There has always been a stereotype in the U.S. that folks in the South were not as intelligent/cultured/advanced as people in the North.
Some of this bias was warranted, most of it was not.
During the 70's there was a mass migration to Texas and the South in general, mostly because it offered opportunities that other areas did not.
I was one of those people, moving from NY in 1979.
When I first arrived here it was obvious that some Texans did not like these "Yankees", seeing them as a kind of disrespectful carpetbagger.
There were so many of these northern transplants with their "I LOVE NY" bumperstickers that a common sight were Texans with bumperstickers that read "Love NY, Take I-95 North"
The period between '75-'95 saw almost a double in population, with the good majority of these documented immigrants being the very Yankees that had always belittled the South and it's people.
This made native Texans very defensive, and looking for ways to hold on to THEIR culture and history, hence the rise in "Texas Pride" in the form of goofy T-Shirts and self-aggrandizing mottos.
It was a way for these folks to keep some of the identity that was quickly being diluted by these new Texans.
And I can certainly appreciate them wanting to do so.
The Texas that exists today is a far cry from the Texas that existed in the 60's & 70's.....it's been infiltrated and (over)populated by the very Yankees that used to look at them as being inferior.
Many of these Yankees, myself included, realized that this Texas/Southern stereotype was bullshit......and some even proclaimed themselves as proud Texans in almost an apologetic way.
Whatever Texas is today, it's a mixture of people from all 50 states, moreso than any other state in the union.
So when I see that same dumbass stereotype, and "F Texas" sentiment, I see it as pure ignorance....and go out of my way to call it as such.
Probably the craziest thing is that the "Anti-Yankee" sentiment that was common here 30 years ago is virtually non-existant today, and now the supposed more intelligent/cultured/advanced Northeners are the ones taking potshots at Texas.
I hope this explains how ridiculous the whole scenario is, and why folks like Harvey and I stand up for people that welcomed us from other places and made us one of their own.
That's pretty interesting, but also ironic. Texas was a refuge for wealthy southerners that fled when the Union was invading southern cities and the countryside.
the term "carpetbagger" was used to describe northerners who were capitalizing on cheap land in the south. they would get off the train carrying all their personal belongs in the biggest bag they could find, which at the time happened to be a carpet bag.
what is ironic, is the the union dollars help reconstruct the south, while the texas money stayed in texas and built oil companies and cattle ranches.
for texans to claim themselves as southerners and call northerners carpetbaggers is extremely hypocritcal.
Your argument is historically misleading. A) Reconstruction is largely irrelevant to modern population patterns in the United States. There have been too many Great Migrations since that time. B) Your simplification of Northern participation in Reconstruction to "Union dollars helped to rebuild the South" is woeful. The societal rifts caused by this painful transitory period in our country's past are not be glossed over. C) The historical trend in energy production in this country is from the wealthy Northeast to the Southwest and then eventually the deep South. The Texas oil industry is relatively new. At least stereotype correctly.
That's Austin's population growth data. You can see that since 1940 the growth in population has been declining steadily. From 1970 to 2000 it is basically stable. From 2000-2010 growth is expected to decline by 50%. Where's the explosion of Kaleeforhnyuns?
That's Austin's population growth data. You can see that since 1940 the growth in population has been declining steadily. From 1970 to 2000 it is basically stable. From 2000-2010 growth is expected to decline by 50%. Where's the explosion of Kaleeforhnyuns?
Those percentages are pretty misleading.
Between 1990 and 2000 they added 180,000 residents which is equal to the entire population in 1960.
It's more than doubled in size since 1970 and that is somehow measured as a "decline"??
That's Austin's population growth data. You can see that since 1940 the growth in population has been declining steadily. From 1970 to 2000 it is basically stable. From 2000-2010 growth is expected to decline by 50%. Where's the explosion of Kaleeforhnyuns?
Those percentages are pretty misleading.
Between 1990 and 2000 they added 180,000 residents which is equal to the entire population in 1960.
It's more than doubled in size since 1970 and that is somehow measured as a "decline"??
That's Austin's population growth data. You can see that since 1940 the growth in population has been declining steadily. From 1970 to 2000 it is basically stable. From 2000-2010 growth is expected to decline by 50%. Where's the explosion of Kaleeforhnyuns?
Those numbers are only considering the greater Austin area...when much of the influx has settled in the burbs surrounding Austin.
And it cracks me up that anyone would claim my perception of a giant influx of Californians as private mindgarden material. Whatever y'all say, internet dudes.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
And leave it to a Northerner to tell us that Texas isn't allowed to consider itself as part of the South...oh yeah, that is unless it's in the context of dissing the South.
That's Austin's population growth data. You can see that since 1940 the growth in population has been declining steadily. From 1970 to 2000 it is basically stable. From 2000-2010 growth is expected to decline by 50%. Where's the explosion of Kaleeforhnyuns?
Those numbers are only considering the greater Austin area...when much of the influx has settled in the burbs surrounding Austin.
And it cracks me up that anyone would claim my perception of a giant influx of Californians as private mindgarden material. Whatever y'all say, internet dudes.
I clearly recall you posting a picture of the Austin downtown skyline and attributing its growth to CA carpetbaggeurs. But now you're saying they live in teh burbs. Either way you sound paranoid.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
That's Austin's population growth data. You can see that since 1940 the growth in population has been declining steadily. From 1970 to 2000 it is basically stable. From 2000-2010 growth is expected to decline by 50%. Where's the explosion of Kaleeforhnyuns?
Those numbers are only considering the greater Austin area...when much of the influx has settled in the burbs surrounding Austin.
And it cracks me up that anyone would claim my perception of a giant influx of Californians as private mindgarden material. Whatever y'all say, internet dudes.
I clearly recall you posting a picture of the Austin downtown skyline and attributing its growth to CA carpetbaggeurs. But now you're saying they live in teh burbs. Either way you sound paranoid.
Guess you never heard of working downtown while living in the burbs.
in any event I promise I personally won't move to Austin anytime soon.
though I've enjoyed my visits.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Those that either naturally or by conscious choice fit in with our culture are fine by me. It's those who are intent on turning Austin into Riverside that are the problem.
I might have read this too quickly but I believe the answer to the question - in the report itself - is "no."
This part from page 4 lays it out:
"Contrary to what you may expect from a survey of license plates on I-35, California is not the primary culprit behind our growth management challenges. The vast majority of population growth in the Capital Area is the result of people moving here from other places in Texas."
" if Texas were an island unreachable from the rest of the U.S., we?d still be dealing with 70 percent of the population growth that the Capital Area has been experiencing."
Stop scapegoating Californians!
b/w
You're welcome to 'em!
In all seriousness though, a report released this week does suggest that the influx of people into CA has finally slowed to the point where (and this surprises the hell out of me) the native-born population in the state is now the majority again.
I might have read this too quickly but I believe the answer to the question - in the report itself - is "no."
This part from page 4 lays it out:
"Contrary to what you may expect from a survey of license plates on I-35, California is not the primary culprit behind our growth management challenges. The vast majority of population growth in the Capital Area is the result of people moving here from other places in Texas."
" if Texas were an island unreachable from the rest of the U.S., we?d still be dealing with 70 percent of the population growth that the Capital Area has been experiencing."
Stop scapegoating Californians!
Yes, I knew someone would play that card. But Texans have been moving here to go to college for over a hundred years. That's nothing new...nor is anyone here when they or even other Texans looking for high tech work move here. We actually need more of a traditional Texas country and western steez here in Austin, so please bring that with y'all.
But after a long running average of arounf 3,500 Californians moving here per year, we experienced that number exploding during the mid 2000's on. And it is enough to see Cali license plates all over the place along with those same cars holding up traffic as they scoot around not knowing where they are going next.
But yes, all accounts have the population in this area exploding to next-level proportions within the next 20 years, whereevr those folks may be coming from...so I guess we might as well get used to it. I'm actually thinking of ways to make money off of those newbies, as I'm ready for a career change.
In all seriousness, I find all these kind of migration patterns interesting, especially since California has historically been both the recipient of massive migration but also the source of it (ask people in Oregon and Texas, apparently) which makes me curious as to the type of Californian who leaves the state.
So Harvey: what's the typical profile of these Cali carpetbaggeuers?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Not as openly friendly, too reliant on establishment culture, more prone to visit chain stores than mom and pops, resistant to traditional, non-urban Texas country and western steez, less likely to interact with blacks and Latinos from the other side of the tracks...basically far too sheltered and suburban.
Not as openly friendly, too reliant on establishment culture, more prone to visit chain stores than mom and pops, resistant to traditional, non-urban Texas country and western steez, less likely to interact with blacks and Latinos from the other side of the tracks...basically far too sheltered and suburban.
My dyed rectangle piece of cloth is better than your dyed rectangle of piece of cloth. The dirt under my feet is better than the dirt under your feet. If you insult either one, YOU INSULT ME!
Harvey's complaints about Cali carpetbaggeurs invading TX are similar to those raised by certain Cali folks about people of Mexican descent invading (really, coming back to) California. "They don't fit in, they're not down with the culture!" Changing immigration patterns are a fact of life. DEAL WITH IT.
Your implication that riverside is representative of all of California undemines your whole argument. Even people in the IE know teh IE sucks.
I don't think that's what he was saying. He was saying that this particular BRAND of Californians are trying to turn suburban Austin into Riverside. But I agree with you - I'm not sure anyone out in the Imperial thinks the county should be the template for anything.
Off-topic but someone standing behind Gumbel just flashed "the finger" on national television. LOL.
Comments
Your argument is historically misleading. A) Reconstruction is largely irrelevant to modern population patterns in the United States. There have been too many Great Migrations since that time. B) Your simplification of Northern participation in Reconstruction to "Union dollars helped to rebuild the South" is woeful. The societal rifts caused by this painful transitory period in our country's past are not be glossed over. C) The historical trend in energy production in this country is from the wealthy Northeast to the Southwest and then eventually the deep South. The Texas oil industry is relatively new. At least stereotype correctly.
And Harvey:
1930 53,120 52.3%
1940 87,930 65.5%
1950 132,459 50.6%
1960 186,545 40.8%
1970 251,808 35.0%
1980 345,496 37.2%
1990 472,020 36.6%
2000 656,562 39.1%
Est. 2009 757,688 15.4%
That's Austin's population growth data. You can see that since 1940 the growth in population has been declining steadily. From 1970 to 2000 it is basically stable. From 2000-2010 growth is expected to decline by 50%. Where's the explosion of Kaleeforhnyuns?
Those percentages are pretty misleading.
Between 1990 and 2000 they added 180,000 residents which is equal to the entire population in 1960.
It's more than doubled in size since 1970 and that is somehow measured as a "decline"??
A decline in growth, not population.
didya ever find out if that LP was worth anything?
$25-$35 tops.
guess Ill break the seal and keep it then...
Those numbers are only considering the greater Austin area...when much of the influx has settled in the burbs surrounding Austin.
And it cracks me up that anyone would claim my perception of a giant influx of Californians as private mindgarden material. Whatever y'all say, internet dudes.
I clearly recall you posting a picture of the Austin downtown skyline and attributing its growth to CA carpetbaggeurs. But now you're saying they live in teh burbs. Either way you sound paranoid.
Guess you never heard of working downtown while living in the burbs.
And as far as my supposed paranoia...
http://data.capcog.org/Information_Clearinghouse/data-points/august_2008/Can_We_Blame_California.pdf
in any event I promise I personally won't move to Austin anytime soon.
though I've enjoyed my visits.
Stae of Texas 267,338 SQ MI
State of Western Australia 1,021,478 SQ MI
Texas is a suburb to us.
I might have read this too quickly but I believe the answer to the question - in the report itself - is "no."
This part from page 4 lays it out:
"Contrary to what you may expect from a survey of license plates on I-35, California is not the primary culprit behind our growth management challenges. The vast majority of population growth in the Capital Area is the result of people moving here from other places in Texas."
" if Texas were an island unreachable from the rest of the U.S., we?d still be dealing with 70 percent of the population growth that the Capital Area has been experiencing."
Stop scapegoating Californians!
b/w
You're welcome to 'em!
In all seriousness though, a report released this week does suggest that the influx of people into CA has finally slowed to the point where (and this surprises the hell out of me) the native-born population in the state is now the majority again.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/01/local/la-me-homegrown1-2010apr01
Population Western Australia - 2.2 Million
Population Texas - 24.8 million
Who's the suburb?
Yeah and most of them are Californians apparently, yall aint BIG.
0.9 people per kilometer, my backyard is BIGGER than Texas.
Yes, I knew someone would play that card. But Texans have been moving here to go to college for over a hundred years. That's nothing new...nor is anyone here when they or even other Texans looking for high tech work move here. We actually need more of a traditional Texas country and western steez here in Austin, so please bring that with y'all.
But after a long running average of arounf 3,500 Californians moving here per year, we experienced that number exploding during the mid 2000's on. And it is enough to see Cali license plates all over the place along with those same cars holding up traffic as they scoot around not knowing where they are going next.
But yes, all accounts have the population in this area exploding to next-level proportions within the next 20 years, whereevr those folks may be coming from...so I guess we might as well get used to it. I'm actually thinking of ways to make money off of those newbies, as I'm ready for a career change.
So Harvey: what's the typical profile of these Cali carpetbaggeuers?
So basically, what they were like in California.
Even people in the IE know teh IE sucks.
The data YOU presented seems to indicate your problem is with other migrating texans, not people who moved to Texas from Cali, like yourself.
Just sayin'
I don't think that's what he was saying. He was saying that this particular BRAND of Californians are trying to turn suburban Austin into Riverside. But I agree with you - I'm not sure anyone out in the Imperial thinks the county should be the template for anything.
Off-topic but someone standing behind Gumbel just flashed "the finger" on national television. LOL.