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.
to someone who was born and raised here in the south, it's the eastern half of Texas, louisiana, mississippi, arkansas, tennessee, alabama, georgia, all of florida, south carolina, and north carolina. that's it.
except that virginia, west virginia, kentucky, indiana, illinois, missouri, and the western halves of texas and oklahoma need to be removed from "The South"...trust me.
Well, with all due respect, I don't think it is a matter of trust, as even we Southerners can disagree on what the boundaries are and which states and/or parts of them are included! LOL
As concerns Texas, the only part of West Texas that needs to be trimmed off is the trans-pecos extension. Yes, it is true that much of the western half of the state is not at all topographically similar to the southeast. However it was those Old South pioneers who overwhelmingly settled most of West Texas and thus, even today, it is that culture which dominates in many ways. The heavy Southern Baptist majority in religious affiliation, the accent and dialect, and the general political outlook and historical voting patterns are just a couple of examples. While again, it differs vastly in many respects from the classic Southern image, it is still much more culturally and historically akin to the southeastern states than it is to the true Southwest (i.e. New Mexico and Arizona) and certainly than it is to the "Mountain West." It is really "western South" (not southwestern nor western).
Of course, the trans-pecos extension (ala' El Paso) and parts of south Texas, with the heavy hispanic influence (even though much of this is illegal and fairly recent) are a different story. So perhaps is the very upper-Texas panhandle (generally that part north of Amarillo) which has a noteable plains Midwestern influence.
Quote:
Tim R wrote: The one region missing is the Great Plains, IMO. It's such a vast landscape, and it defines the type of people who live and survive there.
The region should include the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, much of Texas, the eastern parts of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado & New Mexico, and also the western parts of Minnesota & Iowa, and a small part of Missouri.
While I see your point to some extent, I have to disagree that the Great Plains are a true "region". Yes, there are physical similarities, but in terms of history and culture, these states are vastly different. The vast majority of Texas has little, if anything, other that certain topographical features, in common with any of the rest of those areas (save parts of Oklahoma).
New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Texas are Southwest
It depends, I think, on what one means by the Southwest. While all four of these states are often called "Southwestern," very often no distinctions are made between the vastly different cultural and historical factors between the former pair and Texas (and Oklahoma to a goodly extent). So it can get confusing.
It has been my experience that most people from New Mexico and Arizona do not consider Texas part of their southwest, and most Texans kinda think of ourselves as something "southwestern" in a distinct and unique sense as well. Too, in sociological surveys of regional affiliation, the vast majority of Texans consider themselves to live in the South and be Southerners, whereas people in New Mexico and Arizona clearly prefer West and Westerners. And these differences in self-identification is entirely understandable, given settlement patterns and history.
In his book classic work "Cultural Regions of the United States", Raymond Gastil, put most of Texas and Oklahoma into a unique sub-region of the Greater South called the "western South". It is a place where Southern history, religion, culture, folkways, traditions, etc are flavored with many aspects of the post-bellum western frontier. On the other hand, New Mexico and Arizona were part of the Greater West, in a sub-region called the "Interior Southwest" This is the true traditionally Hispanic and Native American influenced southwest of the West, with little if anything classically Southern about them (The "southern West" as opposed to "western South").
It should be noted though that the El Paso area was put in with New Mexico and Arizona, and not many would argue with that, I don't think. That part of Texas has always had more in common culturally with the true hispanic southwest than the rest of the state in many ways.
take the half of New Mexico that u have in the south out of the south.
El Paso should be considered more southwest than just plain west. El Paso can fit into both regions.
New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Texas are Southwest
Some of Texas and some of Oklahoma. Go to the Lake Caddo area of Texas and try calling that the Southwest. it won't even sound right crossing your mind.
I don't know why people are always saying that West Virginia went North. It didn't, not even the people who split the state believed that West Virginians wanted their own state. I quote Wheeling legislator Mr. Stuart of Doddridge County, Dec. 10, 1861. "Now Mr. President, to show you-and it needs but to look at the figures to satisfy the mind of every member-that even a majority of the people within the district composed of the thirty-nine counties have never come to the polls and expressed their sentiments in favor of a new State. In a voting population of some 40,000 or 50,000 we see a poll of only 17,627-and even some of them were in the [Union] army." They added 11 more counties, 9 of which were heavily Confederate. West Virginia was a Union state only on paper. As far as soldier numbers go, James Carter Linger's study of Confederate recruitment in West Virginia places the number of Confederate troops slightly above Union recruitment a percentage far and above any of the border states.
As concerns Texas, the only part of West Texas that needs to be trimmed off is the trans-pecos extension. Yes, it is true that much of the western half of the state is not at all topographically similar to the southeast. However it was those Old South pioneers who overwhelmingly settled most of West Texas and thus, even today, it is that culture which dominates in many ways. The heavy Southern Baptist majority in religious affiliation, the accent and dialect, and the general political outlook and historical voting patterns are just a couple of examples. While again, it differs vastly in many respects from the classic Southern image, it is still much more culturally and historically akin to the southeastern states than it is to the true Southwest (i.e. New Mexico and Arizona) and certainly than it is to the "Mountain West." It is really "western South" (not southwestern nor western).
You make some good points. But it's just a feeling I have. My entire family is from the south and i was raised southern, so i can feel it in the air. it's more than just topography and history.
You make some good points. But it's just a feeling I have. My entire family is from the south and i was raised southern, so i can feel it in the air. it's more than just topography and history.
Thanks for your reply. I am a 4th generation Texan of Deep South ancestry, was also raised Southern, and consider Southern history and studies an avocation. So there is nothing wrong at all with some minor disagreement. I say minor because far as that goes, we don't really sound like we are all that far apart. And of course, as you say and I agree, ones own feelings and experience are going to count for a lot in this realm, so I can see the point you are making as well.
My biggest disagreement on topics like this is that many folks tend to define "the South" as synonymous solely with the Southeast or, many cases, the Deep Old South (and some Deep South purists confine it to only 3 or 4 states! LOL). In fact, the South has never been a single monolithic entity, but one of diversity. Yet, still bonded by certain ties of heritage that make areas so different as west Texas and low-country South Carolina more historically and culturally akin to one another than to states of the Northeast, Midwest, or Far West.
But anyway, again, it is always interesting and informative to share different perspectives. And by the way, your answer about the Caddo Lake area was right on the mark!
Thanks for your reply. I am a 4th generation Texan of Deep South ancestry, was also raised Southern, and consider Southern history and studies an avocation. So there is nothing wrong at all with some minor disagreement. I say minor because far as that goes, we don't really sound like we are all that far apart. And of course, ones own experience is going to count for a lot.
My biggest disagreement on topics like this is that many folks tend to define "the South" as synonymous with the Southeast (and some Deep South purists confine it to only 3 or 4 states! LOL). In fact, the South has never been a single monolithic entity, but one of diversity. Yet, still bonded by certain ties of heritage that make areas so different as west Texas and low-country South Carolina more historically and culturally akin to one another than to states of the Northeast, Midwest, or Far West.
But anyway, again, it is good to share different perspectives. And by the way, your answer about the Caddo Lake area was right on the mark!
Thanks. We have to educate the masses.
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.
