Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (required):

* Type your message here:
>> >>>Thanks Randy for replying back. Here are my points. >> >>Thanks in turn, Travis, for your interesting points. >>Here, in turn (as they say) are my own >>"counter-counter 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. >> >>Travis, if you really read my original reply you will >>see that I never claimed "Germans" are "isolated" the >>Hill Country. I said there were large German >>commnities there, and OTHER isolated settlements >>elsewhere. Such as in Muenster and Windthorst, >>Texas...both within an hours drive of my own >hometown. >> >> >>> 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. >> >>I am VERY familiar with Wikipedia. In fact, I >>contribute quite a bit to things Southern and Texan. >>But first things first. >> >>For one, the hispanic population of Texas is, in many >>aspects, a fairly recent occurance. Up until a decade >>or so ago, hispanics were a definite minority. >>There is no way to sort out, really, for now, how much >>is legal and illegal. Therefore, this argument is of >>VERY questionable weight in terms of culture and >>religion in Texas. >> >>And here is the link to the map you might be referring >>to: >><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_ >U >>nited_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration >_ >>to_the_United_States</a> >> >>So where, on the "colored" map does this indicate a >>difference in terms of Germanic or English birth? >>Even by your own figures, western and northern >>European ancestry is the norm. Actually, it shows >>(sadly) a pattern of illegal migration... >> >>>2. You wrote "Roman Catholics numbered 4,368,969 in >>>2000" Yes, Catholicism is the largest religion within >>>Texas. >> >>See my above statement. Protestants are the largest >>denomination in Texas, with Southern Baptists far and >>away the majority. The Roman Catholic (which I >>respect, very much) following is very much confined to >>hispanics, which again is questionable in many ways in >>terms of legal citizenship. Among white and black >>Texans, which is the "duality" that shaped the state, >>there is no doubt about where most have their >>affiliations. >> >>>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). >> >>Sir, let me make this perfectly clear. I sincerely >>hope you are not presuming to lecture ME on making >>distinctions between legal Tejanoes and illegal >>Mexican aliens. The race card is one I have very >>little tolerance for. I am well aware of it, and >>stand by what I said earlier. And let me remind you as >>well that you are the one who first introduced the >>phrase "white Texans" into this exchange. >> >>In any event, there is a huge difference in an illegal >>invasion and evolved, natural, history. True, certain >>things are taking place that associate parts of Texas >>(south and far west) more with the true Southwest of >>Arizona and New Mexico than Alabama. But, THIS is not >>true Texas, historically or otherwise. >> >>>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. >> >>All I can say is (south Texas exempted) go to a cafe >>or restaruant about any where in Texas, and see what >>most people are eating. And what is most popular. >> >>And yes, I CAN say what you grew up eating is NOT >>Texan...not in the traditional sense. I have never >>been to a place once in my native state that chicken >>fried steak, BBQ or all the other thing mentioned are >>not the listed cruisine! LOL >> >>And DEFINTITELY, what folks usually cook around the >>home place, or grew up with, is Southern in orgin. No >>offence intended, Travis, but I truly think you missed >>out on the traditional Texas experience! >> >> >>> >>>As regards to BBQ. BBQ is not a strictly Southern >>>dish. BBQ is common throughout many cultures. >Barbecoa >>>is Mexico is a staple. >> >>EVERYthing has some roots SOMEWHERE. Okra, for >>instance, is native to Africa, not the Southern United >>States. But what is, in America, considered >>"Barbeque" is of Southern birth. And it extended into >>Texas (although beef tends to be more popular than >>pork) >> >> >>>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. >> >> >>So WHAT? Roy Rogers and Buck Owens are NOT from Texas. >>Does that, in itself, make a case? "Blues" music can >>be sonsidered, in my humble opinion, the most truly >>Southern music of all. It originated in the >>Mississippi Delta, and spread to Louisiana, and, yep >>Texas. Those states are still where it enjoys a >>great popularity and following. >> >>>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. >> >>The "Southwest" theatre of war was the >>"Trans-Mississippi" Department (most of Louisiana, and >>all of Arkansas and Texas). >> >>Of COURSE most state units spent most of their time in >>their home areas! Georgia troops did the same thing. >>As did Mississippi (where my own ancestors served) and >>Tennessee....Louisiana....etc, etc. >> >>>- 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". >> >>Union sympathy was high in ALL the orginal Confederate >>states, relatively speaking. A county in Alabama >>(Winston) actually "seceeded" from Alabama, as did one >>in Mississippi, sorta. >> >>Botton line is, however, other than in South Carolina, >>where the vote was unanimous, the percentage of >>delegates deciding the question voting to secede, was >>higher in Texas than ANY other state of the Lower >>South (166 - 7) THEN later backed up by a popular >>vote of 3/4 of Texans. >> >>What I really think you are again, with all due >>respect, is confusing "Union sentiment" with being a >>"northern sympathizer." In fact, with VERY few >>exceptions, Southern Unionists, (as typlified by Sam >>Houston) stood four-square for Southern rights. They >>simply believed that secession, at the moment in time, >>was "rash action." Maybe it was. BUT...don't think >>for a moment that this translates into how most Texans >>believed or felt when it came down to a question of >>either/or. The record is clear on that fact. >> >><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>href="http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/status/allstates.htm >" >>>http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/status/allstates.htm</a> > >> >>>Likewise, this doesn't even take into account >>>the role of anti-confederate feelings by Tejanos who >>>dominated South Texas. >> >>One of the most distinguished Confederate units in >>Texas was Hispanic. I will be happy to send you some >>information on them. >> >>Otherwise, again, anti-Confederate sentiment was >>notable in MANY parts of the South. North Alabama and >>Georgia. Many part of North Carolina and Tennessee >>and Arkansas. The southern parts of Louisiana >>objected. West Virginia "seceded" from Virginia over >>the issue. What is your point? >> >> >>>-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. >> >>True. We agree on this, and I brought it up in my >>original article. >> >>>-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. >> >>Wrong, Travis. Texas had no tradition of "ranching" >>up until the early 20th century. I truly, really, >>dont mean to be disrespectful, but I wonder where you >>get your information as to Texas history? >> >>The "cattle and ranching" you mention? Did you know >>that this aspect is directly related to the fall of >>Vickburg in the "Civil War"? And that the "Texas >>cowboy" and the habits and ect, are directly related >>to the Old South "cattle drovers"? That most of them >>were former Confederate soldiers? See James Michners >>historical novel "Texas" for verification. >> >>Look it up. Cotton remains today the most important >>agricultural crop in Texas. Going back to the past? >>In 1860, a third of the population of Texas were >>blacks working on cotton plantations. Why do you >>think so many from other folks from eastern Southern >>states moved west? The land was virgin and it yielded >>something almost unheard of. >> >>After the War (Civil War, if that is what you call it) >>Texas was a poor devasated Southern state. Some form >>of cotton share or tenant farming was how most people >>lived and made a daily living. >> >>Oil and Ranching came later. >> >>>- 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. >> >>What I am seeing here now are, YOUR own perspectives >>and sympathies. Which is fine. I respect that. >>However, for one, they did NOT make a "huge" part of >>the population. If that were so, then the vote to >>secede and the support for the Confederacy would not >>have existed. >> >>While I am thinking about it, the large majority of >>"Native Americans" cast their lot with the South. >> >>As I said earlier, EVERY Southern state had men who >>fought for the Union. So let me just refer you back to >>that site. It will be easy to discern, which side, >>percentage wise, who fought where and on which "part >>of the creek:. LOL >> >>>- 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. >> >>Travis? See the "Civil War Records" URL I posted. I >>will argue with you when you can prove otherwise. If >>you can't, then, sorry, I don't much feel like like >>getting into it with you. >> >>And? WHERE did I claim Texas was a site of "Civil War" >>battlefields??? So far as which side most >>Missiourians fought on (again!)...work out the records >>for yourself... >> >>>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. >> >>Face what? That you DO have an arguable point that >>dates back from a decade or so? BUT..this is NOT >>traditional Texas. Which was a major sub-point of my >>argument. TEXAS, as TEXAS, belongs to the South. ANY >>place can become something else, over time, if it >>becomes infestated by illegal aliens long enough. >> >>>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. >> >>Again, don't presume to lecture ME on what I should or >>should not be careful about. Otherwise, I will say >>flat out that you need to be very careful of how you >>articulate and make your case. >> >>Anglo's came later? Yes, we did. But EVERYONE stole >>land from somewhere. LOL >> >>Anyway, again, to my way of thinking, your experience >>is NOT Texan. You say you have a lot of hispanic >>blood. I respect and admire your heritage. And yes, >>in the part of Texas you live, it is very much the >>norm, anymore. But it is NOT, again, historical >>Texas. >> >>And by the way, did you know that TEXAS "chili" is >>SOUTHERN in origin? It is NOT "southwestern" (as out >>that way they use beans), but a spicy mix of meat and >>all that cowboys (mostly and originally from East >>Texas and the deeper South) made on the trail! >> >>Winding it up, Travis? To repeat. If YOU dont think >>of Texas as Southern or yourself as Southern, then no >>problem. However you have proved a certain point, >>even if intended or not. Which is that Texas is >>becoming a very divided state. I hate to see that >>happen, but it is so. >> >>I have to wonder. Why didnt you just state flat out, >>originally, that you had a lot of hispanic blood in >>you? I respect and admire that heritage. I also know >>that hispanics do not really think of themselves as >>"Southern" in the same way blacks and whites do.... >> >> >> >>>Thanks and appreciated, >>>Travis >> >>Best Texas and Southern Regards, >>Randy (Texas Reb)
Choose Message Icon: None :-) Happy ;-) Wink :-D Joy :} Smirk <:-} Innocent ☮ Peace >:) Mischief B-) Shades <3 Heart |O Yawn <:P Sick >:-( Angry :~( Sad ? Question *!* Alert Thumbs Up Thumbs Down (!) Idea [Info] Info Oo. Talk [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.