Being similar in some respects to the South does not make Oklahoma part of it.

I have never, ever heard anyone from Oklahoma say they are from the South or that they are a Southerner. Never.

I've heard people from Oklahoma say they are from the South, and say it myself. It's not Deep South or Dixie but it's more Southern than Midwestern or Southwestern, though there are elements of both of those regions. That is what makes Oklahoma such an interesting place that isn't replicated anywhere else in the country.

I've lived in Alabama and have relatives there. I personally just don't see much of a strong comparison. They are southern and we have a much more western attitude (this side of the continental divide). Nor does it make a lot of sense that you'd jump a few states and keep the culture. Besides, we have a ton of people who founded the state come in from Pennsylvania and Kentucky.

Texoma.

Ranching/Similar agricultural ties
Big Oil
Politics/Religion
Multi-regionalism

I don't care what map you pull off the internet, or what history book says what…the only place that is remotely like Oklahoma at large is Texas. Both change DRASTICALLY east to west. Both have a noticeable difference between their multiple major urban centers.

They have their differences, for a variety of reasons, but Oklahoma and Texas are two of the most unique states in the union because both have rich histories that are shared with either no other state (Texas more so than OK, but that's for a variety of reasons) or only between OK/TX.

As for the Poll…quite interesting, as I would have thought OK would be closer to the middle.

Something to consider: File:Most common ancestries in the United States.svg - Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Most_common_ancestries_in_the_United_States.s vg)

I've heard people from Oklahoma say they are from the South, and say it myself. It's not Deep South or Dixie but it's more Southern than Midwestern or Southwestern, though there are elements of both of those regions. That is what makes Oklahoma such an interesting place that isn't replicated anywhere else in the country.

Until this conversation, I had honestly in my 29 years of living in Oklahoma never heard anyone say they were from "the South".

I get there are similarities but there is one huge difference: Oklahoma was not part of the confederacy. Wasn't even a state then of course and some of the tribes fought on both sides of the war.


This is a bit of a silly argument anyway because there is no official answer to the "which region" question. People can and will place it in a variety of classifications.

Something to consider: File:Most common ancestries in the United States.svg - Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Most_common_ancestries_in_the_United_States.s vg)

Hi PennyQuilts! I have seen this map before and while this map does accurately show Oklahoma as having a plurality of people with German ancestry, it is a bit deceptive because all of the other states shaded the same as Oklahoma have overwhelming German ancestry; while Oklahoma has 14.6% of its residents who claim German ancestry (12.6% Irish, 9.6% American, 8.2% English), other Great Plains states like Kansas (33.75% German), Nebraska (38.6% German), and even Missouri (27.4%) were settled by Germans much more heavily.

Kentucky has a comparable level of German ancestry (12.7%), as well as Arkansas (12.5%), but aren't shaded because another ancestry is more concentrated there.

Texoma.

Ranching/Similar agricultural ties
Big Oil
Politics/Religion
Multi-regionalism

I don't care what map you pull off the internet, or what history book says what…the only place that is remotely like Oklahoma at large is Texas. Both change DRASTICALLY east to west. Both have a noticeable difference between their multiple major urban centers.

They have their differences, for a variety of reasons, but Oklahoma and Texas are two of the most unique states in the union because both have rich histories that are shared with either no other state (Texas more so than OK, but that's for a variety of reasons) or only between OK/TX.
.

I agree with this. I never even think if Texas as being part of the "south" even though I grew up near the Louisiana border. It is another world once you cross from Texas into the Louisiana swamps. Same thing with Corpus Christi or San Antonio. I also don't see much similarity with Arkansas, which to me, is more like Louisiana. We darn sure aren't like Missouri. And much of Texas is more western than southern. The area that includes Oklahoma and Texas is larger than New England and no one has any problem distinguishing between New England and it's Mid Atlantic neighbors. South central - that is as good a description as the south or southwest.

Until this conversation, I had honestly in my 29 years of living in Oklahoma never heard anyone say they were from "the South".

I get there are similarities but there is one huge difference: Oklahoma was not part of the confederacy. Wasn't even a state then of course and some of the tribes fought on both sides of the war.


This is a bit of a silly argument anyway because there is no official answer to the "which region" question. People can and will place it in a variety of classifications.

Pete, from what I have read about Oklahoma during the Civil War, Oklahoma was very much part of the Confederacy. The 5 Civilized Tribes all fought for the South to protect their collective economy. The Choctaw were the most eager to fight for the South, while the Cherokee were much more split on the issue, which caused some to eventually flee to Kansas for the war.

From what I understand, the Cherokee were reluctant to go back on their contracts with the U.S. government and the other tribes were not nearly as restrained. The Cherokee were also governed by only full-blood Cherokee, while the Choctaw had many members with considerable influence who were actually half-Choctaw and half-White. Some of these Choctaw were educated in the South and they had very large plantations along the Red River where they held slaves. The Choctaw had a lot more to lose from allying with the U.S. government than with breaking from it.

The Confederacy negotiated with the 5 Civilized tribes and eventually they all broke their contracts with the U.S. government. This isn't secession "technically" because Indian Territory was "technically" an unorganized territory, but they sent representatives to Richmond, Virginia to the Confederate Congress and, of course, fought mostly against the Union.

Indian Territory was abruptly abandoned by U.S. troops in 1861 after the war broke out. All of the forts were then occupied by troops from Texas. For the first half of the war Oklahoma was under Confederate control.

As the Confederacy crumbled and needed troops elsewhere, the forts were abandoned by rebel troops. Stand Watie was a famous Choctaw who became a General for the C.S.A. and he carried out raids on Union supply lines in Oklahoma until after Lee surrendered.

In 1866 slavery was abolished in the Indian Territory and senators from Kansas pushed to punish the tribes for their role in the rebellion, and specifically for being an easy route for rebels assaulting Kansas. It's in this "reconstruction" in Indian Territory that the name Oklahoma originated. The Tribes were forced to sign away their western lands and the role that slaves filled in agriculture was eventually filled by poor Whites migrating from all over the South (before the land runs).

Pete, from what I have read about Oklahoma during the Civil War, Oklahoma was very much part of the Confederacy. The 5 Civilized Tribes all fought for the South to protect their collective economy. The Choctaw were the most eager to fight for the South, while the Cherokee were much more split on the issue, which caused some to eventually flee to Kansas for the war.


While I certainly believe what you've said here, it's wrong inasmuch as there is no such thing a Oklahoma during the Civil War. A state that didn't become a state until nearly 50 years after the fact – and that became a state under circumstances which wildly changed the demographics of the area – dismisses entirely the idea that somehow the history of a group of people who happened to live in the area now known as Oklahoma being apart of the confederacy actually means that the real Oklahoma comes from that historical tradition.

Until this conversation, I had honestly in my 29 years of living in Oklahoma never heard anyone say they were from "the South".

I get there are similarities but there is one huge difference: Oklahoma was not part of the confederacy. Wasn't even a state then of course and some of the tribes fought on both sides of the war.


This is a bit of a silly argument anyway because there is no official answer to the "which region" question. People can and will place it in a variety of classifications.

And if anyone here is familiar with Old Greer County, it's interesting to note that it was founded by the Texas government in 1860, and since it wasn't awarded to Oklahoma Territory until 1896, that area of Oklahoma was considered part of Texas during the Civil War, and despite the fact it wasn't settled, it "technically" seceded.

While I certainly believe what you've said here, it's wrong inasmuch as there is no such thing a Oklahoma during the Civil War. A state that didn't become a state until nearly 50 years after the fact – and that became a state under circumstances which wildly changed the demographics of the area – dismisses entirely the idea that somehow the history of a group of people who happened to live in the area now known as Oklahoma being apart of the confederacy actually means that the real Oklahoma comes from that historical tradition.

This is a wonderful point! The state of Oklahoma did not exist until 50 years later, but I have to think that modern Oklahoma wouldn't exist without the events of the Civil War.

The Tribes gradually lose influence and by 1907 it was clear that they would never have their own state. The demographics of the time between the Civil War and Statehood are what gives the state its culture today.

The Eastern half of Oklahoma (what was Indian Territory until 1907) had no land runs and was settled extensively by White Southerners. The Western half (what became Oklahoma Territory) was a much more mixed bag demographically and geographically.

The land run of 1889 drew mostly people who were demographically the same as the people in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and to some degree Texas. The Northwest section of Oklahoma reflects that to this day.

Officials realized how unfair and dangerous the land runs were (who hasn't heard of sooners?) and a much more calm system of a land lottery was employed to scatter people across what is now southwest Oklahoma (today pretty much south of I-40), but excluding the Old Greer County region (modern Jackson, Harmon, Greer counties, plus some of Beckham). The settlers of this region were mostly from Texas.

To this day you can see the settlement patterns in political maps (and even accent maps).

This is a wonderful point! The state of Oklahoma did not exist until 50 years later, but I have to think that modern Oklahoma wouldn't exist without the events of the Civil War.

The Tribes gradually lose influence and by 1907 it was clear that they would never have their own state. The demographics of the time between the Civil War and Statehood are what gives the state its culture today.

The Eastern half of Oklahoma (what was Indian Territory until 1907) had no land runs and was settled extensively by White Southerners. The Western half (what became Oklahoma Territory) was a much more mixed bag demographically and geographically.

The land run of 1889 drew mostly people who were demographically the same as the people in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and to some degree Texas. The Northwest section of Oklahoma reflects that to this day.

Officials realized how unfair and dangerous the land runs were (who hasn't heard of sooners?) and a much more calm system of a land lottery was employed to scatter people across what is now southwest Oklahoma (today pretty much south of I-40), but excluding the Old Greer County region (modern Jackson, Harmon, Greer counties, plus some of Beckham). The settlers of this region were mostly from Texas.

To this day you can see the settlement patterns in political maps (and even accent maps).

I am not a Native American (a.k.a. Amerind/Indigenous Dude) yet everything you spelled out, above, ignores how badly the indigenous and forced migration/semi-genocidal victimist folk were ripped off all the way around. I guess it just goes to show that History is, indeed, written by the winner.

Still . . . It kind of makes me wonder about what ever happened to that whole State of Sequoyah deal that had the kibosh put on it by the bigwigs back East.

Pete, from what I have read about Oklahoma during the Civil War, Oklahoma was very much part of the Confederacy. The 5 Civilized Tribes all fought for the South to protect their collective economy. The Choctaw were the most eager to fight for the South, while the Cherokee were much more split on the issue, which caused some to eventually flee to Kansas for the war.

From what I understand, the Cherokee were reluctant to go back on their contracts with the U.S. government and the other tribes were not nearly as restrained. The Cherokee were also governed by only full-blood Cherokee, while the Choctaw had many members with considerable influence who were actually half-Choctaw and half-White. Some of these Choctaw were educated in the South and they had very large plantations along the Red River where they held slaves. The Choctaw had a lot more to lose from allying with the U.S. government than with breaking from it.

The Confederacy negotiated with the 5 Civilized tribes and eventually they all broke their contracts with the U.S. government. This isn't secession "technically" because Indian Territory was "technically" an unorganized territory, but they sent representatives to Richmond, Virginia to the Confederate Congress and, of course, fought mostly against the Union.

Indian Territory was abruptly abandoned by U.S. troops in 1861 after the war broke out. All of the forts were then occupied by troops from Texas. For the first half of the war Oklahoma was under Confederate control.

As the Confederacy crumbled and needed troops elsewhere, the forts were abandoned by rebel troops. Stand Watie was a famous Choctaw who became a General for the C.S.A. and he carried out raids on Union supply lines in Oklahoma until after Lee surrendered.

In 1866 slavery was abolished in the Indian Territory and senators from Kansas pushed to punish the tribes for their role in the rebellion. It's in this "reconstruction" in Indian Territory that the name Oklahoma originated. The Tribes were forced to sign away their western lands and the role that slaves filled in agriculture was eventually filled by poor Whites migrating from all over the South (before the land runs).

What the Indians did in the civil war ends up a moot point, once migrations into the state started the majority of the population was soon either from the northern states or Europe and so would not have had the same ax to grind against the north, the oil booms attracted further migration. Sure there we people coming in from the south too but even that is mostly in the southeast areas. Texas which is probably our largest population source from the south also did not seem nearly as bitter after the war either, which might be due to there was not any significant battles or major city laid to waste there, if they had not sent troops east they would have mostly just been supporting them politically, being a supply source and trade route to Mexico (which was how a lot European aid reached the south through).

There was noticeable creep of some of the dialect, religion and food. Tulsa's links in city planning style and major players to northeast was stronger than OKC's but even then OKC's power players were not shy about bringing in designers/engineers for large projects from the northeast either.

I am not a Native American (a.k.a. Amerind/Indigenous Dude) yet everything you spelled out, above, ignores how badly the indigenous and forced migration/genocidal victim folk were ripped off all the way around. I guess it just goes to show that History is, indeed, written by the winner.

It makes me wonder about what ever happened to that whole State of Sequoyah deal that had the kibosh put on it by the bigwigs back East.

I hope I didn't sound purposefully dismissive of what happened to the Native Americans! I just don't know too terribly much about the history of the 5 Civilized Tribes.

What the Indians did in the civil war ends up a moot point, once migrations into the state started the majority of the population was soon either from the northern states or Europe and so would not have had the same ax to grind against the north, the oil booms attracted further migration. Sure there we people coming in from the south too but even that is mostly in the southeast areas. Texas which is probably our largest population source from the south also did not seem nearly as bitter after the war either, which might be due to there was not any significant battles or major city laid to waste there, if they had not sent troops east they would have mostly just been supporting them politically, being a supply source and trade route to Mexico (which was how a lot European aid reached the south through).

There was noticeable creep of some of the dialect, religion and food. Tulsa's links in city planning style and major players to northeast was stronger than OKC's but even then OKC's power players were not shy about bringing in designers/engineers for large projects from the northeast either.

From what I have read about Oklahoma's settlement, there in fact weren't more Northerners settling Oklahoma. Everything I've read seems to point at the exact opposite. Northwestern Oklahoma was the only Northern-dominated section, and while people from Northern states (mainly the midwest), eventually moved here, there were just a heck of a lot more people headed to Oklahoma from the South.

I'm not trying to attack your post or anything like that, and if you can point me to where you found this, I'd admit I was wrong, but 3/4 regions of Oklahoma were settled by people mostly from the South, and the 1/4th that was settled by midwesterners was never even the most heavily populated region of OK.

Edit: Europeans did immigrate to Oklahoma but they hardly formed a majority. Less than 10% of Oklahomans in the 1910 census were from Europe or even had European parents.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/I/IM001.html

You'll have to explain the other side of the veneer because I prefer to be honest and open about things rather than coy. What in the world are you talking about?

I was talking about the veneer of politeness that southern culture hides behind. The post was hardly coy, nor was it especially difficult to interpret. Or so I thought...

I was talking about the veneer of politeness that southern culture hides behind. The post was hardly coy, nor was it especially difficult to interpret. Or so I thought...

I wouldn't confuse being polite or hospitable with anything other than what it is. They ARE polite and hospitable. That doesn't mean they like you - it just means they have good manners.

Something to consider: File:Most common ancestries in the United States.svg - Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Most_common_ancestries_in_the_United_States.s vg)

I noticed that there were very few states that were considered "American" ancestry -- and that was befuddled by British, French and Irish settling. I wonder if the source even considered Native Americans.

I wouldn't confuse being polite or hospitable with anything other than what it is. They ARE polite and hospitable. That doesn't mean they like you - it just means they have good manners.

There is a difference between being polite and being NICE. People in this part of the U.S. tend to be nice. And the politeness and hospitality of the South is debatable too. Maybe at the country club or the Kentucky Derby, but at the convenience store or the fast food restaurant, not so much. As I said, it is a well-crafted veneer.

I noticed that there were very few states that were considered "American" ancestry -- and that was befuddled by British, French and Irish settling. I wonder if the source even considered Native Americans.

Here is the Census map of which ancestries form pluralities by county. The counties in Eastern Oklahoma have Native American pluralities.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg

Edit: Compare Oklahoma in that map to the map of land that was opened for settlement after 1889.
http://www.okhistory.org/images/research/landopeningmap.gif

Oklahoma has a complicated history when it comes to Native Americans. As I understand it, and I am no expert, nor am I Native American (so I write this with some trepidation), the Native Americans indigenous to this area were the Caddo speaking, Wichita, Kiowa with some nomadic plains Indians who periodically came through because this was included in their hunting range. The Apache got a good toe hold at some point relatively recently. Long before the horrible Trail of Tears, the United States was removing eastern and north central tribes to the area to make room for european expansion. Most of these Native Americans weren't indigenous to the area.

The Five Civilized tribes were from the SE and were fairly advanced in terms of agriculture, property holding, etc., Unlike the warlike forest tribes, they got along relatively well with their European neighbors (at least in comparison) and adopted much of the culture. For those tribes, it was not that big a stretch because they were already on a similar cultural trajectory. Many of them, including the Cherokee, went to the Oklahoma territory, voluntarily, making the effort to swing decent deals with the government. Most of them, however, didn't want to go and held onto their native lands in the south as long as possible. Again, as I understand it, some unscrupulous and sketchy "representatives" of the tribes struck a deal with the United States (and I suspect the US was complicit) agreeing to migrate to this area. Using that justification, the United States "removed them" causing horrible loss of life and misery for them.

Again, as I understand it, in 1861, when the civil war was getting underway, the US passed laws that allowed them to renegotiate the treaties of Indian tribes that sided with the south. The Five Civilized tribes did so and the United States used this as the legal reason to be able to open up the territories in the land runs.

That's the way I understood the gist of it but I am sure it is filled with errors and such so take it with a grain of salt.

There is a difference between being polite and being NICE. People in this part of the U.S. tend to be nice. And the politeness and hospitality of the South is debatable too. Maybe at the country club or the Kentucky Derby, but at the convenience store or the fast food restaurant, not so much. As I said, it is a well-crafted veneer.

People ARE nice here. I suppose it comes down to the definition of nice. I think a lot of us, myself included, equate it with being kind, sweet people. And I think Oklahoma definitely fits that bill. But there is also the use of nice that refers to just decent manners. "Did the clerk threaten you in any way?" "Oh no, he was nice enough..." That sort of thing.

Anyhoo, you and I have different experiences. I find that I try to keep a poker face on when I am in Louisiana and the Carolinas (haven't been to Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia, recently so can't compare) because if I look lost, I get mobbed with people offering directions or asking if I need some help.

I was brought up in San Francisco and San Diego; liked Arizona (4 years); looooooooved South Carolina (18 years); I like Oklahoma (not just because I have to be here) because I have had and do have the absolute best neighbors, and the cost of living is fantastic (1999 to present); and I hope to live the last chapter of my life along the coast of Oregon (Coos Bay or Astoria).

I went salmon and sturgeon fishing in August of 1987 at Astoria. It was 38 degrees when we got up and the high that day was 44. Bummer for summer weather.