Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990
TexasReb - Well said.
|
Thanks CAVA (and to two other poster who repped me for this).
Something else that occured to me concerning the vast historical and cultural differences between Texas and the core interior SW states (i.e. New Mexico and Arizona) is -- as many have mentioned -- the long-established Native-American and Hispanic population which are the dominant influences on the history.
While Texas has a sizeable hispanic population, it is fairly recent phenomemon. As Raymond Gastil (who first coined the term "Western South" to label the vast majority of Texas and a goodly portion of Oklahoma) put it in his book "
Cultural Regions of the United States":
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."
And from "
The Southwest Defined" (edited by Joseph Carleton Wilder)
Current demographic statistics do not provoke any great revision in determining that area which we can call the "Hispanic Southwest." Place names in southern Texas and California suggest a rich and enduring Hispanic heritage in those two states. But following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, hordes of white Americans rushed into these Hispanic areas of Texas, and, even though white Americans totally dominated these parts of Texas, they continued to use many existing Spanish place names. Most of California's Spanish place names were designated by Anglo real estate developers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in an attempt to capitalize commercially on the state's romance that visitors and newcomers to the region found so "quaint" and attractive. A meaningful cultural presence of Hispanic traditions cannot be derived merely from Spanish place names. And other qualifications- primarily physiographic, climatic, and prehistoric-preclude Texas and California from being placed within "the Southwest.
As to the Native American influence and presence, it is not even in the ballpark with the true SW. Myths of the television series
"Walker, Texas Ranger" (with Chuck Norris) not withstanding, there are only three very small "Indian reservations" in Texas; none of them anything like what is usually visualized when the term is mentioned.
Yes, in the early settlement post-Civil War era, the Hollywood "cowboy and Indians" (and fights between Native Americans and settlers) aspect had a lot of basis in truth. BUT...most of the Plains tribes were pretty well removed from Texas early on, and Native-American culture had
very little impact on the state's overall politics, archetecture, etc.
For sure, one is
not going to find those towns and tourist areas where authentic Indian curios, wares, jewelry, souvenier items, etc., are a mainstay and source of income. Things which -- as others have said -- are very commonplace in, and associated with, the
real Southwest.
*grinning a bit* I have seen some TV shows and movies which seem to suggest those bolo string-ties with turquoise slides are common-place among native Texans. I always had to laugh a bit at that as it is just not true (at least in my observation and experience).
Oh sure, I remember back in the 70's when they become popular as a stylish fad (I had one myself), but that was all it was. It had about the same relevance in terms of a deep-rooted connection with traditional SW attire as another the fad of of the same era -- the wearing of a St. Christopher medallion -- had with that most native anglo/black Texans were of the Catholic faith. Which was little to none.
If that makes sense. :confused
Ok...sorry to have rambled on!