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.
=eddie gein;32631229]I don't disagree with you that Texas is a "southern" state because of all those things you say. But west Texas is different than the rest of the south including the traditionally southern part of Texas. It shares a lot with the southwest, the great plains and Mexico. The Rio Grande Valley for instance is influenced by Mexico way more than the south.
I think this is where we are getting "hung up" on. You are going more by topography, and I am going by history and culture (which includes settlement patterns, linguistics, church membership, political patterns, etc).
Quote:
You claimed that Artesia, NM isn't southern? Well why not? It's exactly like Monahans, Seminole, Lamesa, and a million other west Texas oil towns (that you of course know more about than me.).
They call the area "Little Texas" and a good portion of the people that live there are transplanted Texans and by proxy, according to your theory, transplanted southerners.
I am not sure what -- unless I didn't explain it very well -- is the point of contention here. Yes, I agree that a small slice of eastern New Mexico has Southern elements about it, but that is because it was primarily settled by Texans. Going much further, there is nothing "Southern" about it.
And what constitutes "true desert"? Let's just say that about 1/3 of Texas is extremely arid much like the deserts to it's west.
Quote:
I'm curious as to exactly what makes Arizona "southwestern" when historically it was settled by people from Texas in it's territorial days. Voted for secession as a territory and was controlled by the confederacy during a good portion of the War of Northern Aggression. By your own standards shouldn't Arizona (Arizona territory initially was the southern halves of both Arizona and New Mexico) be considered southern? Or are you all of the sudden switching gears and saying that it is southwestern because of something else........Like landscape?
No gear switching at all. Settlement might be the better term, as in answering your good query. You are correct in that the Arizona territory -- operative term here -- was originally settled by quite a few southeasterners, although almost nothing in comparison to the Indians and Spanish/Mexican population. . Then later, during the War Between the States, Texas regiments attempted to claim it for the Confederacy. They were repulsed (dammit! LOL), at the Battle of Glorieta Pass. And that pretty much ended any claim of Arizona being a "Southern" state.
After the war, Arizona, and most of New Mexico, had a history that was a territory and settled like most of the truly western states. That is, a mix settled by people all over the United States, yet, unlike in Texas, the primary flavor was native American and Mexican. Not Southern. The bottom line is (again again, IMO), they never even claimed a Southern history simply because most residents didn't think of themselves as such. This is in contrast to Texans who, -- if sociological/regional identification surveys are any indication -- overwhelmingly self-identify as living in the South and thinking of themselves as Southerners.
That is really the whole thing. The "Southwest" of Texas application is "western South", while the "Southwest" of AZ and NM, are southern West.
After the war, Arizona, and most of New Mexico, had a history that was a territory and settled like most of the truly western states. That is, a mix settled by people all over the United States, yet, unlike in Texas, the primary flavor was native American and Mexican. Not Southern. The bottom line is (again again, IMO), they never even claimed a Southern history simply because most residents didn't think of themselves as such. This is in contrast to Texans who, -- if sociological/regional identification surveys are any indication -- overwhelmingly self-identify as living in the South and thinking of themselves as Southerners.
That is really the whole thing. The "Southwest" of Texas application is "western South", while the "Southwest" of AZ and NM, are southern West.
I dunno. This is kind of "apples to apples" IMO. Arizona didn't even become a state until 1912, and it was an official Confederate territory prior to that. It didn't even experience any kind of significant Anglo-American population influx until after WW2. The same can be said for Trans-Pecos Texas and much of South Texas (South of San Antonio and West of Corpus Christi). Aside from native American populations, both far-West and South TX probably have an equal amount of Spanish/Mexican cultural influence as Arizona or Southern NM. Maybe even more.
I'm not saying that the people in these parts of Texas don't consider themselves as being part of the South per se, but the actual cultural differences aren't big enough to make them that much different than AZ or NM. Trans-Pecos and South Texas have at least the same amount of Spanish-Mexican culture as Southern culture.
The only real difference I can see between these specific parts of Texas and AZ or NM, are the regional classifications given by the U.S. census bureau.
Yep, KatA is right, and the overwhelming majority of Texans agree. What are your credentials to tell them they are wrong? Please list reasons.
Now, if I misunderstood your intent and meaning, then I apologize. Otherwise, the question stands!
The people in the Pecos Area (El Paso), the South Texas Area(Brownsville, Laredo) , and the Texas Triangle (Dallas, Austin, Houston) don't agree. The only part of Texas that constitutes to the "classical south" is the Beaumont-Port Arthur region, and even there, the "Southerness" is very watered down compared to Mississippi and Alabama.
=Bobloblawslawblog;32639339]I dunno. This is kind of "apples to apples" IMO. Arizona didn't even become a state until 1912, and it was an official Confederate territory prior to that. It didn't even experience any kind of significant Anglo-American population influx until after WW2. The same can be said for Trans-Pecos Texas and much of South Texas (South of San Antonio and West of Corpus Christi). Aside from native American populations, both far-West and South TX probably have an equal amount of Spanish/Mexican cultural influence as Arizona or Southern NM. Maybe even more.
Not exactly, although I acknowledge your point to some extent. But the difference is that the Spanish and native American population in Texas never played a central role in the development of the state, unlike that of the interior SW (i.e. New Mexico and Arizona). Here is a good summation from Raymond Gastil's book "Cultural Regions of the United States":
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."
The "Confederate territory" thing has also been addressed. Now, granted, had the Texas Confederate penetration managed to secure the Arizona territory for the CSA, it might have become part of the same. But it didn't, and federals and settlers from all over the country rushed into it. On the other hand, it was southeastern pioneers to rushed into Texas for the simple reason it was a Southern state, considered itself so, and so did those who came into into it. Any real claim as Arizona to be "Southern" ended about 1862. That is not a "put-down" it is simply historical fact.
Quote:
I'm not saying that the people in these parts of Texas don't consider themselves as being part of the South per se, but the actual cultural differences aren't big enough to make them that much different. Trans-Pecos and South Texas have at least the same amount of Spanish-Mexican culture as Southern culture.
See above, and again I agree the times are changing, but the same can be said all over the South, the traditional South, that is (generally, those states who have the historical claim and whose residents believe themselves to be Southern). I know I do. Just because someone is from Mississippi or Georgia doesn't -- by default -- make them "more Southern", than I am.
And if any think otherwise? Then I invite them -- in fact, even challenge them, in a good-natured and amiable way -- to step up and let's discuss/debate it!
Quote:
The only real difference I can see between these specific parts of Texas and AZ or NM, are the regional classifications given by the U.S. census bureau.
And yes, I can, again, even agree a bit, IF we are dividing the state. But as a WHOLE, Texas is essentially a Southern state.
Just as Arkansas is -- even though parts af it are Midwestern, as are some parts of Virginia, "Eastern." And the lord knows about south Florida and Louisiana. Even north Alabama is radically different from the Mobile Bay, area...
This seems to be the most difficult point of all, to get across. Not, of course, that anyone has to agree with me. But, fer gosh sakes, the basic history and culture of Texas was primarily shaped by the anglo/black duality...even if the reality of it was not always pleasant.
This is something totally different than the states to the west. Texas is Southern, even if not typically Southern.
But the difference is that the Spanish and native American population in Texas never played a central role in the development of the state
Tell that to the folks in Laredo, Brownsville, El Paso, Eagle Pass, or Del Rio. Forget the native American part of the equation. The native American population was almost 100% driven OUT of Texas completely. That's why I said earlier "aside from native American". However, the Spanish/Mexican part of the equation has always been a huge part of the local culture in those parts of TX. That isn't some new or recent trend, though it is currently growing in leaps and bounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
The "Confederate territory" thing has also been addressed. Now, granted, had the Texas Confederate penetration managed to secure the Arizona territory for the CSA, it might have become part of the same. But it didn't, and federals and settlers from all over the country rushed into it.
Yes, but as I pointed out earlier, only because Arizona didn't gain statehood until 47 years after the war ended. I doubt that all the Southerners were exiled from the state in 1912. Many more Southerners continued migrating there even after statehood, and continue to do so today. During my time in Phoenix I met many people whose families originally moved there from Southern states. Obviously Southern culture is much more diluted there than anywhere in Texas, but it still remains a factor in Arizona's cultural roots, however small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Any real claim as Arizona to be "Southern" ended about 1862. That is not a "put-down" it is simply historical fact.
I have no personal stake in any of this, and it matters nothing to me what evils people committed over a century before I was born. I never said, nor do I think of Arizona as a "Southern" state. That would be absurd. I just think that it's cultural and historical ties to the American South aren't THAT much less significant than far-West and Southwestern Texas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
See above, and again I agree the times are changing, but the same can be said all over the South, the traditional South, that is (generally, those states who have the historical claim and whose residents believe themselves to be Southern). I know I do. Just because someone is from Mississippi or Georgia doesn't -- by default -- make them "more Southern", than I am.
See, this is where it becomes personally subjective. I'm a 5th generation Houstonian. Granted, I don't live in Houston anymore, but I was born and raised there, and spent a total of 33 years there. I still identify very much as a Houstonian. Here's the rub though; I don't think of myself as a Southerner. Hear me out on this. I know I'm geographically from the South and descend from Southern ancestry, but as an individual human being I do not now, nor have I ever felt like I have much in common with traditionally Southern culture. It doesn't mean I look down on that culture, or am somehow "ashamed" of descending from Southern ancestry. I don't at all. I just don't relate to it and never have. I'm not some weird anomaly either. Many of my friends growing up in Houston felt the same way.
Still, just to be clear on this, I am NOT saying that I don't consider Houston part of the South. I'm speaking solely for myself on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
And yes, I can, again, even agree a bit, IF we are dividing the state. But as a WHOLE, Texas is essentially a Southern state.
I agree 100% with this. Though I do feel that Texas is a different brand of "Southern" than states like Mississippi, Alabama, or Georgia... aside from a few parts of deep-East Texas. Southern nonetheless though. There are many different variations on Southern culture, just as there are many different variations on Northeast and Midwestern culture. Texas will always be a Southern state, no matter how much the big cities grow, diversify, or lose their Southern vibe.
Last edited by Bobloblawslawblog; 12-16-2013 at 07:59 PM..
=Bobloblawslawblog;32639978]Tell that to the folks in Laredo, Brownsville, El Paso, Eagle Pass, or Del Rio. Forget the native American part of the equation. The native American population was almost 100% driven OUT of Texas completely. That's why I said earlier "aside from native American". However, the Spanish/Mexican part of the equation has always been a huge part of the local culture in those parts of TX. That isn't some new or recent trend, though it is currently growing in leaps and bounds.
Some of this is exactly my point. That is, unlike in New Mexico and Arizona, The "Indian" and "Spanish/Mexican" culture (which in some ways were almost at odds with each other, believe it or note) never really played a central role in the shaping of Texas as a state...which were overwhelmingly shaped by anglo and black settlers from the southeastern United States.
And I agreed that you are correct in that demographics in some areas of the state are growing by "leaps and bounds."
So in some ways, it remains to be seen whether Texas will remain an essentially Southern state or evolve into a Southwestern one in the next several decades. But even with that said, as mentioned in the article, the Hispanic residency is, comparatively speaking, a relatively recent occurrence, and no telling how much, today, is illegal. That is not disparaging, but simple fact.
Quote:
Yes, but as I pointed out earlier, only because Arizona didn't gain statehood until 47 years after the war ended. I doubt that all the Southerners were exiled from the state in 1912. Many more Southerners continued migrating there even after statehood, and continue to do so today. During my time in Phoenix I met many people whose families originally moved there from Southern states. Obviously Southern culture is much more diluted there than anywhere in Texas, but it still remains a factor in Arizona's cultural roots, however small.
And here again, you back up my main point: Unlike Texas, the majority of residents of NM and AZ never classified themselves as Southerners or considered themselves to live in the South. This is in stark contrast to Texas. Even Oklahoma. And I am not saying -- and never have -- that there are no "Southern" elements at all. I am saying that they are so diluted as to be almost like parts of southern California. It may be there, but it is not the general norm. For example, it can be said the Bakersfield area has some strong "Southern" elements from the Great Depression migration of Texans, Okies and Arkies. But the same are anomalies when taking the state as a whole.
There may be places -- and I don't doubt there are -- isolated pockets, where Southern morays (in terms of culture) prevail in Arizona (something akin to a slice of eastern New Mexico), but that is all they are. Isolated and not at all typical.
Quote:
I have no personal stake in any of this, and it matters nothing to me what evils people committed over a century before I was born. I never said, nor do I think of Arizona as a "Southern" state. That would be absurd. I just think that it's cultural and historical ties to the American South aren't THAT much less significant than far-West and Southwestern Texas.
And once again, I would agree with you on lots of levels...except that even far West Texas (i.e. trans-pecos) and southwestern Texas (along the Rio-Grande) have elements of the South that do not exist in the interior Southwest. That is to say, even the El Paso area went for secession and the latter was home to one of the most famed Confederate units of all:
But still, today, I would say the future is "up in the air". We might agree on that one! LOL
Quote:
See, this is where it becomes personally subjective. I'm a 5th generation Houstonian. Granted, I don't live in Houston anymore, but I was born and raised there, and spent a total of 33 years there. I still identify very much as a Houstonian. Here's the rub though; I don't think of myself as a Southerner. Hear me out on this. I know I'm geographically from the South and descend from Southern ancestry, but as an individual human being I do not now, nor have I ever felt like I have much in common with traditionally Southern culture. It doesn't mean I look down on that culture. I don't at all. I just don't relate to it and never have. I'm not some weird anomaly either. Many of my friends growing up in Houston felt the same way.
I heard you out on this and very much appreciate your point and outlook! Good job of articulating it!
It is like -- from the opposite point of view -- I never could relate to that "western cowboy" aspect of Texas history, which -- after so many years of studying the states history -- just never made sense to me and I could never identify with as concerns the family experiences over the generations of not only my own but all I knew. Most of my own -- and all those I knew -- might have played cowboys and Indians and loved the western movies (as I did), but the history was one of cotton-picking and tenant-farming and Solid South politics. Not true ranching.
Quote:
Still, just to be clear on this, I am NOT saying that I don't consider Houston part of the South. I'm speaking solely for myself on this.
I understand completely!
Quote:
I agree with this. Though I do feel that Texas is a different brand of "Southern" than states like Mississippi, Alabama, or Georgia... aside from a few parts of deep-East Texas. Southern nonetheless though.
Absolutely agreed. A great post and I enjoyed reading it! Rep point plus!
The people in the Pecos Area (El Paso), the South Texas Area(Brownsville, Laredo) , and the Texas Triangle (Dallas, Austin, Houston) don't agree. The only part of Texas that constitutes to the "classical south" is the Beaumont-Port Arthur region, and even there, the "Southerness" is very watered down compared to Mississippi and Alabama.
You keep saying this, but don't ever explain why Mississippi and Alabama are to be considered the "standard" of what is or isn't "Southern"?
As it is, my ancestral roots are deep in Mississippi and Alabama and I am very proud of that!
So please explain, what are the criteria that makes a state truly Southern? Would original membership in the Confederacy, a history of white/black original settlement, "Solid South" political history, "Southern Baptist" church membership being the protestant majority, "Y'all" the natural form of address to more than one person, "Southern American English" the norm, or maybe eating black-eyed peas on New Years day a custom and a half? Would those classify as "Southern"?
If so, Texas fits right well. And more in some ways.
I think, really, you just don't want to admit you are being out-maneuvered, out-flanked, and overwhelmed, is the essence of the problem. You have yet to answer any real question addressed to you other than clinging to the "Deep South purist" ethos -- and I hasten to add most from the Deep South are not that way -- that the "classic GWTW South' is the reality of the whole idea of the South.
Hey, is mountain Tennessee anything like south Mississippi? Is south Louisiana anything like lowland South Carolina? C'mon...this notion of the South being monolithic is the most ridiculous and silly thing that ever a myth began.
The South is the South, and its essence are states which share a commonality -- where not only a clear majority of residents consider themselves to live in the South and be Southerners -- but also have a certain indefinable something about them, that easily distinguish them from those of the Northeast, Midwest and Far West.
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.
).
By your own standards shouldn't Arizona (Arizona territory initially was the southern halves of both Arizona and New Mexico) be considered southern? Or are you all of the sudden switching gears and saying that it is southwestern because of something else........Like landscape?
