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.
Well using this criteria, I'll see what can and can not be quantified.
Social
Cultural
Historic (which I already addressed)
Food
These are things that are extremely subjective and depends on the individual and their leanings. I'm not as well versed in Texan social or cultural leanings as I am with my own state, the history part is so similar that it's not even worth talking about, and for food it really depends on what "huge influence" on food means when CA has 38 million people and TX has 25 million.
Texas: 2,459 Latino elected officials
California: 1,311 Latino elected officials
However, since California generally has less elected officials than Texas because there not nearly as many smaller municipalities and school districts, in addition to the number of counties here (CA has 58 counties, TX has 254), that could explain for the discrepancy.
From the above link "...while there are Latino elected officials serving at virtually all levels of government, nearly two-thirds (66%) are either municipal or school board officials."
So take that number with a grain of salt. I'd try to look for the number of elected officials in each state, but that would take waaaaaay too much time.
California Hispanic owned firms: 566,573 (16.5% of all businesses in California) with a combined value of $80,319,100,000 (or 2.1% of the value of all businesses in California)
Texas Hispanic owned firms: 447,589 (20.7% of all businesses in Texas) with a combined value of $61,895,886,000 (or 2.4% of the value of all businesses in Texas)
New Mexico: 23.6% of all firms
Florida: 22.4% of all firms
Texas: 20.7% of all firms
California: 16.5% of all firms
Arizona: 10.7% of all firms
Given the size disparity and ethnic makeup of TX and CA vs. NM and AZ, both do a really good job.
According to the American Community Survey 2010 (5 year estimates):
White Hispanic California: 7,285,671 (54.1% of the Hispanic population)
White Hispanic Texas: 6,216,734 (69.7% of the Hispanic population)
As for segregation patterns, it's hard to tell because there's no way to tell if in a neighborhood there are White Hispanics there are non-White Hispanics.
In the real world, I don't even think that factors in as much as people think. White Hispanics that I've met are still by and large, more culturally Hispanic and can relate more to the Mestizo and American Hispanics than Non-Hispanic Whites. At least from the ones I know and hang out with.
It's like this: Imagine you're a 5th generation White American, imagine going to Russa for whatever reason and had to live there for an extended amount of time. Despite the fact that you look like everyone else around you, you still feel like an outsider. You're more likely to hang out with other Westerners or even other Americans regardless of their skin color because they are American. Sure, you may feel closer to the Russian natives after a while, but you'd still feel way more comfortable around other Americans than you would around a party of Russians.
With Texas, there are of course Tejanos who've been in Texas for a long time.
However, the vast majority of Texas Hispanics (and even more so California Hispanics for that matter) are descended from more recent migrations, either being outright foreign born or their kids.
Well, Blacks have been a more consistently long player in TX than Asians have been in California. There has never been a time in TX history where Blacks made up less than 10% of the Texas population, while it was only until 1990 that CA Asians made up more than 10% of the population.
However, much of that time period is a non-factor, given the fact that TX was still subject to Jim Crow laws and CA had a bunch of laws barring Asians, Hispanics, Blacks or anyone else from participating fully in the political process.
With that though, I'd still argue that Anglo Whites were more dominant in California than they were in Texas. For the first half of the 20th century, California was pretty much Kansas along the Pacific Coast. There simply weren't large numbers of non-Whites to contend with, and whenever small numbers there were, they were either forcefully deported or subject to frequent mob violence. It's sort of a dark stain on this state's history that seems extremely unbelievable now given present circumstances.
It's much fairer to say, however, that more of California's Hispanic population is recent than Texas', but we're not talking about a huge amount of time separating the two.
Good read. Good points all around. And it is pretty unbelievable how recent the large populations of Hispanics in CA are. I never knew CA was that lily White throughout it's history. I thought it always had a large number of Hispanics. If I'm not mistaken the Spaniards came, took over, named places, built missions, and left, than the Mexican/Mestizo's came in and tried to establish the same thing, and then left, then the Whites came in and stayed.
Good read. Good points all around. And it is pretty unbelievable how recent the large populations of Hispanics in CA are. I never knew CA was that lily White throughout it's history. I thought it always had a large number of Hispanics. If I'm not mistaken the Spaniards came, took over, named places, built missions, and left, than the Mexican/Mestizo's came in and tried to establish the same thing, and then left, then the Whites came in and stayed.
Well, before 1810, there was no such entity as Mexico. Just like before 1776, people who lived in the 13 colonies weren't Americans but British subjects. So the Spanish (and anyone else for that matter who wasn't a slave or a campesino) who came and lived on the territory of California, Texas, or wherever else in the Southwest were legally "Mexican" after 1821, despite how they personally feel.
The Spanish didn't leave, they became Mexican after independence (the Spanish crown had their own problems at the time). However, keep in mind that the current American Southwest and Texas didn't really have that many people. Unlike the current Mexican states south of there with the exception of Baja California, there weren't massive landholdings that required the labor of thousands and thousands of people there. Furthermore, aside from the really small cities along the CA coast and places along the Rio Grande River (El Paso, Albuquerque), these areas were really lightly populated. Hell most of the natives didn't even know they were part of the property of Spain, Mexico, or the dark side of the moon aside from some Franciscan friar coming every once in a while with the peaceful message of "convert or die"
Mestizos/mixed race White/Natives have always existed in these territories. In fact, they far outnumbered the criollos (Peninsular Spanish descendants) simply because the Spanish didn't like bringing over their own European women to their far flung military outposts.
When the United States took over in the mid 1800s, keep in mind the era this was in: the US was getting plenty of European immigrants, the know-nothing party had a huge sway over much of the Northeast and the South still had slavery. Combine the two, and well, there you have the demographics of California and Texas respectively.
California did a much more thorough job of making sure that Hispanics (read: Mestizo Californios) and Asians had as little right or reason to settle in California during the early years of the state. Plus, California's population exploded with settlers from the rest of the US much more to a degree that wasn't the case in Texas (though it exploded too, just not as dramatically). Texas, for all intents and purposes, was simply an extension of the South.
Hence, you have a 93% Non-Hispanic White California by 1910, compared to a 75% Non-Hispanic White Texas in the same period.
Well, before 1810, there was no such entity as Mexico. Just like before 1776, people who lived in the 13 colonies weren't Americans but British subjects. So the Spanish (and anyone else for that matter who wasn't a slave or a campesino) who came and lived on the territory of California, Texas, or wherever else in the Southwest were legally "Mexican" after 1821, despite how they personally feel.
The Spanish didn't leave, they became Mexican after independence (the Spanish crown had their own problems at the time). However, keep in mind that the current American Southwest and Texas didn't really have that many people. Unlike the current Mexican states south of there with the exception of Baja California, there weren't massive landholdings that required the labor of thousands and thousands of people there. Furthermore, aside from the really small cities along the CA coast and places along the Rio Grande River (El Paso, Albuquerque), these areas were really lightly populated. Hell most of the natives didn't even know they were part of the property of Spain, Mexico, or the dark side of the moon aside from some Franciscan friar coming every once in a while with the peaceful message of "convert or die"
Mestizos/mixed race White/Natives have always existed in these territories. In fact, they far outnumbered the criollos (Peninsular Spanish descendants) simply because the Spanish didn't like bringing over their own European women to their far flung military outposts.
When the United States took over in the mid 1800s, keep in mind the era this was in: the US was getting plenty of European immigrants, the know-nothing party had a huge sway over much of the Northeast and the South still had slavery. Combine the two, and well, there you have the demographics of California and Texas respectively.
California did a much more thorough job of making sure that Hispanics (read: Mestizo Californios) and Asians had as little right or reason to settle in California during the early years of the state. Plus, California's population exploded with settlers from the rest of the US much more to a degree that wasn't the case in Texas (though it exploded too, just not as dramatically). Texas, for all intents and purposes, was simply an extension of the South.
Hence, you have a 93% Non-Hispanic White California by 1910, compared to a 75% Non-Hispanic White Texas in the same period.
Damn good post. Yeah, I agree Texas didn't receive as large of a migration of people as CA did, because it really was just an extension of the South, and the Western areas of the state that weren't really "Southern" per se weren't really desirable.
Yeah, I'd imagine the Spaniards didn't want to bring their women on what they perceived to be a dangerous and far expedition into what was pretty much the unknown. And when they did chart the area, I figured they didn't want to bring their women simply for the fact that they wanted to fornicate with the natives.
And it indeed makes sense that the Spaniards became Mexicans after the Mexican Revolution. There had to have already been a LARGE Mestizo population by then, there would have been no other way to revolt against Spain. And what you say is true about most of the Native-Americans living in the Southwest/Westcoast at that time didn't know they were under the Republic of Mexico, because the region was so vast and so huge.
Yeah, I'd imagine the Spaniards didn't want to bring their women on what they perceived to be a dangerous and far expedition into what was pretty much the unknown. And when they did chart the area, I figured they didn't want to bring their women simply for the fact that they wanted to fornicate with the natives.
Before this veers too far off topic, I always make a joke to people about the movie "Pocahontas". I like how Disney romanticized the love between an English soldier and a young native girl.
However, this "John Smith" guy was really smart because if I slept with a 14 year old girl and I was in my early 30s, I'd tell everyone my name was "John Smith" too. Too bad there wasn't a 17th century Chris Hansen to ask him to take a seat.
To cap this part of the history lesson off, the Spanish, Portuguese, and French generally comingled with their native colonial populations much more than the British, Dutch, or other Northern Europeans did. To the above 3, it was about "civilizing" and "saving their souls", to the Northern European it was more about business and wanting to expand their own societies elsewhere.
Quote:
And it indeed makes sense that the Spaniards became Mexicans after the Mexican Revolution. There had to have already been a LARGE Mestizo population by then, there would have been no other way to revolt against Spain. And what you say is true about most of the Native-Americans living in the Southwest/Westcoast at that time didn't know they were under the Republic of Mexico, because the region was so vast and so huge.
Yeah. I mean, check out the names of the native tribes of California to see what I mean about how much Spanish and Mexican influence there was from them
As for the main topic of this thread, that's why I said it's pretty much splitting hairs. Sure, more of California's best known cities have Spanish nomenclature (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, etc.) compared to Texas (Houston, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, etc.) but an equal amount of cities don't follow this rule. There are plenty of places that are named something like Riverside, Stockton, Redding, Bakersfield, etc in California and plenty of places named San Antonio, El Paso, Laredo, etc. in Texas.
Furthermore, many of the Spanish named places in California were named by non-Hispanics to give it a more "Spanish" flavor when that was a big thing before 1990, such as Mission Viejo (which in itself is bad Spanish. The correct term would be la mission viejas), El Cajon, La Mesa, Indio, San Clemente, Corona, etc. I'm sure it's the same thing in Texas, though I can't think of any examples of the top of my head.
And like it or not, despite the latent Spanish heritage that is present in both states, the vast majority of the Hispanic population is descended from more recent times. Most Hispanics in either state know as much about the heritage of the state as much as anyone else who lives there: it just doesn't figure in that much to the day to day realities of living. It's cool to know and you can impress people with your vast knowledge of it, but for most, it's just another thing.
I will say this though: the reason why during the 1980s and 1990s the Hispanic percentage in California surpassed Texas by a few percentage points was because the US government settled a huge chunk of Central American refugees (along with almost every other refugee group in the Cold War era) in California, especially around Los Angeles, though the Bay Area also got a decent amount.
Texas got some of this too, but since California back in the 1980s had a very generous welfare policy, booming economy, and the infrastructure to deal with massive amounts of poorly educated refugees, it made a huger impact here than there.
Before this veers too far off topic, I always make a joke to people about the movie "Pocahontas". I like how Disney romanticized the love between an English soldier and a young native girl.
However, this "John Smith" guy was really smart because if I slept with a 14 year old girl and I was in my early 30s, I'd tell everyone my name was "John Smith" too. Too bad there wasn't a 17th century Chris Hansen to ask him to take a seat.
To cap this part of the history lesson off, the Spanish, Portuguese, and French generally comingled with their native colonial populations much more than the British, Dutch, or other Northern Europeans did. To the above 3, it was about "civilizing" and "saving their souls", to the Northern European it was more about business and wanting to expand their own societies elsewhere.
Yeah. I mean, check out the names of the native tribes of California to see what I mean about how much Spanish and Mexican influence there was from them
As for the main topic of this thread, that's why I said it's pretty much splitting hairs. Sure, more of California's best known cities have Spanish nomenclature (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, etc.) compared to Texas (Houston, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, etc.) but an equal amount of cities don't follow this rule. There are plenty of places that are named something like Riverside, Stockton, Redding, Bakersfield, etc in California and plenty of places named San Antonio, El Paso, Laredo, etc. in Texas.
Furthermore, many of the Spanish named places in California were named by non-Hispanics to give it a more "Spanish" flavor when that was a big thing before 1990, such as Mission Viejo (which in itself is bad Spanish. The correct term would be la mission viejas), El Cajon, La Mesa, Indio, San Clemente, Corona, etc. I'm sure it's the same thing in Texas, though I can't think of any examples of the top of my head.
And like it or not, despite the latent Spanish heritage that is present in both states, the vast majority of the Hispanic population is descended from more recent times. Most Hispanics in either state know as much about the heritage of the state as much as anyone else who lives there: it just doesn't figure in that much to the day to day realities of living. It's cool to know and you can impress people with your vast knowledge of it, but for most, it's just another thing.
I will say this though: the reason why during the 1980s and 1990s the Hispanic percentage in California surpassed Texas by a few percentage points was because the US government settled a huge chunk of Central American refugees (along with almost every other refugee group in the Cold War era) in California, especially around Los Angeles, though the Bay Area also got a decent amount.
Texas got some of this too, but since California back in the 1980s had a very generous welfare policy, booming economy, and the infrastructure to deal with massive amounts of poorly educated refugees, it made a huger impact here than there.
Today, that means that California has 1.1 million Central Americans (3% of CA's population) and Texas has 420,683 (1.7% of TX's population).
Another good post. And about Pocahontas, stories like Pocahontas always point to the double-standard set forth by White society of that era, that they can court/marry/have extramarital affairs with women of other races, and even go as far as to romanticize it, but the same could not happen in reverse. There's so many movies of this White Male Savior romantically saving the colored female. But that's another story.
And I did notice how the closer to Mexico one get's on those maps, the most Spanish the tribes got. And I was sort of aware of the Spanish place naming's by non-Hispanics. There was a HUGE selling point when it came to the Romancing of Spanish culture. ALOT of areas from Florida through Texas to California, would try to sell their cities/towns/settlements as "Spanish" areas to make the areas look more exotic in nature. Spanish Revival architecture was huge in that era, and giving a place a Spanish place-name was icing on the cake, just like as you pointed out Mission Viejo. Boca Raton FL is another example of this. The name it's self is Spanish(Rats Mouth ). And the architecture was designed by Addison Minzer, the same man responsible for the construction of many Spanish/Mediterranean Revival structures in CA.
And I did notice how the closer to Mexico one get's on those maps, the most Spanish the tribes got. And I was sort of aware of the Spanish place naming's by non-Hispanics. There was a HUGE selling point when it came to the Romancing of Spanish culture. ALOT of areas from Florida through Texas to California, would try to sell their cities/towns/settlements as "Spanish" areas to make the areas look more exotic in nature. Spanish Revival architecture was huge in that era, and giving a place a Spanish place-name was icing on the cake, just like as you pointed out Mission Viejo. Boca Raton FL is another example of this. The name it's self is Spanish(Rats Mouth ). And the architecture was designed by Addison Minzer, the same man responsible for the construction of many Spanish/Mediterranean Revival structures in CA.
Yep. California and Florida tried to sell their areas on the "exotic" selling point before the actual exotic people starting coming over and living next to them, then it became a problem.
I can't think of very many areas in Texas where there were Spanish named places by non-Hispanic people, aside from Las Colinas (the hills). Maybe someone can provide a list of that because I honestly don't know. It seems like the vast majority of places in Texas away from the deep parts of South and West Texas are Anglo names (some German, some Czech, mostly English in origin).
In California, place names are sort of 45/30/25 IMO. 45% Anglo/other European origin, 30% Spanish origin, 25% native Indian origin (though all 3 intersect at a certain point, especially the later two). Surprisingly, there aren't very many towns that have any Asian names, though in a lot of Asian languages, some California cities has their own name that isn't a simple transliteration of their names from their original form.
Oh, and here is the maps of Hispanic Texas (same scale as California I did in //www.city-data.com/forum/25048128-post57.html to zoom in by census tract, though census tracts in West TX and South TX are much larger because TX is less densely populated)
So, new 3 year estimates came out from the American Community Survey 2009-2011, where again, on a state level the Hispanic level of both Texas and California are both deadlocked at 37.7%.
However, based on the city's general metro region in each state, here's what it looks like:
Cities with MSA's/CSA's with 1 million+
San Antonio, TX MSA - 54.1% Hispanic
Fresno, CA CSA - 50.8% Hispanic
Los Angeles, CA CSA - 45.0% Hispanic
Houston, TX CSA - 35.2% Hispanic
San Diego, CA MSA - 32.1% Hispanic
Austin, TX CSA - 31.2% Hispanic
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA - 26.8% Hispanic
SF Bay Area, CA CSA - 24.1% Hispanic
Sacramento, CA CSA - 20.0% Hispanic
Cities with MSA's/CSA's with 500,000-1 million
McAllen, TX MSA - 90.6% Hispanic
El Paso, TX MSA - 81.9% Hispanic
Bakersfield, CA MSA - 49.3% Hispanic
Modesto, CA MSA - 42.0% Hispanic
Stockton, CA MSA - 38.9% Hispanic
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.
). And the architecture was designed by Addison Minzer, the same man responsible for the construction of many Spanish/Mediterranean Revival structures in CA.
