VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:38:54 07/18/07 Wed
Author: Travieso
Author Host/IP: cpe-66-25-163-185.austin.res.rr.com / 66.25.163.185
Subject: Re: Texas is not part of teh south!!!
In reply to: Randy (TexasReb) 's message, "Re: Texas is not part of teh south!!!" on 10:37:04 07/17/07 Tue

>Greetings Travis, from a fellow Texan!
>
>Before replying. let me say right off the bat that I
>respect your right to choose not to call yourself a
>Southerner. However, you must remember that according
>to the Southern Focus Poll, 86% of Texans considered
>themselves to live in the South, and approximately 70%
>considered themselves to be Southerners (this "gap"
>existed in all the Southern states and is largely
>attibutable to that some respondents were transplanted
>northerners). Anyway, in another demographic study
>published in The American Geographer (I believe it
>was, but can verify for sure if you need it), when
>given a choice of regional affiliations, some 75% of
>Texans indicated "South" over "West" (most the the
>choice of "West" was expectedly in the Trans-Pecos
>ala' El Paso area).
>
>>I have just read the article claiming that Texas is
>>considered part of the "old South". With all respect,
>>I cannot agree. Demograpically, historically, and
>>geographically I think this is far-fetched.
>
>I am not sure I ever used the term "Old South" in my
>article, however if one defines this phrase by
>ante-bellum statehood and a culture and an economy
>dominated by cotton, then the settled parts of Texas
>(mostly east of Ft. Worth) was indeed Old South.
>
>>Let me tell you a bit about myself. I am a true Texan.
>>My family came here from France when this was Mexico,
>>and they married many native-American women. They
>>settled the Gulf Coast (notice the french names like
>>La Marque, etc). So, I don't know how far my family
>>has been here. Later, they mixed with Irish and
>>Scots.
>
>I too am a true Texan. Fourth Generation, of
>Scots-Irish decent, with ancestral lines into the Deep
>South (mostly Mississippi, but Alabama in the mix as
>well).
>
>
>>While Randy Hill claims southern heritage, this is a
>>minority of Texans. Firtly, most White texans have a
>>lineage of Germanic and Eastern European stock, unlike
>>the british stock of the majority of whites in the
>>"Old South". Catholicism is the largest religion in
>>Texas, not Baptist like in the "OLD south".
>
>I'm sorry Travis, but Southern lineage (that is,
>family lines extending into the older Southern states)
>is the rule, not the exception. Texas was settled
>overwhelmingly by WESTERN European stock (English,
>Scots-Irish, etc) from the older Southern states.
>This fact can be easily verified by numerous sources
>(see, for instance Terry Jordan's "Texas, A Cultural
>Geography"). There are, yes, in the Hill Country of
>Texas and certain other isolated spots, noteable
>Germanic communities and settlements. However, it is
>far far from a majority.
>
>So far as religion goes, with the large hispanic
>population in South Texas (a good part of it illegal,
>which makes the count questionable), there is a large
>Catholic membership. However, once again, this is the
>exception, not the rule. Here are some facts on the
>matter I recieved from a friend:
>
>*********
>"Geographically, Texas tends to be heavily Protestant
>in the north and east and Catholic in the south and
>southwest. Leading Protestant denominations and their
>known adherents in 2000 were the Southern Baptist
>Convention, 3,519,459; the United Methodist Church,
>1,022,342; Churches of Christ, 377,264; Assemblies of
>God, 228,098; the Presbyterian Church USA, 180,315;
>the Episcopal Church, 177,910; Independent Charismatic
>Churches, 159,449; the Church of Jesus Christ of
>Latter-Day Saints, 155,451; the Evangelical Lutheran
>Church in America, 155,019; Independent
>Non-Charismatic Churches, 145,249; and the Lutheran
>Church—Missouri Synod, 140,106. Roman Catholics
>numbered 4,368,969 in 2000. There were an estimated
>128,000 Jews, 114,999 Muslims, and about 10,777
>adherents to the Baha'i faith. There were about 9.2
>million people (44.5% of the population) who were not
>counted as members of any religious organization."
>***********
>
>>Texas Food is Southern? UH, I have been to the south
>>and it was nothing like what I ever grew up with. I
>>did not grow up eating "fried" everything. IN fact, it
>>is hard for me to recall a southern dish. We grew up
>>having tamales for Thanksgiving. I grew up eating
>>Nopalitos, homemade tortillas, and chili. When I went
>>to North Carolina, people I met did not consider me a
>>Southerner. They think Texan, like myself.
>
>Once again, as I stated in my original article, much
>depends on individual perspective. And certainly it
>doesnt sound like yours, from a culinary point of
>view, was very Southern. And, with all due respect,
>Texan for that matter. The dominating traditional
>food stuff in Texas is Southern in origin (chicken
>fried steak, BBQ, catfish, fried okra, black-eyed peas
>on New Years Day, etc). Sure "Tex-Mex" (so called
>"Mexican food) is common (and I love it), but I
>guarantee you if you ask most Texans what they grew up
>eating out of momma or grandmaws kitchen, you'll hear
>fried chicken a heck of a lot more than you will
>tamales!
>
>So far as what people in North Carolina think? That is
>of little concern to me. I have distant cousins in
>Mississippi (Deep South "purists" as I call them!) who
>don't think of North Carolina as Southern! I've even
>talked to folks from Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia
>(possibly the "most Southern" states of all) who
>exclude Louisiana and Tennessee from the "true South".
>Go figure! LOL
>
>>Okay, since I have lived in Austin for 20 years let's
>>talk about music. Austin has been made a music mecca.
>>Why? Because Willy and Waylon and the Boys found
>>Nashville, the South, too conventional and
>>constraining. Remember, this is "country and WESTERN"
>>music. Willy Nelson and the boys brought back the
>>western aspect of the music which is more
>>individualistic, less constrained by social mores, and
>>much more liberal. For god sake, he wrote a song about
>>gay cowboys and he's a pothead!!!
>
>The "Western" part of "country and western" music had
>little to do with "Home on The Range" true "cowboy
>music" Rather, it referred to "western swing", which
>began, pretty much, with Bob Wills and The Texas
>Playboys. And far as that goes, there was a Texas
>based band called "The Southern Melody Boys" which
>were a western swing band. It was an offshoot of the
>more traditional country music, sure, but it wasn't
>ever intended or thought to be a "secessionist"
>movement! LOL Besides, one seldom hears, anymore,
>the term "country and western". It is now simply, once
>again, "country." And Texas has more than its share
>of noteables in the genre.
>
>
>>The Civil War? Texas did not see civil war battles,
>>yet Missouri did see a lot of battles and it fought
>>for the South. Missouri would actually be more
>>accurately depicted as part of the South in a
>>historical framework.
>
>With all due respect once again, Travis, I must
>question your, shall we say, understanding, of "Civil
>War" history. To begin with, Texas was one of the 7
>original charter members of the Confederate States of
>America (4 other states joined later). There was never
>any question of which side Texas and Texans were on.
>On the other hand, Missouri did NOT fight for the
>South. There was a large enough group of Southern
>sympathizers within that they formed a "rump
>government" and declared themselves out of the Union,
>but it never had the support of the population (most
>Missourians fought for the North). And that "rump
>government" was soon driven into exile and existed,
>guess where? In Marshall, Texas.
>
>As I said in the article, true there were no TRULY
>major battles fought on Texas soil. However, those
>that were were legendary. The Battle of Sabine Pass,
>for example, when 47 Texans held off an invading fleet
>of yankee warships and 5000 men. In an unprecedented
>move, the Confederate Congress passed a special
>resolution of thanks, and CSA president Jefferson
>Davis called it "the greatest military victory in the
>history of the world." And also, the LAST battle of
>the war was fought on Texas soil. A group of
>Confederates, not knowing the War had ended, defeated
>a larger force of federals and only then found out
>that fact. So it can be fairly said that the last
>battle of the War was a Confederate victory won by
>Texans! LOL
>
>>No, I am not a Southern. I am a Texan. Always have
>>been, always will.
>
>That's fine, and I appreciate your thoughts and
>opinions. However, I am a Texan as well, and a
>Southerner. And in summation I will just say that,
>anymore, I don't spend much time arguing in a
>"defensive" manner about Texas being Southern or not.
>The history, culture, and demographics are there and I
>simply present my case to be taken or left. All I can
>say is that I KNOW I am Southern. There is a line in
>a Pat Conroy novel that sums it up "A Southerner is,
>and a Southerner knows he is."
>
>Texan, North Carolinian, Mississippian, whatever, it
>applies.
>
>>thanks,
>>Travis
>
>Best Texas (and Southern), regards,
>Randy (TexasReb)




Thanks Randy for replying back. Here are my points.


1. Randy, you wrote: " Texas was settled overwhelmingly by WESTERN European stock (English, Scots-Irish, etc)" and "in the Hill Country of Texas and certain other isolated spots, noteable Germanic communities and settlements".

Randy, Germans are not isolated to the Hill country, but more white Texans claim Germanic heritage than any other ancestry. Germans are found throughout Central, West, and South Texas. A quick look at wikipedia shows that "The largest reported ancestry groups in Texas include: Mexican (25.3%), German (10.9%), African American (10.5%), English (7.2%), and Scots-Irish (7.2%)". The large Germanic and Hispanic population is not like the South which has a large population of white whose ancestry comes from the British Isles.

2. You wrote "Roman Catholics numbered 4,368,969 in 2000" Yes, Catholicism is the largest religion within Texas.


I would be very careful when regarding to the seperation of Tejanos and Illegal immigrants. But, just the fact that you admit a huge hispanic population shows that Texas shares demographic trends more like the Southwest then say Alabama. While hispanic migration into the South is recent, Texas has a well established and very old Tejano community (with it's own culture, dialect, and heritage) much like Arizona and New Mexico. By definition, I would also be considered Tejano becuase my family received a land grants from Spain long before the Civil War. (Yes, I'm bilingual).

3. you wrote "The dominating traditional food stuff in Texas is Southern in origin". YOu also wrote that my cuisine didn't sound "texan". Wow! I don't know where you grew up. My whole family is Texan. My mother made homemade tortilla. "Tex-Mex" is a true cuisine that has it's own history. So, you really cannot say that my cuisine is not Texan. It is very Texan. I agree that East Texas is more Southern in cuisine, but for the majority of the State, that cuisine loses popularity. IN South TExas, central Texas, and West Texas tex-mex in much more popular. In Austin, the only major restaurant that serves Southern style cuisine (apart from strictly BBQ) is Threadgills. Taquerias and Tex-Mex restaurants are much more numerous.

As regards to BBQ. BBQ is not a strictly Southern dish. BBQ is common throughout many cultures. Barbecoa is Mexico is a staple.

4. In regards to music. There is a true western "cowboy" sound that is not the same as the music that often comes form Nashville. It is a genre of music on it's own. The national Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum explores Western Artists, many who are Texans such as Gene Autry.

5.Okay let's talk about the Texas role of the civil War.

- Most Texas regiments did not see action in South. As the texas handbook indicates "Two-thirds of the Texans enrolled in the military spent the war in the Southwest, either defending the state from Indian attacks and Union invasion or participating in expansionist moves into New Mexico Territory." Also, many texas regiments were used to guard the coast from a possible union takeover of Galveston by Union forces.

- Union sympathy was high in many parts of Texas. As the Texas handbook indicates : Unionism remained strong in some sections of the state. This was especially true in some of the German counties in the Hill Country and in a group of counties north of Dallas". Likewise, this doesn't even take into account the role of anti-confederate feelings by Tejanos who dominated South Texas.

-Texas suffered the least in the Civil War. While there were some suffering with rationing, etc. Texas' border with Mexico insured more trade then other states in the confederacy.

-Likewise, Texas, with it large and more established tradition of ranching and later oil did not suffer as much as southern states after the civil war. Ranching has a longer history in Texas than Cotton production, so many Texans didn't just rely on cottom production finaincially. IN fact, South Texas, West TExas, and Central Texas did not suffer because they depended more on animal husbandry than cotton.

- I have a real problem with many histories of the Civil War, especially the less academic history books because they concentrate solely on the anglo perespective, yet so many Texans at the time, including German and central European immigrants, Tejanos, free Blacks, and native-americans are not even included in the civil war story. That is wrong, considering that they made a huge portion of the Texas population. IN fact, many San Antonians actually fought with the Union!!!! Likewise, Central Texas saw huge sympathy for the Union.

- I also disagree with your claim that most in Missouri fought for the Union. Missouri was about equally split, especially with North-South Split. My argument is that if you want a good tour of Civil War america, don't come to Texas. Go to Missouri.

And let's face it. Most Texans now cannot claim Southern Roots. Texas is so diverse and so large that it now has immigrants from so many places. Texas is experiencing huge immigration, not just from Mexico, but from Asia and other countries.

I also think that you should be careful when saying something is "not Texan". I was really taken aback by your claim that my cuisine was not 'texan". It may not be your texas cuisine, but it is texan and it is a viable culture. The issue here also is that Anglos came later, while people of Mediterrainean stock have been here longer.

Thanks and appreciated,
Travis

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.