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.
The "Coke" and "Y'all" thing is true, but there's little in common between the colonial south and Texas. Texas is more western influenced there. Especially the plains and deserty part of Texas, that can only be considered western. Plains are not a trait of the south.
I would say Houston is southern, but Dallas, San Antonio, and especially El Paso are southwestern, with some southern influence.
There's good reason why Texas is one of the hardest states to classify by which region it's in.
Nebraska doesn't look anything like Ohio or Michigan, but it's still part of the Midwest.
Dallas is definitely more southern than western, even topographically. It's even still within the treeline, the country doesn't really open up till you get west of Fort Worth.
Dallas was settled and built for the most part by Southerners. The power structure is WASPy like the south.
Lots of cities in the area are dry or semi dry.(Irving only legalized liquor sales this year) Texas on a whole is very backwards on alcohol laws. This is unthinkable in the Midwest or West (outside of Mormon Strongholds like Utah and to a lesser extent Idaho)
Yeah, parts of Texas are western, but the majority of the state is southern.
It's worst than worthless, it actually gives the wrong impression about the size of cities. Not that you meant it that way.
I hear Y'all everyday.
Sweet tea can be had in just about any part of the US at this point, but it isn't the staple like it is in the South. You can go to any restaurant in Dallas and they will have sweet tea. That isn't the case in other regions of the country.
To you broader point, El Paso isn't Southern, but Dallas certainly is, it just isn't the Deep South like Mississippi.
Anglo Texans dominated "Texas culture" from the 1830s till now, though that is changing.
In 1850, there were more Ethnic Germans in San Antonio than Ethnic Mexicans.
Some Regions have never been Anglo Majority. This is true. Most of Texas has.
Most of Texas has been majority Anglo-Celtic American Southern influenced for 150 years. We have had sizable Hispanic and black minorities for a long time, but unfortunately, they have rarely wielded any real power and the majority of mainstream "Texas" culture has ignored them (Except for food and music)
Until very recently the major cities in Texas have been dominated by native Texans...Texas industrialized at a later date than the north and in a different way, Texas was more about extracting natural resources than midwestern or northern industry in the 1900s.
Houston and Dallas are finally getting a large number of international immigrants a full 100 years after Chicago, NYC, Philly, etc had their influx. Texas is at least 50 years behind the rest of the country when it comes to being a melting pot. The cities have done so rapidly in the last 20-30 years. Texas is changing quickly.
Don't take my word for it this is the general consensus of Texas historians.
White Texas historians maybe. Just a few facts. Texas is close to 40% LatinX, 11 million strong, overwhelmingly of Mexican descent. Only California has more and even there the overall percentage is slightly lower. For comparison, Florida has less than half that number, mostly of Cuban descent and far more recent. Georgia has barely 1 million. Find me a southern state with anything REMOTELY close to these numbers:
Austin, 35.1%
Brownsville, 93.2%
Corpus Christi, 59.7%
Dallas, 42.4%
El Paso, 80.7%
Fort Worth, 34.1%
Garland, 37.8%
Grand Prairie, 42.7%
Houston, 43.8%
Irving, 41.1%
Lubbock, 32.1%
McAllen, 84.6%
Midland, 37.6%
Odessa, 50.6%
Pasadena, 62.2%
San Antonio, 63.2%
And these number are from all over the state from the panhandle to the Rio Grand valley, from Pasadena to El Paso, with the exception of far east Texas, which no one in their right mind would argue was not part of the South.
Overall, Texas does not have the demographic profile of a Southern state. TX shares the longest border with Mexico, was part of Mexico. There were times in its history when it was more Southern than now, and times when it was not. No one would deny the very important Southern influences in Texas. It was part of the confederacy, cotton etc. Oil is important to Louisiana but not as central to any Southern state's economy and history in the way it is to that of Texas. There are too many other influences, the Mexican one being the most significant: what Southern state can claim to have invented the margarita, nachos? Who is the Selena of Alabama? Of course, the South is not culturally homogenous, but the defining demographic feature there is black/white polarity. Race relations in Texas have always been triangulated in a most distinctive way. As you note, the German influence in central Texas is significant, not as huge as the French/Cajun influence in Louisiana, but still very apparent in the Hill country today. Many of the initial white settlers in central Texas are German, a large percentage of them socialists fleeing the failed revolutions of 1848 in Europe.
Texas is too big (anything east of 45 is absolutely Southern, between 45 and 35 transitional, west of 35, not so much, north Texas and the panhandle are as much great plains as Southern, the trans Pecos is unequivocally Southwestern, and south Texas and the Valley arguably have more in common with Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas than with anywhere in the U.S. South). Also Texas history is too singular to be part of any one region, which is why option 3 is the correct one on this poll. I think to say that Texas is where the South meets the West/Southwest, meets Mexico is reasonable, and it is that regional concatenation that makes Texas Texas. The claim that Texas is essentially or definitively or obviously Southern rather than partially, unevenly, occasionally, contestedly Southern strikes me as, well: all hat, no cattle.
What a joke. Texas is NOT the south. It's all about that the dumb state and being politically correct to the Mexicans. I live in the South and it Dallas where I had once lived for 20 years is about as Southern as Arizona and New Mexico.
Texas is too big (anything east of 45 is absolutely Southern, between 45 and 35 transitional, west of 35, not so much, north Texas and the panhandle are as much great plains as Southern, the trans Pecos is unequivocally Southwestern, and south Texas and the Valley arguably have more in common with Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas than with anywhere in the U.S. South). Also Texas history is too singular to be part of any one region, which is why option 3 is the correct one on this poll. I think to say that Texas is where the South meets the West/Southwest, meets Mexico is reasonable, and it is that regional concatenation that makes Texas Texas. The claim that Texas is essentially or definitively or obviously Southern rather than partially, unevenly, occasionally, contestedly Southern strikes me as, well: all hat, no cattle.
Used to go round and round with Texas Reb on this. We finally agreed that much of west Texas was "settled" by southerners who adapted to a plains and somewhat southwestern lifestyle due to climate and terrain.
To add to your most excellent synopsis, I think the panhandle of Texas is the bridge between the southern plains and the northern plains and the southern plains and Permian basin the bridge area between however you classify the hill country and crosstimbers to the traditional "southwest of the trans pecos".
White Texas historians maybe. Just a few facts. Texas is close to 40% LatinX, 11 million strong, overwhelmingly of Mexican descent.
The problem with most Texans is they are incredibly ignorant of the history of their own state. Full Stop.
They state was never been majority Hispanic, during the Spanish and Mexican rule there were many more Native Americans living in the state than Hispanic people. Right now in 2019 is the most Hispanic Texas has ever been % wise.
Now, from the 1600s-mid early/mid 1800s the majority of non-Native American colonialists were Hispanic. Leading up to the Texas revolution (or at least the one we remember) Anglos flooded into the state. By 1830 Texas was only 20% Hispanic. By 1840 only 10% of Texas was Hispanic. By 1900 it was 5%.
San Antonio is an old and historical city with a long Hispanic heritage. However, by 1850 there were more ethnic Germans in the city than Hispanics. This was the case until the 1900s.
The overwhelming number of immigrants before and after the civil war were Southerners. They brought southern culture to Texas.
By the early 1900s, Texas was about 5% Hispanic. Modern industrialized Farming in the RGV, (That utilized cheap labour) The Mexican Revolution were two of the major factors that caused the massive uptick in Mexican immigration into Texas between 1900-1920s (and which continued on and off for the 20th century)
I'm in no way trying to minimize the importance of Hispanic culture on the state of Texas.
It's an essential part of the state. In the 20th Century, it has been one of the biggest forces in shaping the state. It's essential in the foundation of Spanish Texas. It's very important in West Texas historically, and all over Texas in the modern sense.
However, Hispanics only began to weld political power in the last 100 years, and until now, only as a minority group to the Southern, Anglo Texan power structure and "Texas" culture which is predominantly Southern. It's only in the last generation or so that Texas has really begun to integrate the Anglo and Hispanic culture.
Of course, has always happened where the cultures intersect, but that hasn't been the majority of Anglo Texas.
The irony is this: The majority of the cross-pollination that has occurred between Anglo and Hispanic Texas has happened with urbanisation in the major urban centres and that has happened in the last 50ish years.
The major exception is in the west and cowboy culture, which does come from Latin Culture....but if we are going to count Cowboy culture as latin culture that then we should say that Montana and Wyoming have strong Latin Roots in their culture since Cowboy Culture is even stronger there than it is here in Texas.
Even then, while Cowboys have their basis in Latin culture, the Hay Day for Texas Cowboys was during a period when less than 10% of Texas was Hispanic. For the point of reference, Idaho, at 15% Hispanic is substantially more Hispanic than Texas was during the 1860s-90s.
Texas Culture has been Dominated by Southern Culture. That's just the facts.
north Texas and the panhandle are as much great plains as Southern
Not at all for North Texas. I have family all over the Great Plains and the culture is totally different. North Texas is definitely Southern.
The Panhandle is like a southern version of the great plains, but even then, it is dominated by Church of Christ and Baptists and has much more Southern Religious ideas than the Central or Northern Great Plains.
Maybe it’s just me but I feel like the argument is somewhat historical vs. modern. Historically Texas was part of the confederacy, a slave holding state and is full of cotton. In modern times your major cities are majority Hispanic and ties to Mexico are almost as deep as to the Deep South. Even having said this as diverse and Hispanic as Houston is, it still feels pretty Southern to me. Atlanta has tons of northern transplants and a large international community and it also feels Southern. Dallas honestly doesn’t really feel that Southern to me though. It feels more like big city Kansas (I don’t mean that as an insult. I like Kansas actually). Like Houston it’s full of Hispanics and diverse and like Atlanta it’s full of domestic transplants but it’s different to me.
I’m not trying to argue with people who say it is but it’s just my observation.
Not at all for North Texas. I have family all over the Great Plains and the culture is totally different. North Texas is definitely Southern.
The Panhandle is like a southern version of the great plains, but even then, it is dominated by Church of Christ and Baptists and has much more Southern Religious ideas than the Central or Northern Great Plains.
I did not know that the Panhandle was dominated by the church of Christ unless you count Lubbock.
Maybe it’s just me but I feel like the argument is somewhat historical vs. modern. Historically Texas was part of the confederacy, a slave holding state and is full of cotton. In modern times your major cities are majority Hispanic and ties to Mexico are almost as deep as to the Deep South. Even having said this as diverse and Hispanic as Houston is, it still feels pretty Southern to me. Atlanta has tons of northern transplants and a large international community and it also feels Southern. Dallas honestly doesn’t really feel that Southern to me though. It feels more like big city Kansas (I don’t mean that as an insult. I like Kansas actually). Like Houston it’s full of Hispanics and diverse and like Atlanta it’s full of domestic transplants but it’s different to me.
I’m not trying to argue with people who say it is but it’s just my observation.
I tend to agree with this...as diverse as Houston is, its really still overwhelmingly southern. DFW on the other hand feels about as southern as St. Louis or Kansas City.
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.
