Do Texas natives consider Texas the South or Midwest (Lubbock: tuition, nicest)
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 depends on where you're at in TX. This state is just too big. You have you're southwestern parts (anywhere west of Dallas and I-35) and you're southern area which is east TX and the gulf region (Houston to Beaumont and Port Author). The landscapes, climates, and culture are different every where you go here.
it depends on where you're at in TX. This state is just too big. You have you're southwestern parts (anywhere west of Dallas and I-35) and you're southern area which is east TX and the gulf region (Houston to Beaumont and Port Author). The landscapes, climates, and culture are different every where you go here.
We all agree that Texas is TEXAS. If nothing else it is too damn BIG to be anything else!
BUT...if placed within a region...if it must be...Texas is essentially Southern. It is part of the American South traditon in terms of settlement, history, culture,folkways, politics, religion, etc.
Texas is a "western" state too, of course. But not Western in the sense of a Colorado or Arizona. Texas (as a whole) is western in the same genre that Kansas is western. It shared an era of post-bellem settlement and a frontier of cattle drives and cowboys. Cowtowns and gunfights and all made popular by Hollywood movies, and based in reality, for sure. But does anyone exclude Kansas from the Midwest just because it is also the "west"? Likewise, Texas is part of the South, even if it is not part of the southeast.
In Texas, really, cotton was king. Most Texans made thier living by cotton farming, not cattle drives. It was pioneers from the southeast, looking to get a new start, that did all this. The prototype of the Texas cowboy was an ex-Confederate soldier -- or son of the same -- whose habits and life was dervived from the cattle drovers of the Old South, not the Mexican vaquero. It was the Southern culture which dominated.
Texas (and large parts of Oklahoma) are "Southwest" as in "Western South"..which is the orgin of the term. Literally, the western part of the South. Where Southern tradition and culture and history blend with the era of the western frontier.
This should not be confused with the "Southwest" of New Mexico and Arizona, which shares little in common. They are southern West...We are western South.
We all agree that Texas is TEXAS. If nothing else it is too damn BIG to be anything else!
BUT...if placed within a region...if it must be...Texas is essentially Southern. It is part of the American South traditon in terms of settlement, history, culture,folkways, politics, religion, etc.
Texas is a "western" state too, of course. But not Western in the sense of a Colorado or Arizona. Texas (as a whole) is western in the same genre that Kansas is western. It shared an era of post-bellem settlement and a frontier of cattle drives and cowboys. Cowtowns and gunfights and all made popular by Hollywood movies, and based in reality, for sure. But does anyone exclude Kansas from the Midwest just because it is also the "west"? Likewise, Texas is part of the South, even if it is not part of the southeast.
In Texas, really, cotton was king. Most Texans made thier living by cotton farming, not cattle drives. It was pioneers from the southeast, looking to get a new start, that did all this. The prototype of the Texas cowboy was an ex-Confederate soldier -- or son of the same -- whose habits and life was dervived from the cattle drovers of the Old South, not the Mexican vaquero. It was the Southern culture which dominated.
Texas (and large parts of Oklahoma) are "Southwest" as in "Western South"..which is the orgin of the term. Literally, the western part of the South. Where Southern tradition and culture and history blend with the era of the western frontier.
This should not be confused with the "Southwest" of New Mexico and Arizona, which shares little in common. They are southern West...We are western South.
>>>>>
Texas is part of the South, even if it is not part of the southeast.
<<<<<
Yes Sir.
'Ol Friend, I can't believe you're still battling this one out. I stand with my proud Texas Brother, TexasReb: There is no way TX is Midwest (or part of the Midwest or Midwestern in any shape/form), not even close. End of story.
To those proclaiming that Texas is part of the Midwest, GET A CLUE. (Please receive that light-heartedly.)
Texas is part of the South; a VERY important part of the South I might add.....always has, always will. It's as simple as that.
I've never heard anyone - certainly no Texans - contend that Texas is part of the Midwest. The debate is usually over whether Texas is South or Southwest. In parts of the state, the culture has gradually been evolving in the direction of the Southwest whilst the Southern culture has been gradually shed. This isn't true of east Texas, however, which remains culturally and geographically southern. The Piney Woods are an extension of the Southern pine forestation that runs throughout the South, and that part of Texas is culturally Southern as well. IMO the Southwestern influences in Texas are currently in the ascendency, though this is my perspective from years living in Austin and spending time frequently in San Antonio. However, those with a Southern cultural allegiance tend to be rather strident about Texas being a part of the South and one won't convince them otherwise. The issue is complex and as I've pointed out, a part of Texas is indeed indisputably in the South, both culturally (most important IMO) and geographically. It might help to think of the situation of Florida -- the entire state is geographically in the South and at one time was culturally entirely within the South. Yet Miami and all the communities northward along the east coast of FL populated by snowbirds can't really be identified today as strictly culturally Southern. Other areas in central and western FL remain culturally Southern. In the end it does come down to demographics.
>>>>>
Texas is part of the South, even if it is not part of the southeast.
<<<<<
Yes Sir.
'Ol Friend, I can't believe you're still battling this one out. I stand with my proud Texas Brother, TexasReb: There is no way TX is Midwest (or part of the Midwest or Midwestern in any shape/form), not even close. End of story.
To those proclaiming that Texas is part of the Midwest, GET A CLUE. (Please receive that light-heartedly.)
Texas is part of the South; a VERY important part of the South I might add.....always has, always will. It's as simple as that.
Thank you ol' buddy! We are still gonna have to meet at Bill's Catfish one of these days and discuss the annual Red River Shootout game over the best catfish in the world and some buttered up hushpuppies! Even if you are on the wrong side of that classic match, you a still a hell of a good guy! Hook 'em Horns! hee hee!
You and I have our issues, DocJ, but I don't hold grudges...and try not to let that stand in my way of acknowledging good points. With you or anyone else. To wit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorjef
I've never heard anyone - certainly no Texans - contend that Texas is part of the Midwest. The debate is usually over whether Texas is South or Southwest.
Exactly! The only part of Texas that has a real historical and cultural connection with the Midwest is the far northern panhandle. And debatable even there.
Quote:
In parts of the state, the culture has gradually been evolving in the direction of the Southwest whilst the Southern culture has been gradually shed. This isn't true of east Texas, however, which remains culturally and geographically southern. The Piney Woods are an extension of the Southern pine forestation that runs throughout the South, and that part of Texas is culturally Southern as well. IMO the Southwestern influences in Texas are currently in the ascendency, though this is my perspective from years living in Austin and spending time frequently in San Antonio.
Certainly agreed about East Texas. And, even with much of the rest. One of the very best books I have read recently on Texas history and culture is Randolph Campbell's Gone to Texas. An intrinsic element in the work is that Texas is best understood as a Southern state. NOT western and NOT southwestern in the sense of a Colorado or Arizona. That even most parts of west Texas are Southern in orientation.
BUT...he notes that there are strong trends in modern-day Texas -- the demographics as you mention -- are indeed in the acendency. That is, because of the influx of northern transplants and Mexicans, becoming more and more a state evolving West or Southwest (i.e. interior Southwest). Neither of the above -- if sociological studies and common observations are an indication -- feel any real connection to traditional Texas/Southern history and culture.
The key thing though, is whether or not this development may be permanent or temporary. It remains to be seen....
Quote:
However, those with a Southern cultural allegiance tend to be rather strident about Texas being a part of the South and one won't convince them otherwise.
I don't know, but sorta figure, this comment may be directed toward me. Touche'!
But seriously, if so, see the above. I don't deny reality. I maintain Texas is culturally and historically a Southern state. But things are changing demographically simply because we are rapidly being populated by residents who feel no connection with either the state or the region. Most native whites and blacks identify with traditional Texas and the South. Most "outsiders" feel nothing with either. I can easily see Texas, in future years, becoming more and more "balkanized".
There was that part of the Annexation Agreement which allowed Texas to divide into 3- 5 states. It used to be just a joke and a funnsie topic. Today? I am not so sure....
Quote:
The issue is complex and as I've pointed out, a part of Texas is indeed indisputably in the South, both culturally (most important IMO) and geographically. It might help to think of the situation of Florida -- the entire state is geographically in the South and at one time was culturally entirely within the South. Yet Miami and all the communities northward along the east coast of FL populated by snowbirds can't really be identified today as strictly culturally Southern. Other areas in central and western FL remain culturally Southern. In the end it does come down to demographics.
Hmmmm. I see the point...but not so sure Florida is the best example. I don't think Texas has gotten to that point yet. Still, it is a good one. Virginia or even North Carolina might be at least as good an indication of trends...?
OK..time to go enjoy the chicken fried steak and okra and black-eyed peas while they are still a staple!
I'd say that Virginia and North Carolina would be a better comparison to Texas in terms of recent demographic changes and trends than Florida. Historically, Florida is a much more transient state, and most of Texas was settled WAY before Florida was. A lot of people don't realize that Tallahasee was selected as the Capital because it was between the two major cities of Florida at the time - St. Augustine and Pensacola. The Peninsula was largely unsettled. Also, I'm not a betting man, but I bet that Florida has a higher percentage of transplanted northerners than Texas does.
Keep in mind that Florida didn't have over 1 Million residents until the 1920's. OTOH, Texas was a state of 5.5 Million at the time.
Demographically, however, I'd say that Texas and Florida have more similiarities than differences. Both are considerably more diverse than VA or NC. Florida has a higher Black percentage (16.31%) than Texas (12.09%), Texas has a larger Hispanic percentage than Florida. Also, Virginia and Texas have the highest Asian populations in the South.
As I see it the only aspect of Texas that could be called "Midwest" has to do with the geographical reality of the Great Plains, which do extend down into the Panhandle in the form of the High Plains north of Amarillo, and the South Plains surrounding Lubbock on up pretty much to Canyon. However, there's not really a regional cultural continuity between the true Midwest that includes parts of the Great Plains and the Texas Panhandle. IMO you need both the geography and the regional culture to define a particular American region -- it's a marriage of the two, geography and culture.
As I see it the only aspect of Texas that could be called "Midwest" has to do with the geographical reality of the Great Plains, which do extend down into the Panhandle in the form of the High Plains north of Amarillo, and the South Plains surrounding Lubbock on up pretty much to Canyon. However, there's not really a regional cultural continuity between the true Midwest that includes parts of the Great Plains and the Texas Panhandle. IMO you need both the geography and the regional culture to define a particular American region -- it's a marriage of the two, geography and culture.
Yeah I agree. From Lubbock to the OK panhandle it's the Great Plains region which makes up a good part of the midwest. So geographically this northwest part of TX is just like parts of the midwest. So now the only question is the culture. Do you think there is a cultural difference between northwest TX and Kansas or northwest TX and Nebraska?
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.
) 
