[Goodpasture]

Frankly I think Oklahoma is a lot like somewhere else, only different.....

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by okie1962

Hey, since we got this tired old thread up and going again, I thought I would add something to the pot. Chris Nichols Dodge here in Tulsa or maybe its in Broken Arrow, claims to have the largest inventory of trucks in the Midwest.

The Census Bureau defines Oklahoma as being Region 3: South. More narrowly, Division 7: West South Central (including Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas). Geographically this makes more sense. Culturally, it makes very little sense to consider Oklahoma Southwest, because it just does not have the shared history of the states more traditionally associated with that region. Arizona and New Mexico are unquestionably Southwestern, but Colorado, Utah, Nevada and California are also more considered with that area because of a history unique to that region.

Many indigenous tribes had complex trade networks and even cities in the Southwest, though Oklahoma had relatively few tribes prior to forced relocation.

New Spain covered a very large chunk of the country, from Florida to California. The Viceroyalty of Spanish Louisiana included what is present day Oklahoma, and bounced back and forth between Spanish and French control. However, neither power established colonies in Oklahoma. The US took control of present-day Oklahoma in the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. Contrarily, Spanish settlers began founding cities throughout the Southwest, including Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco in California, Santa Fe and Albuquerque, NM, San Luis, CO and Tucson, AZ (amongst others). Spain maintained control of the region for roughly 200 years, infusing a lot of culture and influence on the region.

After Mexico gained independence in 1821, it maintained control of most of the aforementioned area until 1848, and southernmost Arizona and New Mexico until 1854. With the exception of the panhandle, Oklahoma was never a part of Mexico. Even after the US took over, there was still heavy influence already entrenched in the Southwest.

The closest parallel between Oklahoma and the Southwest happens around this time when pioneers started settling western states. In more modern times, California's influence spills over into nearby states, there is still a sizable Latino population in most of those states (except maybe Utah), there is a growing pan-Asian influence, the food is unique to that region, etc. I just don't see these influences on Oklahoma. I mentioned luminarias and tamales for Christmas to people here, and they seem confused by that, though you'll see both all over this time of year in the Southwest.

This is in part why I don't consider Oklahoma to be Southwestern: it just doesn't have the same history as the other states in that area, and doesn't have the same culture. Even Texas is iffy. The cowboy argument doesn't work, because Florida had a lot and still has a heritage of it. I've heard people defend displaying the Confederate flag in Oklahoma as being part of their "heritage". Though parts of Arizona and New Mexico sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War, displaying that flag in that region would be largely considered offensive. Geographically, it's more South Central and culturally it's more South/Midwest. I'm surprised people don't take this argument into a more general room to get a wider perspective, because Southwesterners aren't likely to agree that Oklahoma is in the same region.

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by Studying Okie

Nice find. I want to point out that the Indian Territory was not included in this, and that many of Southerners coming to Oklahoma Territory came with the land lottery in 1901. Which might mean that the predominately midwestern/northern areas of O.T. were still only partially midwestern/northern, and over 1/3 southern, but in 1900 Greer County was where most of the Southerners were, along with Pott. and Cleveland Counties.

You are correct in the areas that were NOT land run areas were southern. However, I have tried to point out numerous times that northerners were a larger faction of the land run population than southerners simply because the boomer movement came out of Kansas and the fact that access to the land runs was better from the north (particularly in the case of the Cherokee Outlet). It was just nice to find a source to back this up.

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by dvxhd

Just wanted to say that the census bureau has to put a whole state in one region which is a problem with using the census bureau as a justification for any nuanced discussion.

The closest parallel between Oklahoma and the Southwest happens around this time when pioneers started settling western states.

Most definitely true.

This is in part why I don't consider Oklahoma to be Southwestern: it just doesn't have the same history as the other states in that area, and doesn't have the same culture.

True only if New Mexico and Arizona are considered truly southwestern.

Even Texas is iffy.

West Texas and Southwestern Oklahoma are similar to each other, and to a great degree made up of the same line of people (most southwestern Oklahoma anglos and latino/hispanics came up from Texas). So you have to identify what the southern plains are. They aren't really southern, they aren't northern, and they aren't southwestern if New Mexico and Arizona are the standard.


The cowboy argument doesn't work, because Florida had a lot and still has a heritage of it.

The cowboy argument works because Florida's "cowboy/cracker" history is a cottage industry today, and never was as big as it got out here in after the civil war. There are entire swaths of country on the plains that are nothing BUT cowboy/ranching culture even to this day. Rodeos, western stores, stuff like that. There were no epic trail drives in Florida.

I've heard people defend displaying the Confederate flag in Oklahoma as being part of their "heritage". Though parts of Arizona and New Mexico sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War, displaying that flag in that region would be largely considered offensive.

At the time of the Civil war southern Arizona and New Mexico (the parts that seceded) had a combined anglo population of about 3,000 people. Mostly southerners. Today, Arizona and New Mexico are full of snowbirds from the north. And probably have had more northern influence for the last 100 or so years.
In Oklahoma, you are likely to see more rebel flags in the eastern part of the state than you will as you go west and particularly north.

Geographically, it's more South Central and culturally it's more South/Midwest. I'm surprised people don't take this argument into a more general room to get a wider perspective, because Southwesterners aren't likely to agree that Oklahoma is in the same region.

Again, the problem with Oklahoma and Texas is how to classify the plains region of those states. The argument has been done to death on the national board but it is always about Texas and because west Texas encompasses Oklahoma arguing specifically about Oklahoma in the equation is kind of moot when they can't even decide on west Texas.


Enjoyed reading the earlier history of your post. Particularly your statement about Oklahoma never being under spanish control. I have always maintained that if Texas belonged to the United States in 1820 then Indian territory would have been in east Texas and not in Oklahoma.

I am sorry to have resurrected this "tired" thread but find the historical aspects of Oklahoma post worthy.

[Studying Okie]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

You are correct in the areas that were NOT land run areas were southern. However, I have tried to point out numerous times that northerners were a larger faction of the land run population than southerners simply because the boomer movement came out of Kansas and the fact that access to the land runs was better from the north (particularly in the case of the Cherokee Outlet). It was just nice to find a source to back this up.

Ah I see!

This map was posted to Reddit about a month ago showing a composite map of the Midwest as defined by 100 different organizations. Oklahoma is less frequently included in the definition than Kentucky, but within Oklahoma, Tulsa and that area is shaded darkest.

[Bass&Catfish2008]

Originally Posted by Studying Okie

Ah I see!

This map was posted to Reddit about a month ago showing a composite map of the Midwest as defined by 100 different organizations. Oklahoma is less frequently included in the definition than Kentucky, but within Oklahoma, Tulsa and that area is shaded darkest.

The fact that Kentucky is more often considered in the Midwest designation than Oklahoma is quite telling. It makes sense as Kentucky is geographically north of Oklahoma, but I think it is pretty clear, that Kentucky, in the main, has more cultural affinity with the Deep South states (although Oklahoma isn't too far behind).

Moreover, the map affirms what many of us have said all along....there are little to no maps which include Oklahoma in the Midwest region. It's quite rare....even Kentucky (as Southern as it is culturally) has more of a chance of being included with the Midwest group/states than Oklahoma. We're just too far South and West geographically.

Interesting. Thanks!

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

Just wanted to say that the census bureau has to put a whole state in one region which is a problem with using the census bureau as a justification for any nuanced discussion.

The biggest issue with the Census Bureau's definition is that it ignores local cultures and goes strictly by geographic area. Florida and New York are terrific examples because of the vastly different ways of life and cultural influences throughout both states.

True only if New Mexico and Arizona are considered truly southwestern.

I think in this case, "Southwestern" is tying in geography with general culture, much in the way Oregon and Washington are "Pacific Northwest", and Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi are part of the "Deep South". This, I think, is the core issue to this debate, as it's combining two different ideas and Oklahoma is geographically/culturally in an odd place. When I went over the history, we could also apply the same thing to Oklahoma with the Midwest and South. For example, it didn't have the Southern settlements, slavery or Confederacy, nor did it have the Midwestern Great Migration and rapid industrialization.

West Texas and Southwestern Oklahoma are similar to each other, and to a great degree made up of the same line of people (most southwestern Oklahoma anglos and latino/hispanics came up from Texas). So you have to identify what the southern plains are. They aren't really southern, they aren't northern, and they aren't southwestern if New Mexico and Arizona are the standard.

I don't see why this can't just be the de facto designation of Oklahoma: Southern Plains, South Central, or something like that. Generally speaking, Arizona and New Mexico are the accepted standard of Southwestern culture.

The cowboy argument works because Florida's "cowboy/cracker" history is a cottage industry today, and never was as big as it got out here in after the civil war. There are entire swaths of country on the plains that are nothing BUT cowboy/ranching culture even to this day. Rodeos, western stores, stuff like that. There were no epic trail drives in Florida.

By the cowboy argument, I meant you can't make that a sole definition for "Southwest" as Florida had a long cowboy tradition, as did other states. Most of the Southwest didn't really have cattle trails either.

At the time of the Civil war southern Arizona and New Mexico (the parts that seceded) had a combined anglo population of about 3,000 people. Mostly southerners. Today, Arizona and New Mexico are full of snowbirds from the north. And probably have had more northern influence for the last 100 or so years.
In Oklahoma, you are likely to see more rebel flags in the eastern part of the state than you will as you go west and particularly north.

I have to disagree there. Arizona has grown far faster than New Mexico (thus has a much larger transplant population of people from all over), but a lot of that is fairly recent. California and Texas also top the list of transplants to Arizona. Snowbirds refer to people who don't stay: they go for the winter, then return home when the weather warms up. Metro Phoenix by far gets the bulk of transplants. Back to the recent growth, in 1950 Oklahoma ranked 25th in population, Arizona 37th. By 1980, Oklahoma ranked 26th, Arizona 29th. In 2010, Oklahoma ranked 28th, Arizona 16th. Likewise, in 1950 (core cities only) OKC was the 45th largest city, Phoenix 99th. 1980: OKC 31st, Phoenix 9th. 2013: OKC 27th, Phoenix 6th. Interestingly, that data is more revealing if you look at how slowly Arizona (and Phoenix) grew prior to WWII. Beyond that, the architecture, cuisine, culture, etc. is much different than in Oklahoma. The tract housing you'll see in places like Vegas, Phoenix and Albuquerque aren't like those you'll see here. Mexican/Mexican-inspired food is much more prevalent in those cities than it is here. People there are generally less neighborly and less friendly than in Oklahoma, you'll notice more community arts (like murals) on otherwise drab buildings there, etc. It just isn't part of Oklahoma's identity.

Again, the problem with Oklahoma and Texas is how to classify the plains region of those states. The argument has been done to death on the national board but it is always about Texas and because west Texas encompasses Oklahoma arguing specifically about Oklahoma in the equation is kind of moot when they can't even decide on west Texas.

I stated this above. Texas is odd too because it covers so much area. Parts of Texas seem to try too hard to identify with other parts, in my experience. Californians have a done a better job of identifying regions of their state. Regions within Oklahoma aren't unique either, because almost every state has a vast difference within its borders. As a more general identification, I would choose a term that denotes its south-central geography and cultural similarities with East Texas and arguably Kansas and Arkansas.

Enjoyed reading the earlier history of your post. Particularly your statement about Oklahoma never being under spanish control. I have always maintained that if Texas belonged to the United States in 1820 then Indian territory would have been in east Texas and not in Oklahoma.I am sorry to have resurrected this "tired" thread but find the historical aspects of Oklahoma post worthy.

Personally, I'd rather Oklahoma try to forge a "new" region and go with that. Why be bound by the other identifiers?

[Howest2008]

Oklahoma Is Whatever You Want To Make It......

It's The Great Plains...North Dakota , South Dakota Nebraska , Kansas and Oklahoma

It's the Southwest...Arizona . New Mexico , Texas and Oklahoma

It's the Midwest....North of Tulsa and Tulsa Metro

It's the South....In Southeastern Oklahoma

Oklahoma Cowboy Culture makes is Southwestern and is different from the Cowboy Culture of Florida , because ( Cowboys ) were looked down upon in Florida and made into ( Hero's ) in Oklahoma.

Florida makes Indians Native American much more of a Heroic Iconic Figure than the Cowboy , where as
in Texas and Oklahoma even the NDN celebrate Cowboy Culture and Cowboys are worshiped like Super
Hero's almost...and Super Bowl Winners LOL....

I worked for the USCB in 1990 and 2000 they call Oklahoma Southern , but they can't tell me anything
I will make that determination my own self without theirs political input.....

[country pride]

I thought it was already a southern state, since TN is considered southern and it's north of OK?

[Rubi3]

Tennessee is north of Oklahoma? The northern borders of Oklahoma and Tennessee line up about the same.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6,-95.665,4z