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:
>>>Travis, >>> >>>Not trying to overwhelm with comments, responses, and >>>replies, but wanted to post this one as well ... >since >>>last night I was pretty tired and didn't quite feel >up >>>to locating all my researched sources to post. >>> >>>Anyway, to these in particular, I wanted to note: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>I truly do not mean to insult you and/or your own >>>experience, food wise (or otherwise for that >matter). >>>However, I stand by my own earlier statements about >>>traditional Texas food and its origins. Including >>>chili! Austin, or many of the DFW area chain eating >>>places, are NOT true Texas. They are nationwide and >>>"trendy" places that exist all over the South today. >>>Not just Texas. >>> >>>Go into a REAL cafe or local restaurant, and if you >>>can verify that chicken-fried steak, fried chicken, >>>catfish and REAL BBQ are not on the menu in the >>>majority of places? Then I promise to push a goober >>>pea down to down where you live and buy you a meal of >>>your choice! LOL >>> >>>And surely even you don't deny that black-eyed peas >>>are not traditional on New Years Day! Hell's >>>bells...they are refered to around these parts as >>>"Texas Caviar" LOL >>> >>>>- 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. >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>Let me take things on the "Civil War" issue one at a >>>time. First of all, there is no question of where >>>the overwhelming majority of Texans' loyalties were. >>>You mentioned Wikipedia in an earlier post. If you >>>like, please check out this article: <a rel=nofollow >target=_blank rel=nofollow >>target=_blank rel=nofollow >>>target=_blank >>>href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_in_the_Ameri >c >>a >>>n_Civil_War">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_in_th >e >>_ >>>American_Civil_War</a> >>> >>>I pretty much wrote the "Secession Convention and >the >>>Confederacy" section, and contributed a a good part >>>(mostly about Sam Houston) as to the "Unionist" >>>section. I have researched and stand by all the facts >>>within. >>> >>>Speaking of Unionist again? As I stated earlier, one >>>of the biggest sources of confusion of "Civil War" >>>history is to associate "Unionist" as synonymous with >>>"northern sympathizer" (this was brought out in my >>>writing on the topic). With VERY few exceptions, >>>"Unionists" in the South were solidly >>>"Southern/States" rights". They just warned of >>>secession being a wrong move, and possibly lead to a >>>conflict sure to favor the North in the long run. >>> >>>"Unionist" sentiment, as defined in the South in >>>opposition to secession, existed in MANY parts of it. >>>If one goes by elected delegates voting on the >>>question, only (among the Lower South states...as the >>>Upper South rejected it until the War actually >>>started) in South Carolina was the vote of a higher >>>percentage. As a point of comparisson, in Texas it >>>was 166-7. In Mississippi it was 84-15, in Alabama >it >>>was 61-39 annd in Georgia it was 208-89. >>> >>>BUT...when all was said and done? The majority of >>>those, Texas and elsewhere in the Lower South, who >>>initially opposed secession for whatever reason, >>>accepted the verdict and supported the Confederacy. >>>There was not much division in the 7 states of the >>>"Cotton South" as to which color uniform they wore >>> >>>To back up that point? I posted a URL yesterday >>>evening on the existing records, by state, of how >many >>>fought for what side. I went today and found another >>>which broke it down into simple mathematics. Here >>>they are (since Missouri has been an issue, you might >>>want to note it in particular): >>> >>>*********** >>>Percent of records indicating Union Service as to >>>compared to Confederate in the Southern/Border states >>> >>>Alabama - 1.4 Arkansas - 10.1 Florida - 6.2 Georgia >>>-.001 Kentucky - 63% Louisiana - 1.1 Maryland - >89% >>>Mississippi - .005 MISSOURI - 64% North Carolina - >>>2.7 Oklahoma (Indian Territory) -- no records >>>available, although a noteable majority of the "Five >>>Civilized Tribes" allied with the Confederacy. South >>>Carolina - .006 Tennessee -- 27% TEXAS- 2.7 >>>Virginia (includes later day West Virginia) -- 17% >>>*************** >>> >>>In my own honest opinion, I think those figures >pretty >>>well indicate how divided or not a state was on the >>>issue when it came down to brass tacks. >>> >>>Ok. Posted enough and gotta run. I enjoy the >>>exchange, AND, to make it clear, agree that we keep >it >>>civil and not take it personal. >>> >>>Best Texas and Southern Regards, >>>Randy >> >> >>1. Firstly, I don't east chain corporate crap. I'm >>sure we can both agree of the quality of that stuff. I >>grew up with Tex-Mex. I can make my own salsa, >>tortillas, nopalitos, refired beans, rice, etc. form >>scratch. My mom taught me well. I do eat at REAL cafes >>and restaurants. Taquerias are not chains. They are >>usually mom and pop operations that serve the local >>people and their taste. Actually, Austin has been >>really good at maintaining great long-term tex-Mex >>restaurants and taquerias with their "buy local" >>campaign. >> >> >>I am bilingual like many anglos in South Texas (though >>I do have some mestizo ancestry). >> >> >>2. Again, about ranching. I researched this, because >>we talked a lot about ranching in my graduate Texas >>history course. It was so important to the Texas >>economy from the time it was part of Mexico up to the >>20th century. >> >>I was talking to my brother, who is getting a >>doctorate in history if I was right about ranching in >>Texas. Well, he did give me a reference that I looked >>up on the web. As I wrote in a post about my own >>family texas history, ranching has been practiced in >>the family since the 1700's. >> >><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>href="http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/artic >l >>es/RR/azr2.html">http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/o >n >>line/articles/RR/azr2.html</a> >> >>Here is a site on cowboys. >> >><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/ >0 >>814_030815_cowboys.html">http://news.nationalgeographi >c >>.com/news/2003/08/0814_030815_cowboys.html</a> >> >>Cowboys took so many customes and words fromm Spanish >>-rodeo, lasso, etc. >> >>A quote from the piece states, "All of the skills, >>traditions, and ways of working with cattle are very >>much rooted in the Mexican vaquero," Nelson told >>National Geographic News. "If you are a cowboy in the >>U.S. today, you have developed what you know from the >>vaquero." >> >>Also, you argue that most white cowboys were >>southerners moving into the West. That is totally not >>true. I found a good quote from the National parks >>Service history page. >> >>"Most cowboys were young--in their teens and twenties. >>Unlike the all-white casts of Hollywood westerns, the >>historic cowboys were a mix of ethnic groups >>reflecting American society. About a quarter of them >>were African-American, with a strong representation of >>Hispanics, too. English, Irish, German, and French >>immigrants were to be found, and among the finest >>cowboys were American Indians. What bound them >>together was upholding the reputation of their outfit >>(the ranch or cattleman who employed them), the >>teamwork and shared adversity of working cattle on >>roundups and trail drives, and personal pride in what >>they did. " >> >>I have never heard that cowboys were southern whites >>who came west, though some of them were, cowboys and >>the West was the most ethnically diverse of the US at >>the time. >> >>Randy, where are you from? I don't mean this >>disrespectfully, but since you are very proud of your >>southern roots, have you thought about moving to the >>South? >> >>Thanks, >>Travis > > > >Also, my aunt told me something funny the other day. >She said anything east of I-45 is the South. Anything >north of that is Texas as a whole other country. I >thought that was funny.
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.