Do Texas natives consider Texas the South or Midwest (Houston: house, university)

[doctorjef]

Well, I can claim an even longer Texan pedigree, but let's not get into that. ISTM that culture is at least as important as geographical location in establishing a regional identity for a place. Southwestern to me indicates very definite Hispanic influences, and potentially particular Native American cultures (Navajo, Hopi, etc). The culture of the South isn't unitary by any means. Virginia has a state identity second in strength only to Texas, arguably. Southern Louisiana (but not the northern part of that state) has a unique cultural identity. Some of southern Florida seems to have detached itself from the rest of the state's historically Southern identity and culture; the same is true of the bit of northern VA outlying DC (though JFK once quipped that DC is a city with northern charm and southern efficeincy). I've lived as an adult in Fort Worth, Austin, Mineral Wells, Beaumont; as a late teen and college student in Lubbock; and as a kid in Corpus Christi, Dallas, and Justin (Denton Co.). I think I know the state pretty well. Also, my folks lived in Tyler for a time after I was grown. To me, East and Southeast Texas are geographically and culturally part of the South; Austin in the present day (but not 50+ years ago) is just barely in the SW. Fort Worth and Lubbock both have some Midwestern influences and aren't either really quite Southern nor Southwestern -- probably quite purely Texan in their own ways. Texas from San Antonio on down might be lumped in with the SW, but can also be seen as a very large border area where Anglo-American North America shades into Latin America. All these demographics are constantly evolving. Southern culture is deeply embedded in Texas folkways/speech/manners, though is perhaps becoming increasingly titrated. Still, it may be a crucial distinction that I feel I've more culturally in common with a North Carolinian than with a New Yorker or Bostonian.

A multi-dimensional regional mapping of Texas along several cultural, demographic and geographical axes might give the best picture of the state's identity, even though the result wouldn't be at all simple.

[TexasHorseLady]

Well, we could play pedigree all day long (let's just say that we were here before Texas was and call it a day, shall we?).

As far as where we've lived in Texas, preacher's kid in East Texas (meaning, all over the place), mother and other relatives lived in Tyler when I was an adult (plus I spent a fair amount of time there when I was a young'un), family farm is outside of Henderson, before that the folks were from a short distance from San Jacinto (thus the ease of fighting there - more exciting than farming for boys in their 20's), plus I lived in Dallas and in Arlington and in Austin and my husband grew up in San Antonio.

And I don't think ANYONE said that Texas bore any relation to Boston or New York (except that quite a few people who came to Texas THROUGH the South came here FROM the Northeast, if you do the genealogies), but that's a far piece from being the South. Might as well say that Texas is the Northeast, if you're going to play that game. Or, heck, England!

[doctorjef]

I was simply underscoring the point that as a Texan I feel more cultural affinity to the some of the area that is indisputably the South than I do toward Northeasterners, even though I don't consider Texas to be a Southern state in the same way that the other states of the old Confederacy are Southern. Actually, though, I think this is something that is in flux. My grandparents and parents had much more of a Southern identity than I do, although all of us were/are multi-generational native Texans.

[TexasHorseLady]

Well, I'm pretty sure that the line that was born on in the South on the way to Texas from the Northeast from Prussia likely considered themselves Southerners. But that was one side of one line WAY back when (that would have been my great-great-grandfather) - they married into the San Jacinto line and quickly figured out that they were not Southerners, but Texans.

[catman]

Part of my family was from Louisiana and more Deep Southern, while another part was quite Western in attitude if not in heritage. The Midwest doesn't have much to do with Texas, as far as I'm concerned; it's way up north. I've always thought that Dallas is considerably more Southern than Fort Worth, although they are only about 30 miles apart. Texas is mostly a mix of Southern and Western.

[LAnative10]

When I think of Southwest, I think of the area from west Texas to Southern California (not counting LA and San Diego, thats the Pacific Coast). Its more than a geographic region, its a culture. If we look at it as a culture, I would not put Dallas or Houston in that reigion. I would however put Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio in that region. I do think of it as seperate from the South. I cant for a moment say Texas is a "southern" state culturally. Yes it is geographically, but most of it is not culturally. El Paso and Atlanta have nothing in common culturally. Heck, Fort Worth and Atlanta have nothing in common culturally. Dallas and Houston are more southern, but they are both so big and so full of transplants from other parts of the country and the world that (like Atlanta), its hard to get nail them to a particular culture.

[LAnative10]

Originally Posted by catman

I've always thought that Dallas is considerably more Southern than Fort Worth, although they are only about 30 miles apart. Texas is mostly a mix of Southern and Western.

Absolutely. Dallas is somewhat southern and somewhat midwestern to me. However there isnt a thing in the world southern (culturally) about Fort Worth.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

I was simply underscoring the point that as a Texan I feel more cultural affinity to the some of the area that is indisputably the South than I do toward Northeasterners, even though I don't consider Texas to be a Southern state in the same way that the other states of the old Confederacy are Southern. Actually, though, I think this is something that is in flux. My grandparents and parents had much more of a Southern identity than I do, although all of us were/are multi-generational native Texans.

And this is an EXTREMELY important point to underscore!

It connects to what LBJ said in his own memoirs (The Vantage Point) of how -- even though he felt he had to distance himself from Texas' Southern roots to become elected -- he was under no illusions himself. His later statement was: Texas is part of the South...in the sense it shares "a common heritage and outlook" different from the Northeast, Midwest, and Far West.

Although I realize you only intend to speak for yourself, I dare say too, that most native Texans -- for sure I would -- will feel "more at home" in southeastern states -- and vice-versa -- than in any other region.

Just another note in passing -- relating to the larger topic and other postings -- it is an undeniable truth that most of those who settled Texas were southeastern pioneers and adventurers.

That most of those who eventually got here are traceable to having first "come thru the North" to get to the South is just flat wrong. Any assumption otherwise has to be predicated upon the total myth that Plymouth Rock (or whatever) was the sole point of entry. As it was, Jamestown, Virginia was first. Charleston, South Carolina, and a few others ranked right in there.

Most of those who settled Texas were ancestorally connected to the latter origins. This is, Lower or Upper South. Tennessee furnished the largest bunch, Alabama a close second...and Mississippi a respectable third. Georgia and Louisiana were in there as well. So was Kentucky and South Carolina. And it all flowed in a fairly steady east to west southern stream. All in all it was overwhelmingly Southern...and the impact of northerners moving thru the South was very little in the whole scheme of things.

If one believes and proceeds from the premise that "the South" is synonmous with the Southeast and the romantic Gone With the Wind images, then Texas isn't -- as a whole -- part of it. I'll be the first to agree with that. But that conclusion --IMHO -- is predicated upon believing in a very simplistic definition of what the South is.

[Frodo2008]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

The biggest "monkey-wrench" thrown into the whole works is what does one mean when they say "Southwest"? Does it mean the western part of the South at large...or the southern part of the West?

The "definition" evolved as the country expanded westward. Originally, it literally meant the western part of the southern part of the United States. When first coined, it encompassed Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama. After the Louisiana Purchase, Arkansas and Louisiana. After the Texas Revolution, Texas (and still later, Oklahoma with its strong Southern influences) was considered the "Southwestern frontier".

But point being that it was always defined as the frontier/western extentions of parts of the country which could fairly be called Southern.

When New Mexico and Arizona became states, they too became to be considered "southwestern"...but in a whole different context. Theirs was geographic. Ours was largely historical and cultural. West of Texas (other than a small slice of eastern New Mexico) any connection with the traditionally defined South, ceased. While Texas definitely has post-bellum western frontier era characteristics, there is almost nothing about New Mexico and Arizona (the core interior SW states) that have Southern characteristics.

This is why Texas (and most of Oklahoma) are not -- of course in the proverbial IMHO -- cannot be placed in a totally seperate U.S. region labeled "Southwest" with those two states. And from the opposite direction, every interaction with natives out that way say the same thing. It is just two different "Southwests". One (ours) western South...the other, southern West. Both sub-regions of larger, different, regions...even if they go by the same common designation of "Southwest."

Of course, all this is as a whole as concerns Texas. No doubt that the trans-pecos is truly part of the interior Southwest. And arguably, large parts of South Texas as well. Essentially however, Texas history and culture make it, overall, part of the South. A very unique part of it, and certainly not a typical part of it. But basically Southern.

It sure ain't Midwestern! And very few natives would disagree with that...even if they think I am "full of it" in other ways! LOL

You're exactly right. When you're talking south, west and north there are 2 ways to look at it. Culturally TX is the south and also geographically. NM, AZ and CA culturally aren't the south but geographically they are. Culturally CA is as far from the south as you can get but geographically it's almost as southern as TX. So it depends on if you're talking culture or geography. Kansas is a midwestern state but geographically it's in the south. If you look at a U.S. map KS is in the southern half of the U.S. which means it's in the south. So when I debate southern, northern, western with people I need to ask them if they're speaking culturally or geographically. Colorado is a southern state but nobody thinks of Colorado as the south they think Colorado is the west which it is. Nobody thinks of California as the south but it's in the south. It's right next to Mexico which makes it very southern.

[solytaire]

The only way I see that Texas isnt Southern (as in Southeastern) is if someone compares Texas directly to Mississippi or Alabama...

but when I survey the nation from WEST to EAST (not from east to west) there is no doubt that Texas is at least the beginning of the South. Which then makes it a part of the South IMO.