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.
Texas doesn't have a native Hispanic population.
That is a false narrative. They may have lived in Texas in larger numbers for longer than New York, but that doesn't mean they are native. That's like saying African Americans, the French and English are natives because they have been here for multiple generations.
The Hispanic population in 1990 was only 20M. It is 60M now. Immigration laws changed in the 1960s that allowed a huge wave. The Hispanic population before then was nothing to shout about. Even in Texas.
How long does a group have to live in a place before they're considered natives?
How long does a group have to live in a place before they're considered natives?
Natives in the original sense of the word are indigenous people who drift to an area.
If they move to an area with the intent of relocating to that area then they are not Natives.
So the people who moved from anywhere to settle in Texas are not native.
Words get bastardized frequently to where people refer to locals as natives. Nowadays Native has come to mean people who are born in that area instead of the people indigenous to the area. This has made the word useless as it didn't define anything. In the case of Texas natives would be the Caddos, Atakapa, Karankawa, Mariame, Akokisa...
I do not consider native Americans who were forced to Texas as native to Texas. When Cabeza de Vaca landed in Texas near Galveston, he encountered people from the Karankawa tribe. Those were Texas Natives.
Within Texas, I consider Houston, Beaumont, Texarkana, Tyler to be Southern .Dallas is maybe borderline Southern.
Fort Worth, Midland, Odessa, Abilene, and Amarillo are the most uniquely Texan cities but all of these are also Western to me. Fort Worth definitely feels like where the West begins.
San Antonio and all points south are an extension of Mexico. San Antonio and El Paso are Mexican cities located in the U.S.
There are not many major traditionally "Southern" (aka Dixie/Bible Belt) metropolitan areas that can be fairly compared to the larger metros in Texas. Atlanta, Charlotte, Memphis, and Nashville, are the only ones that immediately come to mind, with places like New Orleans, Birmingham, Jacksonville, Louisville, and Little Rock being of a secondary tier or themselves too unique to fit the label. That being said, Texas cities in my experience (specifically Amarillo, Beaumont, Lubbock, Midland, Abilene, Wichita Falls, DFW, Waco, San Angelo, Tyler, College Station, Houston, Austin) tend to all still have a similar characteristic or vibe no matter what part of the state they're in. One could easily argue that Tyler, Houston, Beaumont, Longview, and just generally anything near or east of I-45 is more "traditionally" Southern than the rest of the state, but I can find Southern influences just about anywhere that I've been in Texas.
Texas doesn't have a native Hispanic population.
That is a false narrative. They may have lived in Texas in larger numbers for longer than New York, but that doesn't mean they are native. That's like saying African Americans, the French and English are natives because they have been here for multiple generations.
The Hispanic population in 1990 was only 20M. It is 60M now. Immigration laws changed in the 1960s that allowed a huge wave. The Hispanic population before then was nothing to shout about. Even in Texas.
Yeah but whereiend did say native for many generations in Texas. We can argue over semantics all day but I get what he was saying. No one would scoff at the idea of someone saying "I'm a native Houstonian" if they were born in Houston. His point was Texas is different from other southern states in the sense of the state having a Hispanic presence closer to Arizona, NM, California.
Now to your argument , I'd say the Hispanic presence that has been in Texas since it's inception was mostly to the Western and Southern regions of the State. Wasn't large as it is now but it was there. Did the Hispanic population from the 1800's have the big of an influence on the state outside of South and West Texas? More than likely not. Like you stated once immigration laws changed in the 60s is when you started to see a bigger Hispanic presence in the major cities with the exception of San Antonio. Before than the more populated parts of Texas looked no different than other southern states till the 60s. East Texas is probably the last region left in the state where Black people are still the 2nd largest group. Everywhere else pretty much not the case.
Within Texas, I consider Houston, Beaumont, Texarkana, Tyler to be Southern .Dallas is maybe borderline Southern.
Fort Worth, Midland, Odessa, Abilene, and Amarillo are the most uniquely Texan cities but all of these are also Western to me. Fort Worth definitely feels like where the West begins.
San Antonio and all points south are an extension of Mexico. San Antonio and El Paso are Mexican cities located in the U.S.
No it is not. Very much an American city.
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.
