What Do You Like/Dislike About Texas? (Houston, Dallas: property taxes, club)
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.
Oh lord...I should have anticipated that, sooner or later, this thread (like so many others) are eventually going to lead into that never to be settled question of Texas' regional affiliation. This one just never seems to die, and those of us who are veterans of the debate/discussion, usually just "sigh" and get back into it! LOL
As it is, I just got back from the dentist's office, and have some minor surgery scheduled for tomorow...so I guess I better get my licks in here while I can (because they warned me, tomorow, I might be too doped up to do so! LOL).
Anyway, from my own vantage point, where to start is the question? I reckon I'll read more carefully over the posts of last night (after I signed off) and those of today as a start...then reply...
P.S. I apologize ahead of time that this will likely take up many quotes, posts and points. But that is just me! LOL
Well, no one was discussing it at first, but then a poster decided to go on a random tangent about how Texas needs to distance itself from the South, and as you and I both know..THEM'S FIGHTIN WORDS!
Okay, TexasReb has arrived, and as promised, for the sake of my health, I'm out of here. I've already read all of the "info-dumping" and don't need to see it again.
Well, no one was discussing it at first, but then a poster decided to go on a random tangent about how Texas needs to distance itself from the South, and as you and I both know..THEM'S FIGHTIN WORDS!
LOL To be fair though, I think we both have to admit that -- compared to a lot of subjects -- most of us Texas Regulars, pro and con, at least try to keep it generally civil...even in "pounding the table" disagreement!
I think I have a few things in order to post -- lots, actually -- (like I mentioned earlier, I might be so woozy tomorow as to not even know how to log in! LOL). Let me start with this great quote of yours:
Quote:
AlGreen wrote: The arguments for Texas not being southern are so weak, as usual, and seem largely based on outdated stereotypes. When you have one side of the argument that resorts to posting lynching videos...yeah, it's pretty clear whose argument is fallible. Yet my reasoning is dismissed because it doesn't readily support the "Texas is Texas" mantra that some natives think will wipe every other argument away.
This summation is excellent to the A-plus degree. Some folks who take the postition that Texas is not Southern seem to often rely on this straw-man diversion. Or, use it to attempt to steer it all into a ditch.
As it is, NO ONE that I know of (certainly not you, me, Spade, Solytaire, HTown, Jluke, and many more) in advancing the argument that Texas is historically/culturally part of the South, ever did anything but preface with that yes, first and foremost, Texas is TEXAS.
Our whole argument (if I might take the liberty of speaking for "our" position) is that yes, again, TEXAS IS TEXAS. We never disupted that. Yet? When put into a United States region, it properly belongs to the South. That is, the region in the South central and southeastern part of the country which shares a common heritage and outlook and etc, which is very different from the interior SW or the Rocky Mountain states, as well as the Plains states of the Midwest.
There is absolutely no reason why Texas being Texas and Texas being Southern should be at odds with one another. On the other hand (as I believe Solytaire and others have brought up), there are MANY reasons why Texas should not be grouped with the true Western states (i.e. Census Bureau definition).
Now then, to move on...gotta make another post! LOL
Okay, TexasReb has arrived, and as promised, for the sake of my health, I'm out of here. I've already read all of the "info-dumping" and don't need to see it again.
Did you really think I wasn't going to get into this eventually, THL?
I think it only fair to say that I am going to post some things never posted before, in response to an earlier thread that was shut-down. It is in response to some things you said officially, but I never had a chance to reply to. I DM'd them to you...and promised not to officially post them -- because I am as tired of this subject as you are -- unless they came up again on an open thread. Apparently it has and, to boot, you wrote the following a bit earlier:
Quote:
You can see that quite easily on several threads on here. We've agreed to disagree, because it reached the point that whenever I saw a thread that was clearly about the topic, my heart sunk because I knew that TexasReb would pop up sooner or later and it would not be a discussion or even a debate, it would be a dumping of writings by people who share his point of view. And said so.
And...just now...
Quote:
Okay, TexasReb has arrived, and as promised, for the sake of my health, I'm out of here. I've already read all of the "info-dumping" and don't need to see it again.
I am sorry if you see my stats to back up by opinions as info-dumping. Regardless, because it came up -- and I never wanted it too -- I am going to share my previously unposted responses to some things you had officially written earlier.
I want to make that clear, for the simple reason that what you wrote is a matter of C-D record. I never replied publicly, but now I am going to. Because it addresses a lot of things you allude to in the above quotes. In an nut-shell, I am not violating a privacy trust as to DM's. I am merely posting my replies to something you had publicly posted earlier.
This will be "piece-meal" so as to try and not overwhelm in one "novel" type post.
I hope, again, THL, you will keep in mind, that I have nothing but respect for your intellegience and position and guts. Never a question on that score. And you and I agree MUCH more than not. But I think it only fair I get to have my say when you accuse me of overwhelming with data sans any reason to defend and state why I believe it.
That being said, TexasReb, the reason that I said it's not pleasant being in one of these discussions any longer is that you absolutely must be acknowledged to be right and you don't just provide data (chosen from those who agree with you, I might add) to prove that you're right (though one of the first I saw you mention was a Wikipedia article to which you acknowledged contributing, which falls into the "I said so and therefore it's the truth" camp in my book no matter who it is or what the topic is, never mind that Wikipedia should NEVER be used as a primary source due to its very nature).
I will be the first to acknowledge that I have strong opinions on this subject (as it I could deny it anyway! LOL), but I don't see where you come by that I absolutely must be acknowledged to be right. I know full well that there are many out there who disagree with me and always will. I have said countless times on this topic that it is one in which we generally just have to agree to disagree. I don't know what can be plainer nor fairer than that.
The data thing? Of course I provide what I consider to be relevant data/information to support my position. You said once you are a researcher and para-legal (if memory serves correctly)? If so, then you should know this as much as anyone. There is for sure nothing wrong with personal opinions on the matter. Heck, this is a topic in which there is no "right or wrong" answer anyway. Much of it DOES boil down to personal opinion/experience. At the same time, I would like to know their reasons.
So far as Wikipedia goes (and yes, I know without being told about not using Wikipedia as a primary source), please be specific as to the incident(s) you are talking about. Some of this doesn't make much sense, anyway. After all, the contention that "in (your) book" a referral/link to Wikipedia constitutes an "It is so because I say it is so" has validity ONLY if I directed to something I myself wrote, had no proper citation, or else was not a verifiable fact. For instance, I remember once, when someone asked about the definition of the Deep South, I said I thought the Wiki article on the subject covered it pretty well (opinion). Yes, I contributed to it. I had written that the sub-region, in ante-bellum days, encompassed that area most dependent upon plantation type agriculture and where secessionist sentiment was strongest (fact). Of several definitions, I provided one which is verifiable in any history book; that is, the 7 states from S.C. to TX, which seceded before the firing on Ft. Sumter (fact).
I also wrote that while Texas and Florida were originally considered Lower/Deep South, they are seldom included today (again, verifiable historical fact). Likewise, I may have directed to another article or map which I thought was good and informative, but always with the qualification the merits of the article were my OPINION only. So if those are your examples, then they fail the test completely, I would say. But in the interest of fairness, I welcome you to provide something to the contrary. Otherwise it is without foundation and has the ring of attempting to steer the exchange into a ditch.
So far as your saying I choose sources that agree with me? This approaches things from the wrong direction. Your implication is that I began with a pre-conceived opinion on the subject and, thus, cherry-pick. No, it is is not that the primary source agrees with me, but that I agree with them. Difference here. In this case, I am the cart and the source is/was the horse. That is to say, I did not originally start from the premise that Texas was the South because I wanted it to be so. Instead, I came to the conclusion because I BECAME convinced of it.
When growing up I would sometime see Texas listed as a Southwestern state, sometimes as a Southern state, and sometimes as a Western state. This seemed a little confusing on some levels (i.e. when the three regions were presented as totally seperate from one another). However, I became interested in regional studies and Texas history/culture early on and read up on it. What evolved was eventually the opinion I hold today.
To wit, the decided preponderence of credible evidence I could read/glean/research was while Texas was/is Texas, first and foremost -- which I am proud of -- it was/is essentially a Southern state when put into a region. That it made little historical/cultural sense to put Texas in the same “Southwestern” class with New Mexico and Arizona, or into the West classification as the Rocky Mountain states. Further, that while it is accurate to call Texas "Southwestern" such has to be qualified as being in the original sense. That is, the "western South"...where the essential South is mixed strongly with post-bellum “frontier” western qualities. Something very different from the Interior or Desert Southwest.
No, you must bury anyone who disagrees with you in data. That's not discussion, as far as I'm concerned - that's "I'll keep pouring on this stuff until you agree with me", and that's not at all the same thing.
See above on most of these points. But ok, what IS your idea of discussion/debate? Just saying something like “yes it is or no it isn’t”? Or vice-versa? Or just when you have facts to support YOUR opinion? If you (or anyone else) disagrees with my data, then by all means present some to the contrary. I may counter it, or I might agree with it. Depends on the source and credibility. Or, as is often the case, just agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that, either.
Quote:
And you ignore, or brush off, a vast part of the state that is not and never could be considered Southern, and contributions made by many cultures, including primarily Mexico, because they don't fit your preferred theory. That's not research OR discussion, in my book.
Well, then maybe the premise of "your book" is faulty, reckon? (See earlier on the "preferred theory" aspect).
Anyway, why do you keep repeating something that I can back up as to being absolutely not true? Can you point out even once where I did anything of the sort? That is, “brushed off” or “ignored” parts of the state that cannot really be classified as Southern? PLEEEZE cite and I will either retract or clarify. In fact, some of what you say borders on insulting. It for sure ignores facts. So for gosh sakes, either back this up, or please cease tossing this mantra out every time this comes up.
As a quick aside here, given that all areas of Texas were officially in the Confederacy, it can be truthfully said that all were, at one time at least, considered Southern. But as that may be, on the contrary, I have said many times that -- taken separately -- there are decidedly parts of the state that I don't think can really be considered Southern today (though almost all still retain at least a remnant of Southern culture). The trans-pecos area come to mind first. It is clearly the true desert Southwest. The upper-panhandle is probably at least as Midwestern as Southern, and always has been. And some areas of South Texas are on the fence with South/Southwest/Mexico.
But you are correct though, the above are not a "vast" parts of the state. So apparently, you must have other areas in mind that -- to you -- "are not and could never be" considered Southern, right? If that is your opinion, then that is fine. But do you not see something screwy here? To wit, you are proceeding from the presumption that YOUR position is the correct one and that if I do not agree, then I am not engaging in YOUR notion of proper discussion or research. To put it bluntly, this is a quite supercilious outlook and, once again, goes to support my own contention that you often take for granted -- with no supporting evidence -- that your take on the matter is the superior one just because you say it is. Well, that is not discussion OR research in MY book.
Other cultures? I never denied other cultural influences, especially that of Mexico. Although I did say that it was not of the same type nor had the same impact in the shaping of Texas as a Republic and state as it did in the interior Southwest states. I quoted Raymond Gastil in his classic work “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."
TexasReb, I would think that it is indisputable that historically Texas is a Southern state, settled by Southerners. Thus, the cultural argument is linked to the history. For me the crux of the issue involves the question of how compelling these historical influences still are; how pervasive, how influential, how deep and how predominant to the relative exclusion of other influences. I'd say the historical factors still run deep and wide in East Texas, with the arguable exclusion of Houston, while having greatly waned outside of East Texas. In Austin, for example, to my mind the residua of Southern allegiance seem rather anamolous and archaic. However, it's the less tangible things - folkways essentially - that remain continuous with the greater South, though tempered with Southwestern/Hispanic influences. I'd say in general: Texas was Southern; is less so now.
So far as the German and French go? Of course there are many primarily German areas/communities in Texas that maintain and promote their Old Country heritage, and they made a noteable contribution to the history of Texas. I don't know of any really sizeable French descended communities and areas, although there may be some in far southeast Texas.
What I HAVE said is that taken as a whole, Texas is essentially a Southern state. The general history, culture, speech patterns, politics, religious aspects, etc, are decidedly much more a product of the American South than any other region of the country and/or any foriegn influence, combined. I stand by it and yes, I cite data/evidence for why I believe it.
It occured to me -- far as that goes -- did you ever consider that perhaps you are ignoring that these German and French (and other European) folks assimilated and also consider themselves to live in the South and be Southerners (as extensive surveys show a clear majority of other Texans do)? That while many maintain their old ways and customs and such, that they are not isolated enclaves -- which your theory seems to at least partially suggest -- that didn't blend in with the majority English-Celtic Texas/Southern culture in many ways as well? On a related tangent, German Unionism is often mentioned when it comes to the WBTS, but here is an article that says most German Texans were actually pro-Confederate.
With all due respect, you seem to have some kind of fixation on Texas being a fuzzy melting pot in the mold of California…with no one culture being the dominant one. But do not back it up much beyond a sort of demagogic appeal that, I might add, unfairly presents me as one who is disparaging other cultures simply by stating my own opinion that the overwhelming majority impact on Texas formation and history is of the Southern United States and its settlers. So if this thesis of mine is "brushing aside" or "dismissing" another culture because it doesn't fit in with your own "preferred theory" of an equal parts melting pot, then so be it.
Now I will say this is changing somewhat today with the rapid influx of non-Southerners, Mexicans, and others of foriegn birth. It does remain to be seen in the next decades if Texas remains basically a Southern state, or shifts more and more into becoming a Southwestern one (or whatever).
Regardless, a good summation of it all can be found in Randolph Campbell's "Gone To Texas." In referring to the early Texas Republic and statehood history ala' the phenomenon of Indians in western Texas and Mexican in southern parts, he wrote:
"The basic story of Texas during these years did not play out in the south or west . Instead the key to Texas then -- and in many respects ever since -- lay in its development as an essentially Southern state, a part of the South.
Quote:
[I think that from now on I'll simply resist even clicking on any thread with this topic, and back out quickly if I should accidentally end up in one due to a misleading or confusing title. It's sad when my heart drops a little and I feel a little sick to my stomach when I see a thread on the topic, though.
I think we both agree quite a bit on THAT aspect of it, at least. Definitely. Believe me, I get as tired of this topic coming up as you do. I'll participate when it comes up, but I still wish it would die, be buried with honors, and left to rest in peace!
TexasReb, I would think that it is indisputable that historically Texas is a Southern state, settled by Southerners. Thus, the cultural argument is linked to the history. For me the crux of the issue involves the question of how compelling these historical influences still are; how pervasive, how influential, how deep and how predominant to the relative exclusion of other influences. I'd say the historical factors still run deep and wide in East Texas, with the arguable exclusion of Houston, while having greatly waned outside of East Texas. In Austin, for example, to my mind the residua of Southern allegiance seem rather anamolous and archaic. However, it's the less tangible things - folkways essentially - that remain continuous with the greater South, though tempered with Southwestern/Hispanic influences. I'd say in general: Texas was Southern; is less so now.
Very good points, DocJ. Both in terms of the concrete historical/cultural continum...and the equally relevant query/outlook of how it stands today and might 20 years from now. There is not much to argue with you on any of this ala' disputing your basic premise.
In fact, Dr. Campbell, in the book I mentioned earlier "Gone To Texas" brings it up as well, in the final chapters.
I don't think there is any question that Texas is becoming more and more of a "Southwestern" or even, if such terms can be used a "national" one. The same can be said of many traditional Southern states of course (Florida, Virginia as most noteable). However, the real underlying variable is -- IMHO -- just how much influence these changing demographic factors are going to exert in terms of permanance and/or transition?
But still, all this has to be put into its own proper perpsective. Get outside the major cities, into the rural areas and small towns, it is not hard at all to clearly see how the family tree of Texas is undeniably of Southern roots and growth. To hack out that tree would be to wipe out at least a majority of those things that make Texas, in fact, Texas.
TexasReb, I would think that it is indisputable that historically Texas is a Southern state, settled by Southerners. Thus, the cultural argument is linked to the history. For me the crux of the issue involves the question of how compelling these historical influences still are; how pervasive, how influential, how deep and how predominant to the relative exclusion of other influences. I'd say the historical factors still run deep and wide in East Texas, with the arguable exclusion of Houston, while having greatly waned outside of East Texas. In Austin, for example, to my mind the residua of Southern allegiance seem rather anamolous and archaic. However, it's the less tangible things - folkways essentially - that remain continuous with the greater South, though tempered with Southwestern/Hispanic influences. I'd say in general: Texas was Southern; is less so now.
Well, doctorjef, as I stated a few posts ago, the only areas of Houston that southern culture isn't all that visible is those areas heavily shaped by transplants. But there are still plenty parts of town where southernness is still alive and well.
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.
Some folks who take the postition that Texas is not Southern seem to often rely on this straw-man diversion. Or, use it to attempt to steer it all into a ditch. 
Reply I
