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.
Certainly Texas is where a few regions of the U.S. converge, but to not at least include East Texas in the South--you know, the part that borders LA and AR--doesn't seem reasonable. And you've never actually made a case for not including that part of the state in the South. Simply being dogmatic about how right you are and how wrong everyone else is, including people who live(d) there, just isn't a good look--especially considering the fact that you're pretty well-reasoned when it comes to other subjects but for some reason, you get all "fake news-y" on this particular subject when people disagree with you.
"Fake news-y"? Hehe...interesting.
Still, there is a compliment within what you said above, and I respect you, so thank you.
Here is the thing--people are more than welcome to disagree with me. I have reasoned about The American South and Texas various times over the last several years and just don't have the time anymore.
But I will say this (again)...
About Texas:
I adore Texas. Texas is a nation itself. I place Texas in a similar category as Poland, Spain, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, etc. Texas is the kind of place where a student can study abroad for a year, go deep, and only travel around Texas. Not including Texas in The American South has nothing to do with "Ewww, as if, stay away." It's about giving Texas the proper respect and prestige it deserves. Texas is not just a simple state hanging on to the western part of The American South. It is its own nation, its own region, its own culture--and yes, that includes many cultural elements, etc. of The American South mixed together in the amalgamation that is Texas.
FWIW, The American South is also like a nation. Just having Texas as a hanging part of that does not do it justice.
The Azalea Coast moniker sounds like it's more of a marketing term, similar to the Grand Strand (Myrtle Beach) or the First Coast (Jacksonville/St. Augustine). Not many people use them outside of the CVB and some local businesses.
Still, there is a compliment within what you said above, and I respect you, so thank you.
Here is the thing--people are more than welcome to disagree with me. I have reasoned about The American South and Texas various times over the last several years and just don't have the time anymore.
But I will say this (again)...
About Texas:
I adore Texas. Texas is a nation itself. I place Texas in a similar category as Poland, Spain, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, etc. Texas is the kind of place where a student can study abroad for a year, go deep, and only travel around Texas. Not including Texas in The American South has nothing to do with "Ewww, as if, stay away." It's about giving Texas the proper respect and prestige it deserves. Texas is not just a simple state hanging on to the western part of The American South. It is its own nation, its own region, its own culture--and yes, that includes many cultural elements, etc. of The American South mixed together in the amalgamation that is Texas.
FWIW, The American South is also like a nation. Just having Texas as a hanging part of that does not do it justice.
States have official man-made boundaries. Cultural regions do not. The culture does not magically change immediately once you cross from Louisiana into Texas. So for someone to say that all of Georgia is the Deep South but no part of Texas is undermines the very definition of the Deep South.
Texas was a nation for like ten years, and during this time East Texas was mostly nothing but unsettled pine forest. It was during statehood (the years of the Confederacy and the postbellum period that followed) that this part of the state began to develop its culture along with the rest of the southeast. The landscape, the architecture, the food, the accents, the demographics and the overall lifestyle of this region share more parallels with that of Arkansas and Mississippi than they do with most of Texas.
I will concede that most of Texas is up for debate, but anyone who claims that East Texas is not the south will only leave me assuming that they've never been there.
Still, there is a compliment within what you said above, and I respect you, so thank you.
Here is the thing--people are more than welcome to disagree with me. I have reasoned about The American South and Texas various times over the last several years and just don't have the time anymore.
But I will say this (again)...
About Texas:
I adore Texas. Texas is a nation itself. I place Texas in a similar category as Poland, Spain, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, etc. Texas is the kind of place where a student can study abroad for a year, go deep, and only travel around Texas. Not including Texas in The American South has nothing to do with "Ewww, as if, stay away." It's about giving Texas the proper respect and prestige it deserves. Texas is not just a simple state hanging on to the western part of The American South. It is its own nation, its own region, its own culture--and yes, that includes many cultural elements, etc. of The American South mixed together in the amalgamation that is Texas.
FWIW, The American South is also like a nation. Just having Texas as a hanging part of that does not do it justice.
If you don't want to include the entirety of Texas within the South, I get that. But that doesn't mean that one particular region of Texas, most notably the eastern part, shouldn't be included in the South.
I would say the whole state of Alabama is the Deep South. North Alabama is a mixture of Deep South and Mid-South.
Culturally? Yeah, Physically speaking? No.
I see the Deep South as being Flatter, Hotter, Wetter, More Palm/Oak Trees, No Autumn Season, etc. If one were to drive through Vestavia Hills into Homewood on Montgomery Hwy, they wouldn't instantly think "Wow, this is the Deep South.." while staring at the Backdrop of Foothills in the distance... lol
Austin, San Antonio, and DFW are the “transitional” areas in Texas.
Knowing the Dallas area as well as I do, I can say with confidence that the most glaring quality setting it apart from the rest of the south is the drier climate, but that hardly ties into the culture itself which isn't less southern than Houston in any quantifiable way.
Of the cities that are undeniably Southern, Charlotte is the one where the Southern culture is the most diluted. First of all, unlike New Orleans, Atlanta, etc it wasn't a huge metro area until the second half of the 20th century so it has less Old South culture. Very few plantations around compared to other parts of the South, no large tracts of historic antebellum architecture to the extent of NO, Charleston, Savannah, etc. Also because of recent growth a significant part of the population do not have ties to the South originally. Many people are northern transplants or immigrants who don't have ancestors who fought in the war and hence don't respect the war and the Confederate heroes and Southern history the way a native Southerner would.
Charlotte is also one of the more liberal cities in the South. For me, quintessentially Southern aspects include conservatism and Christianity. While Louisiana's Cajun country is more Catholic, its still SERIOUS Catholic where people are devout in their religion, whereas in places like Charlotte and Atlanta you see more of the secular liberalism of the North. For example a city like Lafayette may not be the true Bible Belt because of its Catholicism, but they would never promote allowing men into women's bathrooms like Charlotte has which is what triggered the NC laws to begin with.
I think you're somewhat misinformed about Charlotte and the South.
Atlanta wasn't much of a metro until the second half of the 20th century either, as things didn't really take off for Atlanta until the '60s. Atlanta was never 'Old South' to begin with, either; it started as a railroad transportation hub and was always, and still is, one of the most accommodating cities to transplants, immigrants, and outsiders https://www.historians.org/annual-me...-about-atlanta.
The point about 'historic antebellum architecture' also seems to be confusing, since very few of the cities in the poll are well-represented in this to begin with, as is your point about northern transplants or immigrants. In this regard, Atlanta and Austin, as well as the other cities to a lesser extent, are no different from Charlotte.
About your religion point, I'm not sure if you are aware that Charlotte was the birthplace and home of Billy Graham, and is the site of the Billy Graham Library?
Lastly, 'liberalness' has nothing to do with Southernness. There are plenty of Southern 'progressives' who embody the spirit of the South while dedicating their lives to its betterment-- Terry Sanford is one notable example from my home state of North Carolina.
Ultimately, I'd argue that Hampton Roads, New Orleans, Austin, San Antonio, and Louisville are all less traditionally or "quintessentially" Southern in many ways than Charlotte, and I'm sure many others would, too.
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.
