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.
The Census does not classify the Texas as Southwestern, it classifies it as southern.
It further breaks up the South into 3 sub categories.
It groups Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Arkansas as a sub division called West South Central. That fits the state way better than South western because a miniscule percent of the population is in areas that would be considered Southwestern.
Houston, DFW, Austin, Beaumont, Waco, Tyler, Longview, Bryan, College Station, even San Antonio and Corpus Christi is more like Baton Rouge, Lafayette, Shreveport, OKC, Little Rock, New Orleans than they are like Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Vegas, etc. Only Far west Texas gives that vibe but most of the Texas population is along I35 or east of it
Right. Most of Texas's population lives in the Southern part and not the Southwestern
Texas is huge and a transitional state. It can’t be just one thing. The I-35 corridor has a good mix of both. East of that is more southern, west of that is more southwestern.
Above are a few facts to help people have more informed impressions. Even Houston - the most Southern of Texas cities is 44% Latino with 17 Spanish -speaking radio stations, 12 Spanish language newspapers, and 6 Spanish language television stations
Texas has 34 Hispanic Serving Institutions of higher education. Only CA with 40 has more. There is one in Georgia and one in NC, and none anywhere else in the South.
Slavery was undoubtedly a critical part of Texas history and one should not minimize it, but race relations in Texas have been triangulated for most of its history in a way that is not the case for the Southeastern United States.
Slavery as an institution had a 30 year or so history in Texas and arguably much shorter. Compared that to 200 years plus in much of the South. According to the 1850 census there are 58K enslaved people in Texas. By 1860, there are just over 180K, most of them arriving just before and during the Civl War. So slavery in Texas was a significant institution for less than a decade. After the Civil war, economic activity shifts first gradually and then swiftly from an agrarian economy to a ranching and then extractive one. Cattle and then oil become much more central to the state's economy and identity over the long course of the 20th century. The Mexican vaquero is the model for the figure of the cowboy . . . Granted Texas was not part of Mexico for very long, but three times as long than it was part of the Confederacy . . .
While no one in their right mind would deny that Texas has a Southern history and influences, I would argue that there are enough other influences: economic, topographical, demographic, cultural, historical to make it a separate entity. For better or worse, it is Texas - down to the stupid separate power-grid. The long historical presence of people of Mexican descent - "Mexicans" were counted as whites until the 1930 census, and many Mexican-Americans, rightfully afraid of discrimination continued to report as white for a long time afterwards - is what most strongly distinguishes Texas from the South, and Texas becomes progressively less Southern as its history unfolds . . .
To get back to the cities in question, I think in Texas anything east of 45 is indisputably Southern, so Dallas and Houston are borderline South. Between 45 and 35 is a transitional zone, so while Austin and San Antonio will have southern elements, they tend to be more purely Texas with San Antonio having a more developed Mexican culture. West of 35, Southern elements disperse fast the further west you go and there is nothing southern about the Trans-Pecos or anything south of 90 from San Antonio to Del Rio, which is basically north Tamaulipas with some more Anglos and newer trucks . .
What this thread has shown me, if people don't want to see something, they won't.
I purposefully never include Texas or *shudders* Oklahoma in my grouping of the Southwest. All of their populations--almost entirely--are in the eastern part and that's the most important piece here. A state's culture is defined by its people, and if almost all of it's people don't live in the region then it doesn't qualify, even if it has part of that region. Geographic regions do not abide by socioeconomic manmade borders. The desert southwest does exist in Texas, but few live there. Meanwhile in Arizona and New Mexico, most of its people live in the desert southwest portions. Just like how the desert southwest also exists in California, but no one calls California a Southwestern state. It also exists in Utah, but no one calls Utah a Southwestern state. Why? Because Salt Lake City is not in the desert Southwest, and neither is LA. And neither is Houston, or Dallas.
To me not having as long of a history in something as someone else does not mean you also did not share part of that history. Texas was in the Confederacy. Texas did have a sizable slavery population. Arizona and New Mexico, by all technical purposes, are southern states because they are in the southern half of the country. BUT Arizona and New Mexico never had significant slavery populations, were only territories (most of which Union) during this defining moment of Southern history. The fact that Arizona and New Mexico were mostly union and did not have slavery to any notable degree is why the classification of Southern ends at Texas, and doesn't go further west. Arizona and New Mexico did not share these common denominators with the South during this time, but Texas did with other Southern states. Yes Texas was part of Mexico/Spain for longer and was even it's own thing for a minute. But just because it wasn't around as long in non-Hispanic white history than Mississippi does not mean it's less Southern. It means, if anything, that Texas flavor of being Southern is slightly different than Alabama or Tennessee. No one says Louisiana is less southern for having French and Creole influences. Why is Texas an exception for having more Latino influence?
Within a family, no family member is exactly the same...
I purposefully never include Texas or *shudders* Oklahoma in my grouping of the Southwest. All of their populations--almost entirely--are in the eastern part and that's the most important piece here. A state's culture is defined by its people, and if almost all of it's people don't live in the region then it doesn't qualify, even if it has part of that region. Geographic regions do not abide by socioeconomic manmade borders. The desert southwest does exist in Texas, but few live there. Meanwhile in Arizona and New Mexico, most of its people live in the desert southwest portions. Just like how the desert southwest also exists in California, but no one calls California a Southwestern state. It also exists in Utah, but no one calls Utah a Southwestern state. Why? Because Salt Lake City is not in the desert Southwest, and neither is LA. And neither is Houston, or Dallas.
To me not having as long of a history in something as someone else does not mean you also did not share part of that history. Texas was in the Confederacy. Texas did have a sizable slavery population. Arizona and New Mexico, by all technical purposes, are southern states because they are in the southern half of the country. BUT Arizona and New Mexico never had significant slavery populations, were only territories (most of which Union) during this defining moment of Southern history. The fact that Arizona and New Mexico were mostly union and did not have slavery to any notable degree is why the classification of Southern ends at Texas, and doesn't go further west. Arizona and New Mexico did not share these common denominators with the South during this time, but Texas did with other Southern states. Yes Texas was part of Mexico/Spain for longer and was even it's own thing for a minute. But just because it wasn't around as long in non-Hispanic white history than Mississippi does not mean it's less Southern. It means, if anything, that Texas flavor of being Southern is slightly different than Alabama or Tennessee. No one says Louisiana is less southern for having French and Creole influences. Why is Texas an exception for having more Latino influence?
Within a family, no family member is exactly the same...
I purposefully never include Texas or *shudders* Oklahoma in my grouping of the Southwest.
Others do. And again the problem is that you just can't pigeonhole Texas and Oklahoma into any region.
As an Oklahoman it makes you chuckle when they do because it just doesn't work. Texas is way to big and expansive to expressly say it fits in one region. And the fact of the matter is that there are portions of Oklahoma and about half of Texas that fit better with New Mexico and Arizona relative to some aspects than they do with the south. Of course if you are one of those people that demands that these discussions are all "culture" and do not include other factors then it is less so. But other factors influence culture to some degree.
Your comments about California and Utah are interesting because sometimes you hear about them (as well as Colorado and Nevada) as having portions of their states included in the "southwest".
But that's almost all states tho.
States are not usually all one thing.
And I don't know why people want to compare the Texas cities to Atlanta like it's the prototype.
There are a variety of Southern cities so why compare the Texas cities to a city that's on the opposite side of the south. Savanah is in the same state as Atlanta and it doesn't feel the same so why should Dallas.
The Gulf Coast has that similar vibe so Houston is best compared to New Orleans, Mobile, Baton Rouge.
Dallas is rapidly evolving but it used to draw strong comparisons to Shreveport and OKC.
The older neighborhoods in San Antonio honestly reminds me of the Eastern portions of Houston. Going down Culebra road could easily pass for a more undulating Pasadena Texas. Yes Texas is differentfrom Atlanta but why wouldn't it be? It's still southern but southern like it's neighbors not Atlanta southern. But Atlanta southern is definitely not the standard
Others do. And again the problem is that you just can't pigeonhole Texas and Oklahoma into any region.
As an Oklahoman it makes you chuckle when they do because it just doesn't work. Texas is way to big and expansive to expressly say it fits in one region. And the fact of the matter is that there are portions of Oklahoma and about half of Texas that fit better with New Mexico and Arizona relative to some aspects than they do with the south. Of course if you are one of those people that demands that these discussions are all "culture" and do not include other factors then it is less so. But other factors influence culture to some degree.
Your comments about California and Utah are interesting because sometimes you hear about them (as well as Colorado and Nevada) as having portions of their states included in the "southwest".
Yes portions but no one ever considers them so outright. Texas has a Southern history and that needs to be reflected. Arizona and New Mexico were never once part of that Southern history. That's why Arizona and New Mexico are not considered Southern states even though... they are on the southern border.
Arizona is bigger than New England. New Mexico is bigger than New England. All western states are big it's not an exclusive problem to Texas (even though Texans like to think that way) and no one has problems putting these other giant states as part of other regions. No one has problems putting Montana in the Intermountain West. Yet no one has any problems stating Arizona and New Mexico are Southwestern states even though Flagstaff is arguably like Colorado and therefore not entirely Southwestern. We call Flagstaff our little Colorado. But no one says "Flagstaff exists, therefore the entire state of Arizona is not Southwestern".
The fact the matter is is you are trying to take an entire state and then try to divide it into subgroups to say it doesn't work. But you can literally continue that dividing down to literally the atomic level because almost everything is made up of more than one thing. So you have to stop the dividing line at the Texas socioeconomic borders that we currently use. Factoring in everything in those borders, Texas is a Southern state because the majority of its population is closer to other cities in the South, and it was a Confederate state. To try to break it down means you are no longer looking at Texas, you are looking at smaller areas within Texas. But it's no longer Texas. At that point you are debating Houston, San Antonio, etc. but not Texas.
Lots of liberals on this board who want to disassociate themselves from the south, as if the coasts and the northeast are more sophisticated. It's embarrassing. It's not like this in real life.
I see it as people feeling the west is more rustic, forward-looking, individualistic, adventurous and thus, more appealing than being southern.
Yep. It's always about the money.
I dunno why all this romanticism about Texas being different is so intrenched. Texas is just another southern state.
You really can't say Texas is southern for several reasons:
1`. Mexico/Latino influence which was not evident to the east of Texas.
2.The discovery of oil in large amounts in the early 1900s, a resource no other state had and changed the influence of the state.
3. Cattle ranching of significant size;
4. Post WWII, much higher immigration that other southern states from Asia and Africa
5. Stronger ties to western states.
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.
