That’s interesting and puts my 1-day drive from San Antonio to Phoenix, Arizona in a European perspective - it was the equivalent of driving from Milan, Italy to Dublin, Ireland.
It’s all America to me.
Klobasnek, which were invented by Texas Czechs.
Funny thing is that what we know as kolaches originally came from one tiny region of what is now the Czech Republic. Like Texas German, it’s something you can almost only find here now. The kolaches you find elsewhere in the country or in the Czech republic are really different.
These were the kind he baked. Are they considered the traditional kolaches?
Texas Czech kolaches, sure.
They’re different from what you might see elsewhere.
In Houston, boudin-filled kolaches may be purchased. Just another example of savory klobasniki. (Sausage & jalapeno cheese fillings are also common.)
I just saw an article on the Chronicle website this morning about some place out in Pearland doing some beef brisket kolache this weekend. Looked really good.
There are cultural differences but they hardly are separate countries despite what neo-Confederate reactionary romantacists and effete social liberals (for whom regarding white Southerners are subhuman savages is the last acceptable bigotry) may say.
Thank you. When I was at Dartmouth, my adviser absolutely hated Texas for some reason and went on extended rants about it. I don’t even know if she had even been there. When I pointed out that at least half of my family was from Texas, she simply replied ‘I am sorry’ and carried on. She even refused to talk to my mother when she came up to visit because she was from Texas even though my mother was probably more successful academically than her even back then and that is more true today.
The irony knows no end. I live in the Northeast now against my will (Boston area) through circumstances but I would move to Texas in a less than a heartbeat if I could. The economy and opportunity is still vibrant and the cost of living is still affordable. Texas isn’t for everyone but it is a very diverse state with a whole lot going for it especially compared to the rest of the country. Almost anyone could find their niche some places there and be better off overall than where they are now.
Damn… I could have done without being aware of that. Now I’m going to wonder about that all day.
You’re talking about Killen’s. Best barbecue in the Houston area. Not quite Hill Country level good, but it is the closest we’ve got.
Not quite. The Natives revolted and separated. Texas had only a small Mexican minority, around 1/5th of the population.
Santa Anna was a despot who abrogated the Constitution, and drove secession movements in several Mexican States, not just Texas.
In other words, the majority rebelled against a tyrant and separated.
Not just Texas, the entire southwest part of the now United States was clearly Mexican territory. Mexican history that is taught in Mexico tells quite a different narrative than the one you offer up. As I believe Native Americans would have another take on it as well. Point being that the region has distinctively separate cultural influence than say the east coast or old south and could be viewed by an outsider as almost like another country. Which it is not, it’s a region of the USA of which there are several.
Texas now is quite different than when my family left there almost 50 years ago. My white father married a Mexican American woman and could not find work due to racist aspect of it being a mixed marriage. Now there are so many northern transplants down there my families that stayed there feel outnumbered.
Clearly? It was part of Mexico from 1821 to 1836. During that time, Mexicans were a small minority there. Mexico had little control, often being unable to collect taxes or settle unrest. Much of the area was in local control or lawless.
Mexico at one time also included all of Central America, do note.
Yes, indeed, I imagine that Mexican history that is taught in Mexico differs considerable from reality.:rolleyes:
It was part of Spain before then, hispanic people didn’t just show up. They established outpost much like the English did and guess what, the people revolted! Texas was only a republic for 9 nine years BTW. The non-hispanic people who moved there signed an agreement with Mexico to be settlers and then reneged seeking a better deal; they did the right thing for themselves. I do not see a need for the rolleyes, just what are you trying to state? That only US history matters, the history of the victor?
The original questions pertain to why would someone consider the Southwest to be a separate country. There is significant hispanic culture in the Southwest along with Native American and western pioneer influence. That’s the point; it’s uniquely different from much of the country.
So how would you describe Dallas or Garland? Would Fort Worth be more country or southern than Dallas or Garland?
Is Dallas or Garland not that southern any more?
Sweat, listen to what has already been posted.
A big US city is going to be less like the rurals of whatever state it’s in. Big cities are a mix.
Dallas, Garland, Fort Worth, Arlington, etc… are pretty much just one giant urban and suburban metroplex. Just like Houston, Pasadena, Bellaire, Sharpstown, etc… Or L.A., San Gabriel, Pasadena, West Hollywood, etc…
Get away from the giant area affected by the large city and suburban sprawl, and then you might star seeing some real regional differences.
Texas as a whole isn’t really “Southern” or “Western”. We’re where they come together.
I’d say that as far as the cities’ images that they’re trying to portray, Dallas tries really, really hard to portray a image of upper-middle class/upper class sophistication and luxury. Fort Worth’s schtick is more cowboy and western centered- they call themselves “Cowtown”, they have a cow as their city logo, and their chief tourist attraction is the Stockyards, which is the part of town where the old stock yards and railhead for the cattle industry in the 19th and early 20th centuries were.
However, both cities are just like all the others in reality- they have nice, ok and cruddy parts of town.
Garland isn’t really much different than Richardson, Plano, Mesquite or any of the other former farm towns turned suburbs in the 60s and 70s in the area. Maybe not the “in” place for affluent young families to live anymore, but not totally run down either. I was half making a joke about Mesquite, because it has a sort of white-trash reputation, although from what I can tell, they’re not any different than any of the other inner suburbs.
The outer suburbs (Frisco, Little Elm, Wylie, Murphy, etc…) are somewhat different in that most of them were hick towns 15 years ago, and now are overwhelmed by housing developments and affluent suburbanites.
The other places I mentioned are small rural towns on the edges of the DFW orbit; while they’re part of the economy of the area, they’re not terribly integrated into the actual social fabric and remain small rural towns in that regard.
None of them are “Southern” as opposed to “Western”. I’d say that a Garland-ite would have more in common with someone from say… Sugarland in the Houston area than they would with the “South” or “West”.
So you are saying you will not see many of the redneck element or here comes honey boo boo in Dallas ,Fort Worth or Garland.That is more in the country and small towns.
So why does Florida and Tennessee seem more white trash and redneck like than Texas or very much so Dallas ,Fort Worth or Garland.