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.
Here is sorta (and I know it is IMO), two summations that makes a very clear difference between Texas and the interior SW states (which had little to no influence on Texas).
The first is by Randolph Campbell in his book "Gone To Texas" (and as it goes, he is no fan of Southern history in terms of sympathizing with it...but he is an historian and doesn't let his own biases get in the way...):
Both of Texas's frontiers during the 1840's and 1850's -- the Mexican frontier in the south and the Indian frontier in the west --left lasting imprints on the state. However, the more basic story of Texas during these years did not play out in the south or the west. Instead the key to Texas then -- and in many respects ever since -- lay in its development as an essentially Southern state, a part of the South.
The other is one posted many times before and, even if I wanted to, I don't find anything at all to argue with on it...it makes perfectly good sense...
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."
One of the main points on all the above is that yes, I would agree -- if that was all there was to it -- that Texas lots different (as a whole) than Georgia or Alabama or even Tennessee. Sure it is. .
BUT...that premise presumes a foundation that totally ignores that the difference between Texas and New Mexico or Arizona or Colorado or Utah is much more contrasting and obvious...in everything from political trends, and speech, and church membership and etc. etc...and again, regional self-identification with a region -- than is at all the case with the influence and settlement from our southeastern cousins.
There is no separate "Southwest" region in the sense Texas (or Oklahoma) shares the above traits with NM and AZ. There is the "western South" and the "southern West"...and they spawn from very different influences.
I don't think it would be that "off" to consider Texas a Southern state, with Southwestern cultural similarities, BECAUSE of the Trans-Pecos region. Folks don't make qualms with Western NY, or Western PA, being more aligned culturally, with the Midwest. Well, the Trans-Pecos, and South Texas are both geographically large areas, and encompass a large part of the state. As long as those large regions are both apart of Texas, I don't see anything wrong with designating Texas, as being both Southern and Southwestern. I know folks say, "well, those areas don't account for a very large population in the state" well, they account for a large enough pop. South Texas in particular is home to nearly 5million people. And it's one of the fastest growing regions. There are no other Southern states that boarder another region of the US, and another country. Naturally, bordering these areas, Texas is going to receive culture overlap. Just by sheer logic. And that culture, is going to be foreign to most Southerners. It'll be foreign in a way that even French Descended Cajuns and Creoles in Louisiana, would never feel to the average Southerner.
=polo89;34071099]I don't think it would be that "off" to consider Texas a Southern state, with Southwestern cultural similarities, BECAUSE of the Trans-Pecos region.
Point acknowledged, but you are using an anomaly of Texas to make the point. And again, even the trans-pecos/El Paso has differences (not many, but some) that have Southern influences that totally lack in the comparable cities of New Mexico and Arizona.
Quote:
Folks don't make qualms with Western NY, or Western PA, being more aligned culturally, with the Midwest. Well, the Trans-Pecos, and South Texas are both geographically large areas, and encompass a large part of the state.
The trans-pecos is not geographically a large area. South Texas is, yes, but it is not quite Mexican dominated, in the whole scheme of things...as in whether the trend of migration is permanent, or just a temporary phenomenon. Regardless, of major south Texas cities, the Southern influence is there. I guess it might depend to some extent on delineating it all...
Quote:
As long as those large regions are both apart of Texas, I don't see anything wrong with designating Texas, as being both Southern and Southwestern.
And I don't either...but as I said, it just has to be put into a proper perspective as in defining the Southwest when it comes to most of Texas. That is to say, western South...the old Southwest which did allow for the Hispanic population influence -- but which trended one way or another over time. That as opposed to a "southern West" Southwest, where Native American and Mexican influence was dominant from the start and has never stopped being so.
Quote:
South Texas in particular is home to nearly 5million people. And it's one of the fastest growing regions. There are no other Southern states that boarder another region of the US, and another country. Naturally, bordering these areas, Texas is going to receive culture overlap. Just by sheer logic. And that culture, is going to be foreign to most Southerners. It'll be foreign in a way that even French Descended Cajuns and Creoles in Louisiana, would never feel to the average Southerner.
Again, you have a certain and even good point...but what is lacking is that the culture you speak of really tends to remain a bit -- by choice -- a bit apart from the general anglo/black population of the state, which really shaped it to begin with.
Can you deny that most of the latter group -- and vice-versa to be fair for sure -- really assimilate in terms of a shared connection and identification with the other in terms of history and culture...and music and food and customs and all?
I think it might have been Nairobi (forgive me if I have this wrong), who once wrote (and was right), that most black and white Texans' experiences with Hispanic culture are pretty much limited to eating Tex-Mex. Hispanic music channels are not in the least part of it, and not for the least of reasons it can't be understood as so much of it is in Spanish. I remember quite a few years back when the talented singer "Selena" died. For good reason, she was honored and remembered by the Hispanic community. But the flip side was that most of us outside the Hispanic community had never even heard of her.
None of this is intended to be an insult, simply an observation of fact. Which comes back around to that, yeah, the point is definitely noted that there is a colorful and indelible imprint on Texas when it comes to the Mexican influence; and I love it. But simple experience lends me to believe and note that the Hispanic community (as a whole), would rather keep alive their own customs and traditions and all associated, and isolate and be left alone. Hey, I admire and respect that, actually...I really do!
Anyway, what is going on in Texas it is not at all comparable to that of the true SW, and that is what makes the real difference...
I don't think it would be that "off" to consider Texas a Southern state, with Southwestern cultural similarities, BECAUSE of the Trans-Pecos region. Folks don't make qualms with Western NY, or Western PA, being more aligned culturally, with the Midwest. Well, the Trans-Pecos, and South Texas are both geographically large areas, and encompass a large part of the state. As long as those large regions are both apart of Texas, I don't see anything wrong with designating Texas, as being both Southern and Southwestern. I know folks say, "well, those areas don't account for a very large population in the state" well, they account for a large enough pop. South Texas in particular is home to nearly 5million people. And it's one of the fastest growing regions. There are no other Southern states that boarder another region of the US, and another country. Naturally, bordering these areas, Texas is going to receive culture overlap. Just by sheer logic. And that culture, is going to be foreign to most Southerners. It'll be foreign in a way that even French Descended Cajuns and Creoles in Louisiana, would never feel to the average Southerner.
In contrast, 70.2% of Florida's population (13,781,531) lives from the Orlando MSA to the Florida Keys. So you're talking about a state whose population is not residing predominantly in counties gripped by conservative, Republican ideology and southern dialect/culture. Polls show this. Linguistics maps show this. And your response is to keep ramming away at the small slices of Texas that aren't characteristically southern. Give me a break already.
I can counter argue with the fact that 70% of Texas lives in the Texas Triangle of DFW, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. Houston has the strongest Southern characteristics of these cities, but if you look at the demographics.
The city has more in common with Californian cities demographic wise than most Southern cities. With nearly half of the population in Houston having nothing to do historically with Southern culture like Hispanics and Asians.
And the other Texan cities have large Hispanic populations which pull Texas away from Southern culture. Like..........
Dallas
Fort Worth
San Antonio
Austin
Notice the large Hispanic populations of these cities which override the Black/White Southern culture in those cities. Dallas/Fort Worth is a Southern/Great Plains hybrid, Austin has West Coast influences from Californian migrants, and San Antonio is predominantly a Tejano city.
Quote:
So again, I'll make it reaaaal simple for you. LOL.
-Florida's closest ideological peer is Pennsylvania. Texas' is South Carolina.
-The majority of the population of Florida is not within the Southern American English boundary as established by linguistic experts. Nearly all of Texas is.[/quote]And even this is changing. Younger Texans are starting to speak in Neutral type of accents with ya'll thrown in.
Another linguistic change in Texan English is an emerging rural-urban split, meaning that most stereotypically and traditionally Southern or Texan features remain strong in rural areas, whereas many of these features tend to disappear in urban areas and small cities.[37] The urban-rural linguistic split mainly affects phonological phenomena.
The pen/pin merger, the loss of the offglide in /aɪ/, and upgliding diphthongs are now recessive in metropolitan areas.
Traditional grammatical features like y’all and fixin’ to are expanding to non-natives in metropolizes (and to the Hispanic population, too).[37]
New features are developing, mainly in urban areas, for example vowels in words like caught and cot are becoming merged (both sound like cot).[37]
Tense/lax vowel pairs before /l/ (e.g. pool-pull, feel-fill, sale-sell) are now homophones
Which means most people in the large Texan cities don't speak in Southern Accents. And having been to Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio regularly. The majority of people I ran into don't speak in Southern accents or have a very slight Texan twang. Southern accents tend to be stronger in the rural areas and in the Black communities.
And the linguistic map of Florida you showed had a really narrow scape of Florida. The Southern accent in the Whites extends to Ocala to Daytona Beach, in spots in rural Central Florida, and is spread from the Black population all the way to Homestead.
-Florida has far fewer Evangelical "Born Again" Christians. Texas has one of the highest percentages and the highest absolute number of Evangelicals.
So there you have it.
I'd say it's a tie. Southern Culture extends to a larger area of Florida than Texas, while a larger percentage of Texas speak with a Southern accents and are Baptist and Evangelical. But both have large non Southern influences which override the Southern cultures in those states.
Well, have you heard any Southerners complain about the abundance of French named streets, french music, french language, and french culture in New Orleans, the same way they've felt uncomfortable in any store, neighborhood, city, town, that was dominated by folks who's 1st language is Spanish?
Basically what me, and guys like Spade, Hipcat, are arguing is that while Texas may be more culturally Southern than Florida, it isn't by as much as people are trying to make it out to be. What folks on the opposite are trying to argue is, Texas is more culturally Southern than Florida by a wiiide margin. To add to that, we all agree that the Black population in Texas is very much culturally Southern. On the flipside, Bajan and some others won't acknowledge the abundance and influence that Black-Southern culture has had on Black West-Indian immigrants to the state of Florida.
I'd say it's a tie. Southern Culture extends to a larger area of Florida than Texas, while a larger percentage of Texas speak with a Southern accents and are Baptist and Evangelical. But both have large non Southern influences which override the Southern cultures in those states.
It does not override anything. Like I explained to another poster, it's a two way street. Most Hispanics I know here are more influenced by Texas/Southern culture than I am influenced by Mexican culture.
Well, have you heard any Southerners complain about the abundance of French named streets, french music, french language, and french culture in New Orleans, the same way they've felt uncomfortable in any store, neighborhood, city, town, that was dominated by folks who's 1st language is Spanish?
I misunderstood what you were talking about. I thought you were referring to the culture of Texas in general and not just the border areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89
Basically what me, and guys like Spade, Hipcat, are arguing is that while Texas may be more culturally Southern than Florida, it isn't by as much as people are trying to make it out to be. What folks on the opposite are trying to argue is, Texas is more culturally Southern than Florida by a wiiide margin. To add to that, we all agree that the Black population in Texas is very much culturally Southern. On the flipside, Bajan and some others won't acknowledge the abundance and influence that Black-Southern culture has had on Black West-Indian immigrants to the state of Florida.
I do think that most of Texas is more typically southern, but not by a wide margin.
It does not override anything. Like I explained to another poster, it's a two way street. Most Hispanics I know here are more influenced by Texas/Southern culture than I am influenced by Mexican culture.
What's interesting is that Hispanics in Texas are trending towards the Republican Party whereas Hispanics across the nation are trending towards the Democratic Party.
Quote:
Latinos in Texas, it turns out, are also more Republican than elsewhere. While Latinos in all other states favor Democrats 51-21, in Texas it's a significantly closer split: 46-27. And what's more, Latinos in Texas are also trending more toward the GOP and away from Democrats, in contrast to the rest of the country.
When looking at a state like California, which has an identical percentage of Hispanics as Texas (and was also a Republican stronghold at one time), we see a dramatic difference in voting patterns, which is not attributable to minorities. In 2012, 10,957,804 Californians cast a ballot. 55% were non-Hispanic White, 8% were African American, 22% were Hispanic and 14% were Asian, Pacific Islander or American Indian. The Asian vote specifically (representing 11% of the electorate) voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama (79%). Even if we remove the nearly one million Asians who voted for Obama in California (we'll keep the ones who voted for Romney), Obama still ends up yielding 55.4% of the total vote compared to Romney's 41.9%.
So the white vote in California is obviously breaking much more Democratic than the white vote in Texas. Unfortunately, Texas doesn't have exit polls, but one can surmise what the split is by looking at Romney's total share of the vote (59%) compared to the share non-Hispanic Whites have of the state's electorate. For Romney to get that large a share of the state's vote, he must have won well over 70%+ of the non-Hispanic White vote.
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.
