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.
It is actually really simple. Texas was a Mexican possession, has a long and ongoing relationship with Mexico, more than a third of its current residents are of Hispanic/Latino descent (It has the second largest population of Latinos after California), and "non-Hispanic whites" ( I hate the language of the census, but it is a useful shorthand) will be a minority in Texas in the next 10 years or so given the birth-rate and immigration - most of which is legal. (The last census estimates that only 5% of the Texas population is undocumented.)
Show me a "Southern" state with anything remotely similar to this history and current and future demographics. (Florida would be closest, but has only half the percentage of Latinos as Texas at 18% as opposed to 36%, and they are mostly Cuban not Mexican.) There are strong Southern elements in Texas, but what distinguishes Texas is what you can find in Texas that you cannot find in the "real South." And it's these historical and demographic facts that are the single biggest reason for why Texas differs enough from "the real South" to make its regional affiliation as anything other than itself impossible.
To answer your question directly: you can find in Texas many, if not most things that you find in the "real South" (You can also find them in DC, and Chicago, thanks to the Great Migration), but it is the things you can find in Texas that you cannot find in the "real South" that are equally important.
I think that's a good summary, although I had hoped this would be a discussion of why these issues of Texas regional identity keep cropping up, rather than trying to continue the debate about the nature of the regional identity itself. However, I also must say that I tend to concur that the lengthy history of Hispanic/Tejano settlement, pre-dating Texas independence, sets Texas apart from other Southern states and has, in fact, become a more culturally determinative aspect over recent decades, making Texas increasingly Southwestern rather than Southern (Deep East Texas is an exception). However, when I've floated this idea before, I've been shot down for conflating Mexican-American with Southwestern culture. I think, though, if you look at what we define as Southwestern about New Mexico, Arizona, and at least southern and southwest Colorado, it is the preponderance of Hispanic and Native American influences that defines a specifically Southwestern culture. By the same token, I suppose one could assert that eastern New Mexico Anglo-American culture is more or less identical with the Texas culture of the South Plains just across the state line, and one could assert that this common culture has all sorts of residual Southern influences. To me, however, this just gets to what a cultural patchwork Texas is. I view the Southwestern influence and identity as being in the ascendency in large portions of the State, while the Southern identity both remains dominant to varying degrees in other areas or in particular aspects and forms a continuing undercurrent in the culture even where it has been eclipsed to some degree by a more contemporary Southwestern overlay (a mouthful, I know!). In one sense, large portions of Texas exhibit competing Southwestern and Southern cultural traditions and folkways.
It is actually really simple. Texas was a Mexican possession, has a long and ongoing relationship with Mexico, more than a third of its current residents are of Hispanic/Latino descent (It has the second largest population of Latinos after California), and "non-Hispanic whites" ( I hate the language of the census, but it is a useful shorthand) will be a minority in Texas in the next 10 years or so given the birth-rate and immigration - most of which is legal. (The last census estimates that only 5% of the Texas population is undocumented.)
Show me a "Southern" state with anything remotely similar to this history and current and future demographics. (Florida would be closest, but has only half the percentage of Latinos as Texas at 18% as opposed to 36%, and they are mostly Cuban not Mexican.) There are strong Southern elements in Texas, but what distinguishes Texas is what you can find in Texas that you cannot find in the "real South." And it's these historical and demographic facts that are the single biggest reason for why Texas differs enough from "the real South" to make its regional affiliation as anything other than itself impossible.
To answer your question directly: you can find in Texas many, if not most things that you find in the "real South" (You can also find them in DC, and Chicago, thanks to the Great Migration), but it is the things you can find in Texas that you cannot find in the "real South" that are equally important.
...and after three paragraphs, my question still is not answered.
No one can deny that our state is incredibly unique, but the way I see it, if someone wants to claim that Texas is not a member of the south, then they should be able to clearly define what the south is and why Texas does not belong. No one has done that.
Bringing up our ties with Mexico is as pointless an argument as shoving New Orleans' French and Caribbean influence in their face and saying they aren't the south.
It is actually really simple. Texas was a Mexican possession, has a long and ongoing relationship with Mexico, more than a third of its current residents are of Hispanic/Latino descent (It has the second largest population of Latinos after California), and "non-Hispanic whites" ( I hate the language of the census, but it is a useful shorthand) will be a minority in Texas in the next 10 years or so given the birth-rate and immigration - most of which is legal. (The last census estimates that only 5% of the Texas population is undocumented.)
Show me a "Southern" state with anything remotely similar to this history and current and future demographics. (Florida would be closest, but has only half the percentage of Latinos as Texas at 18% as opposed to 36%, and they are mostly Cuban not Mexican.) There are strong Southern elements in Texas, but what distinguishes Texas is what you can find in Texas that you cannot find in the "real South." And it's these historical and demographic facts that are the single biggest reason for why Texas differs enough from "the real South" to make its regional affiliation as anything other than itself impossible.
To answer your question directly: you can find in Texas many, if not most things that you find in the "real South" (You can also find them in DC, and Chicago, thanks to the Great Migration), but it is the things you can find in Texas that you cannot find in the "real South" that are equally important.
Originally Posted by TexasReb
SO what? To be honest, I have met very few of those southeastern "Deep South Purists" to have a clue as to what they are talking about, anyway. Most don't even know the history of their own states, much less that of the evolution of the Southern ethos.
I rarely see your posts any longer unless someone quotes them, but since someone did, and I did see this, I feel the need to point out that the people who actually live there and have history there no doubt think exactly the same about you, with, I have to say, much better credibility due to that history. I find it odd, but not surprising, that you would write off the people most likely to be able to give a legitimate answer to this question simply because they don't agree with your preferred answer (and apparently are immune to info-dumping).
Originally Posted by TexasReb
SO what? To be honest, I have met very few of those southeastern "Deep South Purists" to have a clue as to what they are talking about, anyway. Most don't even know the history of their own states, much less that of the evolution of the Southern ethos.
I rarely see your posts any longer unless someone quotes them, but since someone did, and I did see this, I feel the need to point out that the people who actually live there and have history there no doubt think exactly the same about you, with, I have to say, much better credibility due to that history. I find it odd, but not surprising, that you would write off the people most likely to be able to give a legitimate answer to this question simply because they don't agree with your preferred answer (and apparently are immune to info-dumping).
So you took a poll and found out what everyone thinks? I doubt it.
The fact that you felt the need to snidely inform TexReb that you have him on ignore says a lot about you. Are you just tuning out those who disagree with what THL thinks?
I have lived in Georgia, and from my own personal experience, those of them who didn't view Texas as the south were those who had never been.
So you took a poll and found out what everyone thinks? I doubt it.
The fact that you felt the need to snidely inform TexReb that you have him on ignore says a lot about you. Are you just tuning out those who disagree with what THL thinks?
I have lived in Georgia, and from my own personal experience, those of them who didn't view Texas as the south were those who had never been.
LOL Thanks Nairobi...and I can't wait until the weekend when the last busy work week ends and I can reply in more detail to some of the posts by others. Which I look forward to doing...
So far as the other poster goes? I honestly hate to be dismissal and flippant with a Texas lady, but in this case? I don't care.
To be mischeviously honest, it almost flatters me that she ignores my posts. Not surprising in the least -- and not just with me and this subject -- but her opinion of her own opinions -- if not agreed with -- begin with the premise of that hers are the gospel and no one else has a clue as to what they are talking about. I have witnessed it for years.
YET? In the whole time this subject has been debated, not once has she ever offered any empirical support for her position. And I am not the first to notice this. It seems to boil down to that I am from East Texas and a researcher and scholar (and whatever else), therefore, that ought to be credentials enough that I am smarter and more astute than anyone else when it comes to this topic.
It would be pathetically funny if not so self-absorbed and centered and supercilious sans the grounds to adopt the attitude. And I hasten to add, this is NOT a personal attack...but a simple observation of mannerisms and tone that have become the norm.
Anyway, gotta get back to work! More later for sure!
I'm sure the simple, if not very informative answer, is that people here have different motivations for arguing their different positions on whether or not Texas is predominantly a culturally Southern state.
Although I myself have some purely intellectual curiosity about such regional identifications, I note that I haven't been as emotionally engaged by the threads on the Delaware and Maryland forums that have been dedicated to the debate as to whether or not those are Southern states. And I'm even less invested in the discussion with respect to Kentucky and Missouri, though I've got some views on those states. This brings me to why, for me, the discussion in respect to Texas has even mattered. I would frame it as one of ideology acting as a surrogate for more basic aspects of ego identification or self-identity. Without going into a long discussion of the matter, I would simply say that I'm extremely ambivalent about the South and Southern culture; much less so about the Southwest and what I view as Southwestern culture. I reached the conclusion some time ago that my investment in seeing Texas as Southwestern really just reflected personal prejudice and wishful thinking. I'd probably still be very invested in seeing it as Southwestern if I still lived there. Since I no longer live there, it doesn't matter as much, apparently allowing me to be more objective about it. Texas cultural identity is diverse and complex, but is a lot more Southern - I now believe - than I formerly cared to admit (outside of East TX, an area of the State with which I never identified, so never minded considering that area to be fundamentally Southern). My supposition, frankly, is that TexasReb conveys a sort of opposite prejudice in his often overstated views of the Southerness of Texas, while in respect to TexasHorseLady, I don't know what motivates her Southwestern identity advocacy. OK, sorry but I gotta run to happy hour now!
It is actually really simple. Texas was a Mexican possession, has a long and ongoing relationship with Mexico,
Yes, that really IS quite simple. As in, what is your point? Texas was once a Mexican possession. Before that it was Spanish, then French (as was a huge chuck of the US before the Louisiana Purchase). What is the point here? EVERY place in the New World belonged to another country at one time.
What kind of "long-standing and ongoing" relationship with Mexico are you talking about? That is very vague terminology. Hell, the United States itself has a "long standing and on-going relationship" with Mexico. What does that mean in concrete terms...?
Quote:
(It has the second largest population of Latinos after California), and "non-Hispanic whites" ( I hate the language of the census, but it is a useful shorthand) will be a minority in Texas in the next 10 years or so given the birth-rate and immigration - most of which is legal. (The last census estimates that only 5% of the Texas population is undocumented.)
I am sure you "hate" the language of the Census...because it seems you cultivate the idea of Texas becoming part of Azatland, I guess! LOL
And your figures are wrong, but you use them very cleverly. Actually, 6.7% of the somewhat 38% of the hispanic population is illegal. On the surface of things, this seems very small. BUT? It translates into that almost 20% is illegal. And THAT doesn't even include the "anchor babies" (i.e. children of illegals who are counted as U.S. citizens and entitled to all the benefits, thereof). Yeah...
If Texas ever adopts the laws which some states have -- punishing businesses for hiring illegals for cheap labor and/or having to prove birthright for welfare benefits-- what would happen in Texas is what is happening in other parts of the country where they have passed. That is, a max flight.
That is the reason -- among others -- that the Texas hispanic population is and always has been -- while very real -- also very iffy in terms of permanance and assimilation. It has faded, emerged, faded and emerged again. Totally unlike the black-white duality which made a stake in Texas and shaped its basic history and culture...and social institutions.
Quote:
Show me a "Southern" state with anything remotely similar to this history and current and future demographics. (Florida would be closest, but has only half the percentage of Latinos as Texas at 18% as opposed to 36%, and they are mostly Cuban not Mexican.)
LOL Well, to start, do you consider Florida a Southern state? How about Louisiana with the large French population. How about NOVA with its large northern influx? For your thesis to make sense, you would have to do some real spinning. Especially in terms of Florida.
Quote:
There are strong Southern elements in Texas, but what distinguishes Texas is what you can find in Texas that you cannot find in the "real South." And it's these historical and demographic facts that are the single biggest reason for why Texas differs enough from "the real South" to make its regional affiliation as anything other than itself impossible.
The "Real South"? What are the characteristics of the "Real South" in your opinion? I have asked this question several times and you have never listed them. Please do, and we can discuss them. Sorry, but subjective phrases don't qualify...
Quote:
To answer your question directly: you can find in Texas many, if not most things that you find in the "real South" (You can also find them in DC, and Chicago, thanks to the Great Migration),
True, and many Texas blacks made up a part of it. And, strangely enough, the white/black duality -- for all its ugly aspects in some realms -- have blended more than have the Anglo/Hispanic in terms of Texas history and culture...
Quote:
but it is the things you can find in Texas that you cannot find in the "real South" that are equally important.
Yeah...and what are they? And in what states which you consider "Real South?". You gotta start from that premise before anything else makes sense...
BTW -- where are you from originally? Are you a native Texan? Or just someone from another part of the country -- happy to be "home in Austin, Texas" because it isn't much like the rest of Texas? I could be wrong (and I often am), but for some reason I get the distinct impression that you are not a native -- of either Texas or the South -- and have an aversion to being associated with it. Your desire to bond with Mexico is clear. Nothing wrong with that per se...but why not state it directly...?
What motivates my Southwestern identity advocacy (and I'm not at all ambivalent about the South, by the way - love it) is that so much of the state's history and identity is anything but Southern. Taking one tiny portion that has some attributes of the South (and not the Deep South, by the way) and using them to insist that Texas is part of that rather than vice versa is a slap in the face of all of that history and identity that doesn't fit, which is most of it.
Do I, as a native Texan, have ancestors who came to Texas via (not from) the American South? Yes, I do. I also have ancestors who came to Texas via (not from) Illinois. Both sets of ancestors came through the Northeast, as well.
My husband has ancestors who came to Texas FROM Georgia in the late 1830's. I doubt they would consider themselves "Southerners", though (think Trail of Tears time). On the other side of that line, the ancestors landed in Galveston from Wurtenberg, Germany. On his father's side, yes, they did come from Louisiana, before that Canada, before that, France.
Friends have ancestors who came to Texas from Mexico.
Texas is so much more than "the South". To me, it's disrespectful of the state and its history and inhabitants to pretend otherwise.
What motivates my Southwestern identity advocacy (and I'm not at all ambivalent about the South, by the way - love it) is that so much of the state's history and identity is anything but Southern. Taking one tiny portion that has some attributes of the South (and not the Deep South, by the way) and using them to insist that Texas is part of that rather than vice versa is a slap in the face of all of that history and identity that doesn't fit, which is most of it.
Do I, as a native Texan, have ancestors who came to Texas via (not from) the American South? Yes, I do. I also have ancestors who came to Texas via (not from) Illinois. Both sets of ancestors came through the Northeast, as well.
My husband has ancestors who came to Texas FROM Georgia in the late 1830's. I doubt they would consider themselves "Southerners", though (think Trail of Tears time). On the other side of that line, the ancestors landed in Galveston from Wurtenberg, Germany. On his father's side, yes, they did come from Louisiana, before that Canada, before that, France.
Friends have ancestors who came to Texas from Mexico.
Texas is so much more than "the South". To me, it's disrespectful of the state and its history and inhabitants to pretend otherwise.
Well, that settles it. Your position is one that is based in perception and opinion, rather than fact. Atleast we cleared that up.
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.
