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.
I guess we'd have to ask what parts of east texas you are referring to. I just never felt like Dallas and Houston had the vibe of true Deep South cities. But definitely more than enough to be Southern. However, I'm certainly willing to concede you may be more right on that than me, as I have only been to these for very brief periods.
First time I set foot in Houston, my thought was, Wow, this is the South! Had no idea until I went there.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,094,873 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around
First time I set foot in Houston, my thought was, Wow, this is the South! Had no idea until I went there.
You clearly did not read my sentence after the one you bolded. I said they were no doubt the South, but not enough for me to call them the Deep South. The Deep South to me is a place that is quintessentially southern, more dixie than dixie itself, as some put it. States that fit this definition are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. Nobody would ever question whether or not these states are southern. Texas, while it does share many Deep South characteristics, is an edge state, the same as Oklahoma. Texas and Oklahoma embody Southwestern influences on top of this. Dallas and Houston are about where you begin seeing some of the southwestern influences. It's not nearly enough that I wouldn't consider them southern, but it is enough that I would not call them the Deep South. And Oklahoma has more Mid-South characteristics than Deep South. It's basically as TexReb said...Dallas and Houston are cities of the Western South. So are Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Most of Texas embodies predominantly Southern influences. In fact, even into eastern New Mexico, those southern influences are still very strong...they peter out as you get about 50 miles or so into the state.
Last edited by stlouisan; 11-27-2011 at 03:59 PM..
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,094,873 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around
Um, did you read the intro? It is accessed from the link provided. Please read what the 6-year-old has to say about south FL.
South Florida I would still say is the South, but the mass migrations of Northerners and Latin Americans over the past half-century or so has diluted the culture to such a point that it can no longer be called part of the Deep South....South Florida is just turning into its own region altogether. That said, you can still find plenty of Southerners there...some natives I've talked to with roots back into the 1930s sound as Southern as anything. Because North Florida has not really changed like South Florida, that's my main reason for calling it southern...that plus just about everything else...location, climate...calling Florida a Northern state is the equivalent of calling Minnesota a Southern state to me.
Texas and Oklahoma embody Southwestern influences on top of this. Dallas and Houston are about where you begin seeing some of the southwestern influences. It's not nearly enough that I wouldn't consider them southern, but it is enough that I would not call them the Deep South. And Oklahoma has more Mid-South characteristics than Deep South. Dallas and Houston are cities of the Western South. So are Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Most of Texas embodies predominantly Southern influences. In fact, even into eastern New Mexico, those southern influences are still very strong...they peter out as you get about 50 miles or so into the state.
Great post and points, stlouisian, and certainly I agree with the general thrust of them. Your observations are always good and insighful.
My real issue here is making the very real distinction between the "Southwest" of the South, and the "Southwest" of the West. One is -- as you say -- western South, while the other is "southern West." . These are just totally different critters/creations in terms of historical/cultural influences.
By and large, while Texas has a strong frontier history of the "west", it wasn't influenced by the "West" of the interior SW or Rocky Mountain West, for at least the reason that it would not have been possible as those states were not even states until long after Texas' character had been shaped by the American South. So, while like you say, there were some Texas/Southern influences on a slice of New Mexico, the influence of the rest of the interior SW did not affect Texas.
Anyway, bottom line, is that -- naturally only IMHO -- when discussing the "Southwest", there just needs to be clarifications in terms of settlement patterns, history, culture, etc.
Yankeedom puts the Eastern Dakotas in with Nova Scotia and everything in between? Whoa! I'll have to check out the book for his rationale on that one!
I doubt I'll check out the book. Seriously, this guy's got it all wrong. Most Wisconsinites, Minnesotans and Dakotans would not take well to being called "Yankees".
Wow I dont know where to start. First off Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and the Dakotas do not belong in the same region as New England and the northeast. Yankees live in the Northeast, and that term does not accurately describe the people of the upper midwest. Ontario is in the midlands?? I dont agree with that one either. Indiana Ohio and Illinois are not part of the appalacian region, the lower midwest is nothing like the mountain south. What about southern Florida??? that one is not labled at all. Ive never seen a map like that one, but everyone is entitled to thier interpretation of this nations social geography.
Strange map indeed. Based on the premise of the regional descriptions in the book, it seems the author is placing way too much emphasis on the original settlers of America's regions, as if they have been set in stone ever since. Even then, this looks pretty imprecise (what kind of name is "Greater Appalachia," anyway?). He is blatantly ignoring centuries worth of other cultural/immigrant influences in many areas of the country. For example, the strong historical German influence in the North Midland region (which is not mentioned whatsoever) from Pennsylvania west toward Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, makes the "Greater Appalachian" areas in these states very different from points south.
This is one of many examples, I'm sure.
Last edited by Duderino; 11-27-2011 at 08:19 PM..
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.
Um, did you read the intro? It is accessed from the link provided. Please read what the 6-year-old has to say about south FL.
