Seriously. The Oklahoma Panhandle I get, because a map of the state looks like a saucepan. But I’m not seeing anything on the silhouette of Texas that resembles the handle of a pan.
So, what part of Texas is supposed to be the Panhandle? And do I have to hold my head at a funny angle and squint my eyes to see it? I hope not. I’m never any good at those “Magic Eye” 3-D dealies, and if there’s a trick to finding the Panhandle, I’m probably never going to get it.
Consider my ignorance fought. I always thought it was the western protrusion which makes it look like the state of Texas is aiming a six-shooter towards the Pacific ocean.
The Texas “panhandle” is basically everything west of Oklahoma.
Apparently geographers use the term panhandle rather loosely. If one corner juts out significantly, it’s a panhandle.* The proximity to the Oklahoma panhandle may have had something to do with it.
Unless it’s real small compared to the whole area; then it’s a “bootheel” (cf. southeast Missouri).
If you look at amap of the Republic of Texas, you can see that the Panhandle looked a bit more pandhandle-ish. Texas was quite a bit bigger than the State of Texas is today.
Since you “get” the Oklahoma Panhandle it should be duck soup to understand that the Texas Panhandle is the part of Texas that compliments the Oklahoma Panhandle!
Maryland, Idaho and Alaska also have panhandles. Missouri and New Mexico have bootheels. West Virginia has two panhandles, northern and eastern. Personally, I’d have called them pseudopods, since the whole state resembles an amoeba.
For some reason, there doesn’t seem to be a special name for the panhandle-like parts of Alabama and Mississippi.
Since when did Texas ever compliment Oklahoma??
I was going to suggest that the Texas panhandle region is so called because it is full of panhandlers, but I may have to drive through the area some day. . . .