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.
Polo, if nothing else I respect your tenacity, my friend!
But while I honestly DO see some of the good and always civil and intelligent points you make, I believe, as AlGreen said later, you miss quite a few as well.
For one thing, the South is not nor ever has been, a monolithic region. Instead it is one whose differences were/are connected by commonalities of general history and culture (and self-idenfication) that clearly differentiated it from the Northeast, Midwest, and Far West (i.e. Rocky Mountain and interior SW). So when you say Texas will never be the same as an AL, MS, GA, LA, TN, you are correct on some levels. But then again, south LA will never be the same as south AL. For that matter, neither will north AL. East TN, in terms of linguistic patterns, probably has more in common with west Texas than with Mississippi.
You are correct in that Texas is such a large state with a different history than most of the SE states (or any other U.S. state), that it can (and often is considered to) be a region of its own. But the primary impact is of the Southern United States. For one thing, migration patterns. That is to say, Texas is not influenced by the true SW states. It would be impossible as migration in this country went east to west, and NM and AZ didn't not even join the Union until the early 20th century. If anything, a small part of NM was influenced by Texas settlers, which in turn are of Southern origin (I believe another poster from that area mentioned this fact).
So far as the place names go, as AlGreen alluded to, this has been discussed before. Yes, Texas was a Mexican colony at one time -- Spanish before that -- so there are many place names which reflect this fact. But as the article earlier stated (The Southwest Defined), this alone cannot signify a meaningful hispanic presence, in the realm of a major impact on Texas history. It just meant the names were there, and the names stuck.
On one hand, it really doesn't make any difference on what it was meant to be, but what it became and, during the truly formative years, truly did become. After the Texas Revolution, most Mexicans living in Texas left the Republic of Texas (then state) and it became the new frontier of southeasterners, bringing along their slaves. After the War Between the States, this amplified even more. Texas was considered a place for anglo southerners and newly freed blacks to get a new start. And the groundwork was already well established (i.e. eastern parts of Texas being pure Lower South). While the relationship between whites and blacks was not always pleasant, the fact is the two combinations were what made the dominating force on the state's history, politics, and culture. It was not until fairly recently that hispanics/Mexicans were much of major consideration at all in that arena.
And the myths of Walker, Texas Ranger, not withstanding, Native-Americans were not much of an impact. Texas has the reputation as a cowboy and Indian state (via Hollywood movies and television), but in reality, Indian culture is definitely not much of a part of it and never really was.
BTW -- just as a matter of historical trivia? How many know (and I didn't up until very recently) that the term "Empire State of the South" first referred to Texas?
If the culture is changing back to that of Mexicans than what's the problem? I mean, it wasn't for the whites or blacks either. Most of the whites and black influence seemed to be limited to East Texas as it seems.
Really polo? Wannabe Georgians? So Georgia defines the south now?
Basically, that's the "truest" thing you ever said.
No, just the way people want to view Texas as. It seems people want to view Texas the same way as they would want to view GA, or TN, or NC. People want to ignore Texas Western fortier culture and highlight the culture of East Texas, which also( like West, Central, and South Texas) is a small part of Texas. Wannabe South easterners if you will.
Yes, those areas are the most representative of Texas' culture...along with Older Austin culture and to a lesser extent san antonio all southern, and all contributed the overwhelming majority of southern cultural influences in Texas, due to their larger and more dense populations in these portions of the state.
Yes, those areas are the most representative of Texas' culture...along with Older Austin culture and to a lesser extent san antonio all southern, and all contributed the overwhelming majority of southern cultural influences in Texas, due to their larger and more dense populations in these portions of the state.
How can you say they are representative of Texas culture? A state as vast as Texas has many cultures. I can see Dallas representing Texas culture, but even then, Dallas's culture is different than that of the rest of the South. Dallas is Brisket, Sirloin Steak, Cowboys, Chicken Fried Steak, dry plains, cattle, etc. The Southeast(which is a MAJORITY of the South) is sweet tea, mint juleps, pork, green lush landscape, pine trees, etc.
No, just the way people want to view Texas as. It seems people want to view Texas the same way as they would want to view GA, or TN, or NC. People want to ignore Texas Western fortier culture and highlight the culture of East Texas, which also( like West, Central, and South Texas) is a small part of Texas. Wannabe South easterners if you will.
C'mon Polo, I expect better out of you! And you know me well enough to know this is not being condecending (as I have no right to be at all).
Anyway, no self-respecting Texan I know denies Texas is TEXAS nor wants to be anything else. What IS being said is that it is essentially a Southern state in all the major ways in terms of history and culture. And as was just said, why are the far southeast states considered the paradigm of the South?
You oughta know I have never ignored the "frontier western" aspects. Matter of fact, I have brought it up many times and is a major reason why I think "Western South" is the best description of most of the state. Where the basic qualities of the South blend with the frontier western spirt you speak of.
What I do and have said is that these western qualities should not be confused with being a part of the same region as the interior SW or Rocky Mountain west. What does the vast majority of the state have in common with them? They could not have influenced us for the simple reason, migration went east to west. NM and AZ did not even become states until somewhere in the early 20th century, and the Rocky Mountain areas were territories long after Texas basic Southern nature was established by anglos and blacks from the southeast.
What is "western" about Texas is it lies in the western half of the United States, and like all west of and including the Plains, is just that and little more. It was settled mostly after the War Between the States, it does share wide open spaces qualities, the plains and praries, and yes, that makes a difference. But in these superficial ways, Ohio has more in common with Tennessee than Kansas (topographically). Does it make the former two part of the same region? Or can Ohio and Kansas both be considered Midwestern by the same strong historical and cultural considerations which make up a true region? If so, the same considerations operate with Texas and much of the southeastern states. Texas's roots are Southern, so is its basic character and, further, many of the things considered uniquely Texas are actually of Southern origin. Texas can no more be separted from the South in this realm than Kansas can from the Midwest. Even if both are "western frontier" states.
And also, many of the things commonly thought of as uniquely "Texan" are of Southern origin and development. The accent for one. And language (accent and idiom) is a strong common binder when it comes to regions, and very indicitive of common settlement patterns. For all its proud autonomy in legend, the "Texas accent" is just one of many sub-varities of what is broadly classified as Southern American English.
Bottom line is, why would any Texan want to be a southeasterner, as you seem to suggest (unless, as in the case of East Texas, they really are)? I want to be a Texan and am proud of that fact (and seen nothing at all to indicate any other posters feel different). I am proud of being both a native Texan and Southerner, and see no contradiction.
I am simply saying Texas -- as a whole -- is essentially a Southern state. And with all due respect for you and your obvious intelligence, most of the arguments you make to the contrary, are using logic that goes in one geographical direction...yet ignores it in another. That is, to define the South by deep southeastern qualities as concerns Texas....but fail to use the same general criteria when explaining why Texas should be considered part of the West or Interior Southwest (again, as a whole)?
I think they are southern; Western South to be more specific. If you placed the Austin and San Antonio area within the Western parts of the US; they would stick out like a sore thumb.
To other southerners; Texas is consider western, but many Texans will claim to be southerners before westerners.
C'mon Polo, I expect better out of you! And you know me well enough to know this is not being condecending (as I have no right to be at all).
Anyway, no self-respecting Texan I know denies Texas is TEXAS nor wants to be anything else. What IS being said is that it is essentially a Southern state in all the major ways in terms of history and culture. And as was just said, why are the far southeast states considered the paradigm of the South?
You oughta know I have never ignored the "frontier western" aspects. Matter of fact, I have brought it up many times and is a major reason why I think "Western South" is the best description of most of the state. Where the basic qualities of the South blend with the frontier western spirt you speak of.
What I do and have said is that these western qualities should not be confused with being a part of the same region as the interior SW or Rocky Mountain west. What does the vast majority of the state have in common with them? They could not have influenced us for the simple reason, migration went east to west. NM and AZ did not even become states until somewhere in the early 20th century, and the Rocky Mountain areas were territories long after Texas basic Southern nature was established by anglos and blacks from the southeast.
What is "western" about Texas is it lies in the western half of the United States, and like all west of and including the Plains, is just that and little more. It was settled mostly after the War Between the States, it does share wide open spaces qualities, the plains and praries, and yes, that makes a difference. But in these superficial ways, Ohio has more in common with Tennessee than Kansas (topographically). Does it make the former two part of the same region? Or can Ohio and Kansas both be considered Midwestern by the same strong historical and cultural considerations which make up a true region? If so, the same considerations operate with Texas and much of the southeastern states. Texas's roots are Southern, so is its basic character and, further, many of the things considered uniquely Texas are actually of Southern origin. Texas can no more be separted from the South in this realm than Kansas can from the Midwest. Even if both are "western frontier" states.
And also, many of the things commonly thought of as uniquely "Texan" are of Southern origin and development. The accent for one. And language (accent and idiom) is a strong common binder when it comes to regions, and very indicitive of common settlement patterns. For all its proud autonomy in legend, the "Texas accent" is just one of many sub-varities of what is broadly classified as Southern American English.
Bottom line is, why would any Texan want to be a southeasterner, as you seem to suggest (unless, as in the case of East Texas, they really are)? I want to be a Texan and am proud of that fact (and seen nothing at all to indicate any other posters feel different). I am proud of being both a native Texan and Southerner, and see no contradiction.
I am simply saying Texas -- as a whole -- is essentially a Southern state. And with all due respect for you and your obvious intelligence, most of the arguments you make to the contrary, are using logic that goes in one geographical direction...yet ignores it in another. That is, to define the South by deep southeastern qualities as concerns Texas....but fail to use the same general criteria when explaining why Texas should be considered part of the West or Interior Southwest (again, as a whole)?
Wouldn't make more sense to go East to West rather than the opposite. The US and the South started in the East. I don't think YOU are ignoring Texas frontier qualities, but others are SOOOO fixated upon East Texas. Austin and points South and West don't present these qualities. I guess Austin is a Western South of sorts at best, but honestly everyone I hung with out there did not consider themselves Southerners. I guess ESSENTIALLY, they are Southerners, but I still think it feels fishy and phony to me. It feels like a faux South of sorts.
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.
