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.
From the point of a view of a native Texan who left years ago and has lived all over the west and midwest, I think the reasons are primarily
Texas has a stereotype image to those that dont live there. Just like New York, New Jersey, Californians, Idahoans, Utahans, etc etc...Texas has its own 'image' of being an 'over testosteroned cowboy talking, non-too intelligent, mega conservative, non-too tolerant, mentally retarded-executing, country music listening, heavily armed state' of people, with lots of illegal mexicans and their children and a lot of black people that are good at sports.
We are all well aware that stereotype is not totally accurate (though we all know people that fit into several of those catagories), but thats the way people see Texas. Unfortunately, rather than focus on the examples of people that break that stereotype, there are plenty of much wider known examples of people who fit into it (not going to name any recent politicians names, but I think we all know who he is...though most do not know he is not a native texan)
Also, for what its worth, Ive seen other texans who also have left the state who once they get identified work to feed into that stereotype rather than try to break it, or at least expand others knowledge of it.
Once you leave Texas for a large amount of time and come back to visit or move, in my experience, its really hard not to see the stereotypes as actualities. Not because they are the standard rather than the exception, but because its so loud when you see it that you cant help but thinking that.
Texas isnt really a 2 dimensional place, but it seems most, if not all of its more nationally known aspects/individuals/events/news seem to definitely make it out in that light.
Hispanics are supposed to list as White unless they are of a majority American Indian, African, or Asian descent. "Some other race" was not meant to include Latinos, however so many of them did so in 2000 that the option has been removed for the 2010 census.
For the census, White includes those of European, Jewish, and Arab/Middle Eastern descent. Most Latinos are considered by the government to be largely European, so they're white.
A good way to tell how many non-Hispanic whites are in a city is to add together the White and Some Other Race numbers and then subtract the number of Hispanics from the total.
Yep- there's that word ''diversity'' again. Very apparent it's nothing but doublespeak for "not white" from those who outright won't say it... and appearing on these forums so much it's almost comical.
Yep- there's that word ''diversity'' again. Very apparent it's nothing but doublespeak for "not white" from those who outright won't say it... and appearing on these forums so much it's almost comical.
PC culture and people not wanting to seem like bigots often makes folks mask their true ideals, even on the net.
Texas is very diverse. That being said, though its one of the most diverse states, the racial cohesiveness is among the worst in the nation. People just dont usually get along other than how they are forced to, and if you pull most folks aside and ask them about some other group (race, religion, political, sexual orientation) you get a whispered earful of why they hate so and so, or thing those so and sos are bad/destroying the country/lazy/evil/criminals/theives/crooks/rapists/serial killers etc etc.
TX is probably the only state in the nation which such an amount of diversity but low cohesiveness on most levels. Georgia and Florida are close, but not nearly as bad.
PC culture and people not wanting to seem like bigots often makes folks mask their true ideals, even on the net.
Texas is very diverse. That being said, though its one of the most diverse states, the racial cohesiveness is among the worst in the nation. People just dont usually get along other than how they are forced to, and if you pull most folks aside and ask them about some other group (race, religion, political, sexual orientation) you get a whispered earful of why they hate so and so, or thing those so and sos are bad/destroying the country/lazy/evil/criminals/theives/crooks/rapists/serial killers etc etc.
TX is probably the only state in the nation which such an amount of diversity but low cohesiveness on most levels. Georgia and Florida are close, but not nearly as bad.
California is just as bad as Texas, if not worse.
We didn't have the Watts Riots in Texas. We didn't have the Rodney King incident in Texas. We didn't have the Chavez-LULAC strikes here in Texas. All those things happened in California.
Texas definitely does not have a rosy racial history, but compared to most of the rest of the South, Texas has been rather tame, excluding a few years in the early 1920s when the Klan ran the state. However, the Klan lost influence here far earlier than in the rest of the South. We had open segregation for many years, but not as much of the inter-racial violence that was seen in the rest of the South. There were far fewer lynchings here. We've never had a history of race riots. There are quite a few black marks, (the Jasper incident immediately comes to mind), but not to the extent of the rest of the South and even many less Southern areas like Tulsa, Indianapolis, DC, Detroit, or even LA or New York.
Yet, for whatever reason, the media tries to stereotype us as racist and backwards and intolerant. However, compared to many other states, even "Yankee" and "West Coast" and liberal states, we aren't any worse.
The states with better racial histories and a greater reputation for racial tolerance tend to be those states with very few minorities to begin with.
We didn't have the Watts Riots in Texas. We didn't have the Rodney King incident in Texas. We didn't have the Chavez-LULAC strikes here in Texas. All those things happened in California.
No, but we had the Jasper murder, the Tulia arrests, the Houston WWI race Riots, the Dallas Riots, the Vidar/Nederaland hangings, the Center Hangings, etc.
California is bad, but it would not be accurate to claim its history and cohesiveness are nearly as bad as Texas. CA people have stereotypes of others, but do not seem to act on them as much as texans.
I will agree with you, Texas is a lot better than much of the rest of the south historically. But modernly, it still has a ways to go. I dont think its a 'liberal states v conservative states' issue necessarily either. Oklahoma is very conservative, but seems much more cohesive. The same goes for Arkansas.
When other southern states like Alabama, Georgia and North Carolina start to jump ahead of Texas in terms of different peoples cohesiveness, there is a problem. From a national perspective, it could be argued the only southern states in worst shape are Louisiana, South Carolina and Tennessee.
LOL!!! Surely you jest that Texas is more racially harmonious than Calif, NY, and Detroit?! Yeah, you didn't have race riots but you did have Jenna 6; the Jasper dragging lynching, and Texas is the whole reason there is Juneteenth: the slaves in Texas did not get told they were freed for 2 years later than the rest of the South!
KlanWatch is an organization run by Morris Dees, under Teaching Tolerance, which keeps records of Skinhead/Military groups, gay bashings, lynchings, police abuses, and other generally hatefilled incidents. Texas is often number 1 on the list of these happenings and never lower than the top 4 states listed where the "hate" activities occur. You may be right that, of the South, Alabama and Miss. are the absolute worst, but then there's Texas! Talk about stretching historical truths! The rose colored glasses are really gettin in the way.
Maybe the conversation should get off this issue, people are starting to lose it and say Schizophrenic things, such as: "The states with better racial histories and a greater reputation for racial tolerance tend to be those states with very few minorities to begin with." WTF? a new factoid to say that if there are few-to-no minorities, only THEN, is there great racial tolerance and reputation?!
LOL!!! Surely you jest that Texas is more racially harmonious than Calif, NY, and Detroit?! Yeah, you didn't have race riots but you did have Jenna 6; the Jasper dragging lynching, and Texas is the whole reason there is Juneteenth: the slaves in Texas did not get told they were freed for 2 years later than the rest of the South!
KlanWatch is an organization run by Morris Dees, under Teaching Tolerance, which keeps records of Skinhead/Military groups, gay bashings, lynchings, police abuses, and other generally hatefilled incidents. Texas is often number 1 on the list of these happenings and never lower than the top 4 states listed where the "hate" activities occur. You may be right that, of the South, Alabama and Miss. are the absolute worst, but then there's Texas! Talk about stretching historical truths! The rose colored glasses are really gettin in the way.
Maybe the conversation should get off this issue, people are starting to lose it and say Schizophrenic things, such as: "The states with better racial histories and a greater reputation for racial tolerance tend to be those states with very few minorities to begin with." WTF? a new factoid to say that if there are few-to-no minorities, only THEN, is there great racial tolerance and reputation?!
Only one of those things you state are correct. The Jena 6 incident was in Jena, LA, and while the young men were heavily and wrongly provoked, they absolutely are criminals for beating the tar out of someone.
The Jasper incident did occur in Texas. It was commited by two white supremacists who were former prison inmates. Neither of these things is typical of a Texan.
Juneteenth was on June 19, 1865, which is not two years after the rest of the south found out that their slaves were free. The Emancipation Proclamation had absolutely no legal effect in the South whatsoever until the Federal army had control, and Texas was no more than a couple months behind the rest of the South, and the reason for this was because it was on the western frontier and the Federal troops reached the state last, not because the people were more backwards.
Maryland, Washington DC, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia all had legalized slavery after slavery had been abolished in Texas, and they all fought on the Federal side.
No, but we had the Jasper murder, the Tulia arrests, the Houston WWI race Riots, the Dallas Riots, the Vidar/Nederaland hangings, the Center Hangings, etc.
California is bad, but it would not be accurate to claim its history and cohesiveness are nearly as bad as Texas. CA people have stereotypes of others, but do not seem to act on them as much as texans.
I will agree with you, Texas is a lot better than much of the rest of the south historically. But modernly, it still has a ways to go. I dont think its a 'liberal states v conservative states' issue necessarily either. Oklahoma is very conservative, but seems much more cohesive. The same goes for Arkansas.
When other southern states like Alabama, Georgia and North Carolina start to jump ahead of Texas in terms of different peoples cohesiveness, there is a problem. From a national perspective, it could be argued the only southern states in worst shape are Louisiana, South Carolina and Tennessee.
What "Dallas Riots" are you talking about? The 1972 Mexican-American riot? I am very familiar with Dallas history and Dallas has never had a major race-riot to the scale of those in many other American cities, including Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Detroit, or Tulsa, or most other southern cities. There have been isolated incidents, of course, but Dallas' race relations have generally avoided violence throughout its history. The racial history of the city is absolutely nothing to be proud of, and in particular the darkest period of the early 1920s is repulsive, but on the whole Dallas had the most harmonious racial relations of any major Southern city, and more harmonious relations than many non-Southern cities. Houston, which during the Jim Crow era was the only other Texas city which had any national relevance, also had a less tumultuous racial history than the rest of the South.
I did not even mention the anti-Asian policies that were common in California for as long as Jim Crow was in the South. However, those ought to be mentioned. The treatment of Latinos in California was as bad or worse than that in Texas--Latinos in Texas have generally had a very harmonious relationship with white Texans when compared to the way racial minorities have historically been treated in the US. Perfect, absolutely not, but definitely better than is the norm. California's black population was just as segregated as ours, just instead of having "Jim Crow" water fountains and waiting rooms they were simply shepherded to the poorest areas where whites would not notice them. California did have a far lower lynching rate than Texas did, but California also had an even farther lower percentage of African-Americans, who a tremendous majority of lynchings in the United States have been targeted at.
We haven't had a perfect racial history, and that's perfectly obvious. No one is denying it, but we are saying that we have dealt with issues throughout our history that most other states have not had to deal with.
New York State and Illinois are the only other states with similar diversity to Texas and California, however, both of these states can thank a single city for that fact. Outside of NYC and Chicago, you will see miles and miles of rural white Americans.
Texas' racial diversity is spread throughout the state--there are significant Latino communities in just about every community in Texas; there are large numbers of African-Americans in all of the large cities as well as many small towns, particularly in East Texas; there is a large Asian community in southeast Texas as well as in most major cities. California is the only state with just as spread out racial diversity as Texas, and while California does not get the attention that Texas' racial incidents have, they absolutely are in the same league as Texas after 1865.
Every other state cited as being more cohesive is really just more white. Oklahoma does not have significant numbers of minorities outside of certain neighborhoods of OKC and Tulsa, and if the words "Greenwood Riots" signify a cohesive history to you or mean absolutely nothing to you, then you ought to take a closer look at things. Arkansas probably does have less racial strife than Texas (not that racial strife is common in Texas), but its races are absolutely not cohesive. While "Jim Crow" style segregation no longer occurs, Arkansas cities and towns are even more racially divided than Texas.
However, anyone who claims things are significantly better in California is distorting facts. I would say that California cities have even worse racial relations than Texas cities do, and California's rural areas do not tend to have significant non-Hispanic minority populations, making it difficult to compare to the largely African-American rural minority populations in Texas and the entirely different historical issues.
But to say Texas, excluding a few isolated incidents which are not more common than in most other states, is racially backwards in this era is just patently false.
Only one of those things you state are correct. The Jena 6 incident was in Jena, LA, and while the young men were heavily and wrongly provoked, they absolutely are criminals for beating the tar out of someone.
The Jasper incident did occur in Texas. It was commited by two white supremacists who were former prison inmates. Neither of these things is typical of a Texan.
Juneteenth was on June 19, 1865, which is not two years after the rest of the south found out that their slaves were free. The Emancipation Proclamation had absolutely no legal effect in the South whatsoever until the Federal army had control, and Texas was no more than a couple months behind the rest of the South, and the reason for this was because it was on the western frontier and the Federal troops reached the state last, not because the people were more backwards.
Maryland, Washington DC, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia all had legalized slavery after slavery had been abolished in Texas, and they all fought on the Federal side.
I choose not to respond to that poster because I was honestly not sure of their genuity in their reply to me (their addition of 'Detriot', disparaging comments on slave emancipation and the SPLC and anti-hate groups kinda makes it see like that person is coming from the 'other' side of thinking...the side thats not in support of ethnic cohesiveness)
That, and you totally gave the history lesson I would have just given as well
Quote:
Originally Posted by loneranger
What "Dallas Riots" are you talking about? The 1972 Mexican-American riot? I am very familiar with Dallas history and Dallas has never had a major race-riot to the scale of those in many other American cities, including Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Detroit, or Tulsa, or most other southern cities. There have been isolated incidents, of course, but Dallas' race relations have generally avoided violence throughout its history. The racial history of the city is absolutely nothing to be proud of, and in particular the darkest period of the early 1920s is repulsive, but on the whole Dallas had the most harmonious racial relations of any major Southern city, and more harmonious relations than many non-Southern cities. Houston, which during the Jim Crow era was the only other Texas city which had any national relevance, also had a less tumultuous racial history than the rest of the South.
I am not sure if I can post it here, but google search dallas race riots. You will come up with it somewhere, there is a direct link to a book that refers to it (the 70s one).
There is also the 60s MLK assasination riots that happened there, as well as a few 'hushed' early 60s civil rights clashes, as well as the 20s riots you mentioned (which were extremely bloody, and resulted in a number of hangings). The same for the houston riots, but the ones I specifically was referring to in houston were the ones that occurred after black WW1 (and then repeated in WW2) vets returned home to angry crowds.
I was not comparing on scale, but rather on incident. And historical precedence. Its hard to face the fact, but the honest truth Texas, just like all other southern states, has a really bad and bloody history with race relations, specifically african americans and whites, but also (in texas's case specifically) mexican americans and whites.
Yes, overall hispanics (not blacks) have had relatively harmonious relations with whites, at least up until the last 6 years or so, but that is mostly due to the bizarre and unscientific former policy of racial identification and segregation. Hispanics were considered white legally. That did not stop several towns and places (even near my hometown of San Antonio) from establishing within their charters bans on allowing mexican americans to live or settle or work in the area however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loneranger
New York State and Illinois are the only other states with similar diversity to Texas and California, however, both of these states can thank a single city for that fact. Outside of NYC and Chicago, you will see miles and miles of rural white Americans.
I disagree very much there. St Louis, Boston, Washington DC, Most of Ohio, Michigan (relatively), Milwaukee, Miami, Atlanta...are all extremely diverse, and there are plenty of pockets of large minority communities in between. Everywhere from Omaha to Seattle to Salt Lake to Santa Fe to Phoenix to Cincinatti to Reno. The only thing those 3 cities have on other places is shear large numbers of population, which is different than ethnic and racial diversity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loneranger
Every other state cited as being more cohesive is really just more white. Oklahoma does not have significant numbers of minorities outside of certain neighborhoods of OKC and Tulsa, and if the words "Greenwood Riots" signify a cohesive history to you or mean absolutely nothing to you, then you ought to take a closer look at things. Arkansas probably does have less racial strife than Texas (not that racial strife is common in Texas), but its races are absolutely not cohesive. While "Jim Crow" style segregation no longer occurs, Arkansas cities and towns are even more racially divided than Texas.
Again I disagree. New York and CA I already mentioned (or should have in the case of NY) are more cohesive, but look at New Mexico, or Nevada (southern) or New Jersey.
Granted, states with more white people, when judged overall, tend to be more cohesive with their smaller minority populations, but even when you look at the very diverse urban areas of those states, compared to the diverse areas of Texas, they are much further along.
They have their problems, but compared to Texas, its nowhere near as bad.
Texans who live in the state for a long time and have not lived outside or do not live outside the state often get the idea that Texas is either the best as 'everything' or the 'standard and nowhere will have it better'. I was once one of them. That changes once you move out of state.
Self segregation, though still a problem everywhere, is extremely noticeable even today in Texas. Of all the states I have spend significant time in, Texas is the only one where no matter how rich a person of color is (brown or black), they will be relegated to non-white upper working class neighborhoods. White flight is still the modus operandi in SA, Houston, Corpus, Dallas and parts of outer Austin. Yes, its in other places, but not nearly as much. Interracial relationships seem to be subject to more hostility (I have personal experience with this), and the number of hate crimes, according to the FBI (Again I dont know if I am allowed to link that cite) fairly high.
Heck, I even lived in Northern Idaho for a brief time, and the ire between different peoples was less than it was the last time I returned to Texas (there are a number of mexican americans who live in Idaho and a few african americans who live there as well).
Last edited by tindo80; 07-07-2009 at 01:50 PM..
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.
