered to be Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana (South Central states, and just the western parts of the overall South...twin of the Southeast). Arkansas was a member, Louisisana declined (already a member of another confererence) and Oklahoma stayed only a few seasons then went to the BIG 8. The Southwest Conference really just disolved and fell apart, unable to compete in the TV markets with some of the larger ones.
In fact, just thought of this. Note the present member schools of the Southwestern Athletic Conference to kinda illustrate the point about the old SouthWest Conference and its history and early formation as to geography:
That guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Plain and simple.
Absolutely right, Nairobi. I didn't see the interview (or whatever) but will have to catch it. I would like to see what the rationale is for the label, and what are the person's credentials as being an "expert" other than being a "talking head."
As it is, I was reminded this review as pertains to Randolph's Campbells "Gone To Texas." (and I think his credentials in terms of Texas and Texas history/culture are beyond reproach). Anyway, this makes good sense:
Dr. Campbell's study, Gone to Texas: A History of the Lone Star State (2003), argues that Texas today is best understood as part of the American South-a place that is essentially Southern in culture from its earliest settlement by migrants from the United States until the twenty-first century. Gone to Texas recognizes that contemporary Texas may be on the verge of becoming more southwestern than Southern, but argues that many years are yet to pass before the state will be better understood as southwestern rather than Southern.
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,084 posts, read 12,683,084 times
Reputation: 1974
Quote:
Originally Posted by atxcio
Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that the climate of Houston was much like the Southern/Southeastern part of the US. But the culture, etc, not so much. And I did live there for a short time. A very diverse city, and not in the typical southern way (not just black/white). A cosmopolitan city, like Dallas is, but Houston's brand of cosmopolitan strikes me as trying to be more like NYC, where Dallas' is a bit more midwestern. I suppose you could call the friendliness of both cities to be a southern quality, but it could also be just a Texan or even midwestern quality.
Houston is a very different city for Texas, but there is a Southern presence here, for sure, it's just that it's here along with other influences as well, and in these modern times, might not be so readily apparent. It's very much like a mix of New Orleans, Atlanta, and L.A., as another poster observed. I've lived in New Orleans and visited the others... very spot-on comparison there. As for what explains it... the city was founded by opportunistic New Yorkers and settled by a mix of Yankees, Southerners, Germans, etc. so I guess we are forever longing to return to our Yankee roots!
You won't. But you will find a difference between Central Texas and Alabama or West Texas and Mississippi or South Texas and Georgia. All of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi is Southern. The same cannot be said of Texas. It is essentially a Southern state. But deep down inside. Texas is just simply TEXAS.
Well said, Spade.
Quote:
Now back in the day. Some West Texans did indeed indentify with people from the Old South because that's where many settlers went. But nowadays, if you go to West Texas, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference between New Mexico and West Texas (meaning Permian Basin and the Panhandle). Their mannerisms are become the same with each passing year which is just about the opposite of Southern.
I see what you are saying, but will make a few minor quibbles. Actually, although there is the expected east/west gradient, even most West Texans still consider themselves to live in the South and be Southerners than anything else. The eastern New Mexico/West Texas thing has been brought up...and I agree with it. However, I noticed it is always stated as that the latter is like the former rather than phrased as eastern New Mexico like West Texas. Reason this is important is that the slice of New Mexico so considered has historically been referred to as "Little Texas." It was settled largely by Texans and thus there have always been a larger than average number of Southern Baptist Churches in that vicinity, and Southern American English even spoken. These are just a few examples and seem to suggest that it is eastern New Mexico more the anomoly to the rest of the state, culturally, than West Texas is to Texas/South (other than in landscape features, of course).
Quote:
With that said, I would like to know what the guy based other states as the Southwest. Because if he says Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and etc. I strongly disagree. Most Texans live east of US 281 and they identify more with the Southern region than anything (although they too would say we are Texans first).
Without having seen it, I doubt he was doing much more than talking out his posterior. Anyway, again you are correct. Too many just repeat the "Southwestern" thing without ever actually giving any thought as to exactly what is meant by it, its origins and evolution as to meaning, what other states are so classified, and why Texas should be so grouped with them.
Hi, TexasReb! I was beginning to worry about you - usually you're on any thread that might threaten your conviction and world view that Texas is The South like a duck on a June bug.
I do raise an eyebrow at you simultaneously saying that you know nothing about the article or the person making the statementand that they don't know what they're talking about and presumably have no qualifications to make the statement. How can you know the latter if you don't know the former? What if their qualifications turn out to trump your preferred (because they support your viewpoint) experts'? Where are you going to be then?
You are spot on, though, in acknowledging that no one's opinion is likely to be changed here. Mine did change, way back. When I was a little girl growing up in East Texas, I desperately WANTED to believe that we were part of the South, because it was SO romantic, but I just could not, in good conscience, make myself believe it because it so clearly wasn't true. Some Southern influence? Absolutely. Part of the South? Nope, couldn't make it happen, there was too much evidence to the contrary that Texas was something entirely different from ANY of the states surrounding it, that we took the best of what surrounded us and that our ancestors who came through the South kept going because they didn't really fit there. If I could make myself believe it briefly, I knew deep down I was lying to myself. So I had to accept the reality of the situation: Texas is not the South, Texas isn't even really the Southwest, Texas is a region of its own and the more we keep trying to fit it in others' pigeonholes (even if we have a long string of letters after our names), the more we're fooling ourselves.
Hi, TexasReb! I was beginning to worry about you - usually you're on any thread that might threaten your conviction and world view that Texas is The South like a duck on a June bug.
Hi in turn, THL! Actually, I think you are more threatened by the opposite than I am...but I guess that is just a matter of our individual perspectives and biases, right? Anyway, I usually go to be early on weekdays (gotta get up at 5:30 in the morning) so don't have much of a chance to reply except on weekends...or during free time at work.
Quote:
I do raise an eyebrow at you simultaneously saying that you know nothing about the article or the person making the statementand that they don't know what they're talking about and presumably have no qualifications to make the statement. How can you know the latter if you don't know the former? What if their qualifications turn out to trump your preferred (because they support your viewpoint) experts'? Where are you going to be then?
Lets see...to answer this. Well, actually what I said intended to say was that while I haven't seen the originally mentioned "expert" opinion, past experience does lead me to believe it will probably amount to nothing more than a note in passing during a talking heads discussion, with nothing of substance to support it. Sounds like there was no article to be read -- I can't find anything on the internet about it -- and it is interesting that the guys name hasn't been mentioned. Perhaps that would help. The name of the person offering said opinion? Then we can look at the reasons and rationale offered.
LOL What do you mean, where am I going to be then? I will be where I always have been. I have read opposing viewpoints before. I arrived at my own conclusions because none have ever seemed to "trump" the conclusion that Texas is essentially Southern. But I am always willing to listen to a good arugment. And if one comes along that makes a better case, then I will change my opinion. So far, and I have been interested in this subject as long as I can remember, none ever has.
But let me also say, THL, that your comments need to also be a bit self-directed. That is, accept the evidence or not, I do offer it. To be honest, and again with the due respect shown to a Texas lady, your own position is usually sans any evidence or research past that it is your opinion and that should be all that matters. I am sorry to put it so bluntly, but often that is what comes across. Don't get me wrong. Opinions and personal experience are going to count for a lot, and may even be the most imporant thing in some realms. However, if one is going to attempt to place a state into a region, then historial and cultural similarities have a major bearing on it from a sociogeographical aspect..which will necessarily consist of reasearch data.
Quote:
You are spot on, though, in acknowledging that no one's opinion is likely to be changed here. Mine did change, way back. When I was a little girl growing up in East Texas, I desperately WANTED to believe that we were part of the South, because it was SO romantic, but I just could not, in good conscience, make myself believe it because it so clearly wasn't true. Some Southern influence? Absolutely. Part of the South? Nope, couldn't make it happen, there was too much evidence to the contrary that Texas was something entirely different from ANY of the states surrounding it, that we took the best of what surrounded us and that our ancestors who came through the South kept going because they didn't really fit there. If I could make myself believe it briefly, I knew deep down I was lying to myself. So I had to accept the reality of the situation: Texas is not the South, Texas isn't even really the Southwest, Texas is a region of its own and the more we keep trying to fit it in others' pigeonholes (even if we have a long string of letters after our names), the more we're fooling ourselves.
If one believes that the Southeast or the "romantic" Old South are synonymous with "The South", then your point is very valid, and I would by and large agree. However, if one believes it is more of an historical and cultural and state of mind and self-identification, then such a definition falls apart. Can you honestly say that Texas has not, since its entry into the Union, been generally classified as part of the South as originally and traditionally defined? The Confederacy solidified that general definition, and there was no doubt which side Texas took. That same legacy was also responsible for much of what came after the War as concerns the development of the state.
Anyway, I can think of many other states or parts of them (Virginia, Florida, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, even Louisiana) that don't fit into that pefect monolithic image of one single South.
Your idea of accepting reality may not be what others accept. No one argues Texas is not primarily Texas, but you keep repeating it as if someone is saying otherwise. But states are going to be classified into regions sometime.
And no one who believes it properly belongs with the South rather than the Midwestern Plains, Interior Southwest or Rocky Mountain West is "fooling themselves". Such an opinion is based on not only history, but commonalities of culture that make it more like the Southeast than the other regions. You offer nothing otherwise beyond stating Texas is a region unto itself...which is merely stating a truism no one disputes (least of all me).
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.
