Inspired by the conversation in the First National Center thread, I wanted to start this topic in earnest.

Growing up in Oklahoma, I heard it variously referred to as part of the Great Plains, Midwest, Southwest, and South. I think there's an argument to be made that Oklahoma could be a part of any of these regions.

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains), the Great Plains are a "broad expanse of flat land (a plain), much of it covered in prairie, steppe, and grassland, located in the interior of North America." I don't think it's controversial that it's not considered an American cultural region, as the Midwest and the South commonly are. So what do we consider Oklahoma's cultural region to be?

Usually when this topic is discussed online, I see comments expressing certainty that Oklahoma is absolutely in the South and not in the Midwest, or vice versa. Perhaps there's a fair amount of individual identity tied up in the outcome of what Oklahoma's region is, and that makes some posters dismissive or one-sided in their discussion.

With that being said, I do think there is more outright dismissal of Oklahoma being considered a Southern state, in spite of an abundance of evidence that it culturally fits in better than any other region.

Cheers.

My mother is from Mississippi with almost all of her family residing there, Lousiana, and South Carolina. When I've asked them, Oklahoma is definitely not considered "The South" to them.

My father is from Wisconsin with all of his family residing there or in Minnesota. They absolutely do not consider Oklahoma a Midwestern state.

I think it's fascinating to hear the debate of where Oklahoma fits. I don't even really know myself. Oklahoma is a nexus of a lot of different regions/cultures depending on who you ask. I think it helps make Oklahoma a tad more interesting seeing how it doesn't neatly fit anywhere.

Yeah, its funny because "The South" is not really a geographic description, its more of a nick name for all the states south of the Mason Dixon line. The Great Plains is actual geographic description.

As a geography nut, here is where I stand...

Oklahoma is not North enough to be in the "Midwest" . Midwestern states include Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin.
Oklahoma is not East enough to be in what's considered "The South." Arkansas and Louisiana are the western most "Southern States"
Oklahoma is not West enough to be considered part of the "Intermountain West"

Oklahoma is a "Southwestern" state, along with Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Or you can consider it a "Great Plains" state as mentioned above which then removes any directional aspect. That would include Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, S. Dakota, N. Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. In spite of their mountainous topography on the western sides, large portions of Eastern Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Montana all are part of the "Great Plains".

Oklahoma was not even a state during the Civil War, thus we were never part of The South in the same way as the confederate states. That's a big distinction.

There are influences from the south (religion, some cuisine) but we are a big mix that has never really fit neatly in one region.

Southern Great Plains is probably the best label.

Here is a cool YouTube video showing the US Civil War day to day and who occupied which area and at what time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDEK4gJBKW0

My mother is from Mississippi with almost all of her family residing there, Lousiana, and South Carolina. When I've asked them, Oklahoma is definitely not considered "The South" to them.

My father is from Wisconsin with all of his family residing there or in Minnesota. They absolutely do not consider Oklahoma a Midwestern state.

I think it's fascinating to hear the debate of where Oklahoma fits. I don't even really know myself. Oklahoma is a nexus of a lot of different regions/cultures depending on who you ask. I think it helps make Oklahoma a tad more interesting seeing how it doesn't neatly fit anywhere.

It really is fascinating. I have relatives all over the country and they all seem to have a different position on Oklahoma's regional affiliation too.

What's interesting to me is that my rural Oklahoma family all have very pronounced Southern accents, but consider themselves Southwesterners.


Oklahoma was not even a state during the Civil War, thus we were never part of The South in the same way as the confederate states. That's a big distinction.

There are influences from the south (religion, some cuisine) but we are a big mix that has never really fit neatly in one region.

Southern Great Plains is probably the best label.

Yeah, I see the "Oklahoma was not a state during the Civil War" point brought up pretty much every time this discussion takes place. It seems to ignore a couple of things, though.

The status of the Indian Territory was pretty firmly pro-Confederate; which isn't to say that there wasn't tribal support for the Union, but all of the Upper South/border states were similarly torn between secession and remaining in the Union.

But the Confederacy had signed treaties with all of the Native Tribes within the Indian Territory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_of_the_Confederate_States_of_Amer ica). This allowed the tribes a couple of delegates to Confederate Congress in Richmond, Virginia (including well-known Choctaw planter and slaveholder Robert M. Jones). I rarely see this discussed, however.

Also, Kentucky, despite never having seceded from the Union, is almost always considered to be part of the South. Is it because of the perception of a shared culture to the rest of the former Confederacy? Other border states share in that as well.

Some sort of tie to the Confederacy is present in all of these states, but there's a separate (though related) point to be made that it's the presence of Southern culture that makes a state "Southern."

Very interesting as well.

^

The point about the Civil War is that the support was very loose and based on the tribes.

There was no other population to hold and hand down the Southern culture and attitudes, which is a huge difference from the confederate states.

Spend some time in Georgia or Mississippi or even Tennessee or Arkansas and you'll see a big difference.

And remember, a big part of the Southern culture was rooted in the confederacy and slavery. Oklahoma was never really part of that in the same way.

^

The point about the Civil War is that the support was very loose and based on the tribes.

There was no other population to hold and hand down the Southern culture and attitudes, which is a huge difference from the confederate states.

...

And remember, a big part of the Southern culture was rooted in the confederacy and slavery. Oklahoma was never really part of that in the same way.

Oklahoma was predominately settled by white Southerners after the Civil War. That's where this element of Southern culture in Oklahoma stems from.



Spend some time in Georgia or Mississippi or even Tennessee or Arkansas and you'll see a big difference.


I'm not sure what you mean here. Small town eastern Oklahoma is pretty similar to small town western Arkansas (for me, anyway). Same as small town southwest Oklahoma from nearby Texas, or the Oklahoma Panhandle and the Texas Panhandle.

Oklahoma was predominately settled by white Southerners after the Civil War. That's where this element of Southern culture in Oklahoma stems from.

What is your source for this?

I think the Confederate link to Oklahoma is underplayed by the tribes that had slaves. I am not an expert by any means, but I do recall that the "Cherokee Freedmen" are the slaves (and descendants) the Cherokee tribe had that were freed after the war and the US government forced the Cherokee to give them tribal membership, regardless of blood. I think that is what the legal dispute was based on within the last 20 years.

I recall Stan Watie was a Confederate General whose troops were involved in the last military action of the Civil War, which happened in Oklahoma.

Hopefully someone can help fill this out for me.

I most generally refer to it as the "Heartland", but sometimes the Southern Plains. I find the culture to a be a very appealing blend of the Midwest and the South, both of which I have lived in.

What is your source for this?

i'm curious about this as well, because David Payne and most of his Boomer Army came from Indiana and Kansas. There are articles in Chicago and New York newspapers at the times talking about train loads of people from these cities leaving for the land run...

There are several Oklahoma towns named for foreign cities due to the populations that settled there, like Prague and Kremlin.

And large populations of Czechs settled in Yukon, Germans in Harrah, Italians in and around McAlester, etc.

Far and Away was the story of Ron Howard's Irish family that participated in a land run.

Interestingly, I seemed to have stirred up this debate by responding to a poster claiming Oklahoma to be part of the southwest and I was to respond. I claimed that it was controversial to say Oklahoma is part of the SW US as my past experiences have shown most reaction by people here to claim to be the midwest or 'the south.' For some reason, it seems like people borderline take offense to the notion and want to drive home the fact that they don't think Oklahoma is part of the southwest or anything to with it and I had better remember it lol

What is your source for this?


i'm curious about this as well, because David Payne and most of his Boomer Army came from Indiana and Kansas. There are articles in Chicago and New York newspapers at the times talking about train loads of people from these cities leaving for the land run...

Yeah, the Boomers (and broadly the land run settlers) did not comprise the majority of the settlers in early Oklahoma. But the trains were absolutely real; in that first 1889 run, there were trains departing from Arkansas City, KS (purportedly full of Midwesterners/Northerners) and trains departing from Purcell, I.T. (full of Southerners). Subsequently, Guthrie famously was a Republican stronghold and Oklahoma City a Democrat one.

Generally, northwest/north-central Oklahoma was predominately settled by Midwesterners, while Southerners settled in the rest of the state. Historic voting/voter registration patterns, linguistic divides, religious affiliation, and even agricultural history follow this alignment.

The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma (https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entryname=SETTLEMENT%20PATTERNS) is a decent primer covering the demographic history of Oklahoma. They paint a pretty cosmopolitan picture of Oklahoma's early settlers, but mention in their land opening articles where most of the settlers of any particular land opening came from.

This old map from the OSU Digital Collection tries to depict the U.S.'s rural cultural regions (https://dc.library.okstate.edu/digital/collection/OKMaps/id/3357/). While outdated, it does a pretty good job of breaking down the United States into subregions based on settlement patterns and economic situations. Its age almost lends it more weight, as I see it.

Ancestry.com came out with a fascinating map showing some of the shared genetics in the United States. (https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/what-770000-tubes-of-saliva-reveal-about-america/) This tends to back up the fact that Oklahoma was pretty convincingly settled from the Upper South.

Also, there are lots of old masters theses floating around online as PDFs detailing Oklahoma's settlement patterns, and are often good reads too.

There are several Oklahoma towns named for foreign cities due to the populations that settled there, like Prague and Kremlin.

And large populations of Czechs settled in Yukon, Germans in Harrah, Italians in and around McAlester, etc.

Far and Away was the story of Ron Howard's Irish family that participated in a land run.

lots of polish in harrah as well

Inspired by the conversation in the First National Center thread, I wanted to start this topic in earnest.

Growing up in Oklahoma, I heard it variously referred to as part of the Great Plains, Midwest, Southwest, and South. I think there's an argument to be made that Oklahoma could be a part of any of these regions.

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains), the Great Plains are a "broad expanse of flat land (a plain), much of it covered in prairie, steppe, and grassland, located in the interior of North America." I don't think it's controversial that it's not considered an American cultural region, as the Midwest and the South commonly are. So what do we consider Oklahoma's cultural region to be?

Usually when this topic is discussed online, I see comments expressing certainty that Oklahoma is absolutely in the South and not in the Midwest, or vice versa. Perhaps there's a fair amount of individual identity tied up in the outcome of what Oklahoma's region is, and that makes some posters dismissive or one-sided in their discussion.

With that being said, I do think there is more outright dismissal of Oklahoma being considered a Southern state, in spite of an abundance of evidence that it culturally fits in better than any other region.

Cheers.

not controversial just flat out not correct

There are several Oklahoma towns named for foreign cities due to the populations that settled there, like Prague and Kremlin.

And large populations of Czechs settled in Yukon, Germans in Harrah, Italians in and around McAlester, etc.

Far and Away was the story of Ron Howard's Irish family that participated in a land run.

Oklahoma should be proud of its communities, for sure.

In 1910, less than 3% of Oklahoma's population was foreign born. (https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=IM001) But just under 10% of the population was either foreign-born or born to foreign parents.

Interestingly, I seemed to have stirred up this debate by responding to a poster claiming Oklahoma to be part of the southwest and I was to respond. I claimed that it was controversial to say Oklahoma is part of the SW US as my past experiences have shown most reaction by people here to claim to be the midwest or 'the south.' For some reason, it seems like people borderline take offense to the notion and want to drive home the fact that they don't think Oklahoma is part of the southwest or anything to with it and I had better remember it lol

I'm with you. Oklahoma in the Southwest.

And the US Fish and Wildlife Service along with the Department of Interior also agrees with us,. That settles it for me!!

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/AboutUs/

Interestingly, I seemed to have stirred up this debate by responding to a poster claiming Oklahoma to be part of the southwest and I was to respond. I claimed that it was controversial to say Oklahoma is part of the SW US as my past experiences have shown most reaction by people here to claim to be the midwest or 'the south.' For some reason, it seems like people borderline take offense to the notion and want to drive home the fact that they don't think Oklahoma is part of the southwest or anything to with it and I had better remember it lol

This is the map I remember learning in school:

16787

^

Yep. That was widely distributed.

That map is interesting because I just don't feel like Oklahoma has much in common with Arizona or New Mexico. Maybe eastern New Mexico but certainly not Santa Fe/Taos.

I think the trouble with this argument is that we are trying to lump the whole state into one geographic area, and while that may work with some states that are smack dab in the middle of a geography (Iowa is 100% Midwest, Mississippi is 100% southern) I just don't think it's uniformly possible. I think Oklahoma is literally at a crossroads of Midwest, South and Southwest. Do you think Guymon and Talequah are very similar to each other? I don't.

Interestingly, I consider southeast Missouri/bootheel way more southern than anything in Oklahoma. On the other hand, parts of inner St. Louis resemble Baltimore and Philadelphia way more than they do Minneapolis or Columbus.

I guess its interesting fodder for an internet chat board. Certainly more elevated than anything in the politics thread :)

It’s actually not controversial at all. Folks are just more sensitive than they otherwise might have been historically.

Oklahoma was predominately settled by white Southerners after the Civil War. That's where this element of Southern culture in Oklahoma stems from.

You stated this as fact then posted a bunch of links that merely show settlers came from all over, not "predominately" white Southerners.


It seems like you are very invested in trying to portray Oklahoma as part of the South.

From one of your links:


In 1907, at the time Oklahoma became the forty-sixth state, it could have been described as a patchwork quilt of destroyed Indian reservations. Its citizenry consisted of southern cotton farmers, midwestern wheat farmers, and western cattlemen, with minorities of American Indians, African Americans, and ethnic Europeans. The twentieth century brought new urban "settlers" from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, making Oklahoma a state of many and varied cultural traditions.

Reading this thread it is obvious that a case can be made for pigeon holding various Oklahoma regions in different categories. Than you throw in the differing cultures and it is obvious that homogenization of Oklahoma is still a work in progress.

You stated this as fact then posted a bunch of links that merely show settlers came from all over, not "predominately" white Southerners.


It seems like you are very invested in trying to portray Oklahoma as part of the South.

From one of your links:

While I do feel that there is more evidence to lump Oklahoma in with the South more than any other cultural region, I am merely trying to have a nuanced conversation about why Oklahomans seem so polarized about our cultural region.

And I don't believe I said that Oklahoma's early settlers didn't come from all over, but rather that a majority had their origins in the South.

Indeed you're quoting the Encyclopedia of Oklahoma's Settlement Patterns (https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entryname=SETTLEMENT%20PATTERNS) article.

I suppose you ignored my disclaimer about the writing at OKHistory:

"They paint a pretty cosmopolitan picture of Oklahoma's early settlers"

They do a careful job as not explicitly state an overall demographic breakdown.

If you would examine the other links, Oklahoma is shown as being settled to a significant degree by Southerners.

Again, there is quite a bit of material out online about this topic.

Oklahoma's early political history is shaped by this demographic situation. After reading about things like the passing of Senate Bill 1 (https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=SE017) and the subsequent era of Jim Crow (https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=SE006) and Democratic political dominance in Oklahoma, one does wonder who these people were who ate up segregationist political rhetoric. It clearly wasn't Republican Midwestern migrants from Kansas and Nebraska instituting Jim Crow and setting up pensions for Confederate veterans (https://digitalprairie.ok.gov/digital/collection/pensions) in Oklahoma.

I don't think people are polarized, just that very few here lump us in with the South, and for the dozens of reasons presented by everyone in this thread.

My family has been here since 1962 and we never regarded Oklahoma as being part of the South and never heard it categorized in that way.

While I do feel that there is more evidence to lump Oklahoma in with the South more than any other cultural region, I am merely trying to have a nuanced conversation about why Oklahomans seem so polarized about our cultural region.

And I don't believe I said that Oklahoma's early settlers didn't come from all over, but rather that a majority had their origins in the South.

Indeed you're quoting the Encyclopedia of Oklahoma's Settlement Patterns (https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entryname=SETTLEMENT%20PATTERNS) article.

I suppose you ignored my disclaimer about the writing at OKHistory:

"They paint a pretty cosmopolitan picture of Oklahoma's early settlers"

They do a careful job as not explicitly state an overall demographic breakdown.

If you would examine the other links, Oklahoma is shown as being settled to a significant degree by Southerners.

Again, there is quite a bit of material out online about this topic.

Oklahoma's early political history is shaped by this demographic situation. After reading about things like the passing of Senate Bill 1 (https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=SE017) and the subsequent era of Jim Crow (https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=SE006) and Democratic political dominance in Oklahoma, one does wonder who these people were who ate up segregationist political rhetoric. It clearly wasn't Republican Midwestern migrants from Kansas and Nebraska instituting Jim Crow and setting up pensions for Confederate veterans (https://digitalprairie.ok.gov/digital/collection/pensions) in Oklahoma.

I’m 5th Generation okie. My family were actual Republican farmers from Kansas. We were definitely not southern and we lived in an area of NW oklahoma that looks a lot more like New Mexico than Georgia. There is nothing about my Oklahoma experience that would indicate anything of southern culture. I never heard anyone describe oklahoma as southern growing up.&$

Now if I were born in southeast oklahoma from a family of Mississippi settlers Id probably be ready to fight anyone who claimed I wasn’t “southern”

The answer to this question solely depends on who is answering it. I don’t think there are any right or wrong answers. It could go a lot of ways so I usually just go by the labeled map I was given to color in grade school.

I am not an expert on this aspect of pre-statehood history, but it's my understanding that while several of the nations allied with the South, it was for their own interests, not because they shared the war aims of the Confederacy. But, yes, there is still anti-Black racism within some nations as freedman are still denied citizenship in the Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole nations. The Cherokee Nation recently granted full citizenship to freedman. It's been a long civil rights struggle.

Oklahoma is clearly a convergence point for several geographic and cultural regions. This is further complicated by it being home to Indigenous nations that were from throughout the U.S. That is why I don't think Oklahoma clearly belongs in any single geographic region. But to Pete's point, I lived in Tahlequah/Tulsa/Norman/Edmond/OKC until I was 30. I felt a total culture shock the first time I traveled to the South. Living in Wichita felt a lot more like Oklahoma than the South did to me. Having said that, I sometime felt like that in small towns in Oklahoma too. In short, it's complicated.

Or just this:


The answer to this question solely depends on who is answering it. I don’t think there are any right or wrong answers. It could go a lot of ways so I usually just go by the labeled map I was given to color in grade school.

Oklahoma was predominately settled by white Southerners after the Civil War. That's where this element of Southern culture in Oklahoma stems from.



I'm not sure what you mean here. Small town eastern Oklahoma is pretty similar to small town western Arkansas (for me, anyway). Same as small town southwest Oklahoma from nearby Texas, or the Oklahoma Panhandle and the Texas Panhandle.

Oklahoma had black towns established before white settlement. Oklahoma had a black territorial governor.

You seem to be, pardon the term, whitewashing the presence of freedmen and the establishment of black towns in Oklahoma, in order to fit a narrative that we are an extension of the South.

The tribes had freed their slaves before emancipation.

Oklahoma was discussed as possibly becoming America's first black state.

I'm from Michigan born and raised but I lived in Virginia and spent several years in Mississippi before I moved to Oklahoma and Oklahoma in no way feels Midwestern to me. In my opinion its feels alot like Mississippi the people the food culture I felt no difference from Mississippi to Oklahoma. No Virginia was something totally different

Oklahoma had black towns established before white settlement. Oklahoma had a black territorial governor.

You seem to be, pardon the term, whitewashing the presence of freedmen and the establishment of black towns in Oklahoma, in order to fit a narrative that we are an extension of the South.

The tribes had freed their slaves before emancipation.

Oklahoma was discussed as possibly becoming America's first black state.

If you think I'm whitewashing anything because I didn't mention Oklahoma's historic black communities, well I'm at a loss.

To elaborate a little more on the topic, the Oklahoma Territory was, at one time, a hopeful destination for a lot of Freedmen (https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=AL009) and their children fleeing west during Reconstruction. Here's an article in the Oklahoman about it too (https://www.oklahoman.com/article/3210110/how-oklahoma-almost-became-a-black-state).

Oklahoma Territory was an appealing place for black settlers, and between the initial land runs and Statehood, Oklahoma's black population more than doubled (https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1907pop_OK-IndianTerritory.pdf).

Unfortunately, as I'd mentioned, Oklahoma quickly became quite hostile towards black settlers who had legal equality in mind, as segregationist laws were implemented at Statehood in 1907. After 1910, Oklahoma's black population shrank in proportion to other demographics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)) within the state. This correlates with a number of Jim Crow laws that were passed and enacted, including the introduction of a "Grandfather clause" aimed at disenfranchising black Oklahomans.

But, two of your claims are not true. Oklahoma Territory never had a black governor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Oklahoma). But, perhaps you are thinking of Edward McCabe (https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=MC006), who was a prominent figure in the black community and the founder of the town of Langston. He was never appointed territorial governor, however.

And the tribes did not free their slaves until the Reconstruction Treaties of 1866 (https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=RE001) - well after the Emancipation Proclamation.

While I don't know if any of the aforementioned proves that Oklahoma belongs to any particular region, I do think we all stand to benefit from learning more about the history of the black community within Oklahoma. Thanks for bringing up this topic.

I'm from Michigan born and raised but I lived in Virginia and spent several years in Mississippi before I moved to Oklahoma and Oklahoma in no way feels Midwestern to me. In my opinion its feels alot like Mississippi the people the food culture I felt no difference from Mississippi to Oklahoma. No Virginia was something totally different

Yeah, the Boomers (and broadly the land run settlers) did not comprise the majority of the settlers in early Oklahoma. But the trains were absolutely real; in that first 1889 run, there were trains departing from Arkansas City, KS (purportedly full of Midwesterners/Northerners) and trains departing from Purcell, I.T. (full of Southerners). Subsequently, Guthrie famously was a Republican stronghold and Oklahoma City a Democrat one.

Generally, northwest/north-central Oklahoma was predominately settled by Midwesterners, while Southerners settled in the rest of the state. Historic voting/voter registration patterns, linguistic divides, religious affiliation, and even agricultural history follow this alignment.


Yeah, I can relate to that. My ancestors, who settled in Oklahoma around 1895-1905, came from Kansas on my mother's side of the family, who settled in rural Cushing. On my father's side of the family they came from Missouri and settled not very far away from Cushing in rural Glencoe. I don't remember hearing what led them to settle to Oklahoma, unless because the farmland was cheap. Interesting how almost all further generation members from there on elected to stay in Oklahoma even during the depression through now. My grandparents did try moving to California for a while to pick grapes but didn't like how they were treated as migrants and moved back to Cushing where they used their saved up earnings to build a new house. As a child, I fondly remember going to Cushing to visit them.

In my opinion its feels alot like Mississippi the people the food culture I felt no difference from Mississippi to Oklahoma.

This is the exact opposite experience i had. The first time I was in Mississippi I felt like I'd stepped onto a different planet... but much of our perceptions are likely tied to different places and peoples across the state... which can be pretty different.

I think as we move through generations, Americans in general are becoming more homogeneous.

My wife has cousins from Mississippi. The kids play soccer, dress exactly as teenagers do in every corner of the country, the family doesn't even have accents. They are virtually indistinguishable from other family members that live in Michigan. While I think small towns in different parts of the country retain differences in culture, we increasingly see people across the country living and acting very similarly to each other, provided they are roughly the same socioeconomic class.

To demonstrate the point about Americans being increasingly homogeneous, I lived in California for 25 years and not one person ever picked up on the fact I spent my first 29 years in Oklahoma; at least without me telling them up front.


And this is true worldwide. I went to Italy during college in 1980 and remember I stood out like a sore thumb and it seemed like everyone instantly recognized me as an 'Americano'.

I spent a ton of time in Europe in the '90s and by then locals would stop me all the time and ask directions assuming I was a native. This happened in a bunch of different countries. I also noticed that people started dressing and looking the same almost everywhere I went.

Especially in the Western Hemisphere, people are much more mobile and with the advent of cable/satellite TV and the internet, trends and what used to make places unique now get easily shared and adopted.

I really do appreciate the thoughtful replies on this thread. I've enjoyed reading them all.

I thought I'd share a couple of relevant polls attempting to pin down Oklahoma's self-identified region.

In the 1990s, UNC-Chapel Hill professor and researcher John Shelton Reed conducted a number of polls asking respondents things like whether they lived in "the South."

One poll found that 69% of Oklahomans said they lived in "the South." (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-06/UoNC-USRW-020699.php)

More recently (2014), FiveThirtyEight polled a couple thousand Americans and asked them which states they thought comprised the South (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-states-are-in-the-south/) and which states make up the Midwest. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-states-are-in-the-midwest/)

FiveThirtyEight released their polling data for individuals to parse through (https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/data/tree/master/region-survey), and the Oklahoma data is interesting.

From what looking at respondents with Oklahoma zip codes in the .csv files said, 52.4% (32 of 61) of Oklahomans polled by FiveThirtyEight thought it was part of "the South," with 62.7% (32 of 51) of Oklahomans polled thought it was part of "the Midwest."

I'm not sure that this meshes with what a poster above said about "very few" in Oklahoma identifying it with the South, but I think it's very interesting that Oklahoma seems to be a part of both regions in some Oklahomans' opinions.

Cheers for the discussion.

I don't think "The South," i.e., former members of the C.S.A. would identify Oklahoma as a southern state.

Oklahoma has a unique history among the states. Since we didn't achieve statehood until 1907, we were not part of the slavery dialog which found every other State taking rather extreme positions on the subject--Oklahoma did not exist. It was a conglomerate of Native nations. The Civil War was almost fifty years in the past. Who were these folks setting up nursing homes for Union and Confederate veterans? Housing them together was probably not practically a great idea. That war was a terrible thing, and I'm sure it left a huge impression on those who fought it. A new State would have to deal with the reality that some of those folks were going to migrate its way.

Are we Southern in our approach to minorities and politics? I'd say that's verifiably true. That doesn't make us part of "The South." though.

I don't think "The South," i.e., former members of the C.S.A. would identify Oklahoma as a southern state.

Oklahoma has a unique history among the states. Since we didn't achieve statehood until 1907, we were not part of the slavery dialog which found every other State taking rather extreme positions on the subject--Oklahoma did not exist. It was a conglomerate of Native nations. The Civil War was almost fifty years in the past. Who were these folks setting up nursing homes for Union and Confederate veterans? Housing them together was probably not practically a great idea. That war was a terrible thing, and I'm sure it left a huge impression on those who fought it. A new State would have to deal with the reality that some of those folks were going to migrate its way.

Are we Southern in our approach to minorities and politics? I'd say that's verifiably true. That doesn't make us part of "The South." though.

"The South" is not entirely about the CSA any more than "The North" is. There was and is a before and after.

Here is an interesting article about our area during that time:


Indian Territory did not have much of an impact on the Civil War, but the Civil War had a tremendous impact on Indian Territory.

The historian LeRoy Fischer has said that no area of the country, not Virginia or Georgia or Tennessee, suffered more during the Civil War than Indian Territory.

By the end of 1863, one-third of married Cherokee women were widows; one-fourth of Cherokee children were orphans.

The Creek village some people called Tulsey Town disappeared from the heights overlooking the Arkansas River during the Civil War and never returned.

Homes were burned, livestock run off or stolen. By war's end, some 7,000 Union Indians, mostly Creeks and Cherokees, were camped around Fort Gibson. Fifteen thousand Confederate sympathizers were in camps along the Red River.

All this, for a fight most of the American Indian leaders wanted no part of.

"It was a completely different war here," said Cody Joliff of the Oklahoma Historical Society. "The Indian Nations did not secede - they were not part of the Union."

To be sure, the transplanted tribes of the southeast - Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminoles - all had ties to the Confederacy. The mixed bloods, especially, were connected by culture and in some cases by blood. Many owned slaves.

But more than anything, the war in Indian Territory was about old grudges and personal survival. All of the tribes split along old fissures opened decades earlier, during removal.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/indian-territory-suffered-greatly-in-civil-war/article_fa74e336-d209-5140-98dc-3328448e1ed2.html

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Little Dixie yet.


"Little Dixie" denotes southeastern Oklahoma and its close social, cultural, and above all, political connections to the American South. Although commonly used, the term is rarely if ever precisely defined geographically. The Third Congressional District, which first elected Carl Albert to Congress in 1946, composes the heart of the region. The district encompassed Atoka, Bryan, Carter, Choctaw, Johnston, Latimer, Le Flore, Love, McCurtain, Marshall, Murray, Pittsburg, and Pushmataha counties. Redistricting in 1966–68 added Coal, Cotton, Garvin, Haskell, Hughes, Jefferson, Pontotoc, Seminole, and Stephens counties to the Third District. These nine might be considered the outlying counties of Little Dixie.

The character of the region began to emerge in the mid-1830s with the arrival of the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes in southeastern Oklahoma, then known as Indian Territory. Both had thoroughly appropriated southern customs, including slavery. The two tribes were the most resolute Confederate allies among the Five Tribes during the Civil War. Further, throughout the nineteenth century whites, mainly southern, migrated legally and illegally into Oklahoma. By 1900, 87 percent of white settlers in the Indian Territory (eastern Oklahoma) were southerners. Late-nineteenth-century immigrants from the Midwest perceived the southeastern part of present Oklahoma as a southern enclave and tended to settle elsewhere.

Geographers assert that distinctly southern qualities manifest more strongly in Little Dixie than in the remainder of the state.


https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=LI013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Dixie_(Oklahoma)

I think we are much like the topographic zones where people came from different areas and made their way. Some from the north, Dakotas on down through Kansas with the origins where they and their families migrated from first to there. Some from "The South" as in Little Dixie, and some from Texas expansions into "The West". Much of this has melted together over the generations.

Edit to add...more about that than I can elucidate: https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=CU001

This article explores settlement patterns of Oklahoma.
Settlement Patterns | The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture
https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entryname=SETTLEMENT%20PATTERNS

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Little Dixie yet.

87 percent of white settlers in the Indian Territory (eastern Oklahoma) were southerners.

I think we are much like the topographic zones where people came from different areas and made their way. Some from the north, Dakotas on down through Kansas with the origins where they and their families migrated from first to there. Some from "The South" as in Little Dixie, and some from Texas expansions into "The West". Much of this has melted together over the generations.


16818

This map (https://i.redd.it/rpc8cpal6lr61.png) is from a recent Reddit post (https://old.reddit.com/r/OklahomaPolitics/comments/mlgpn7/oc_how_each_county_in_oklahoma_voted_in/) depicting how each county in Oklahoma voted in the Presidential elections from 1908 through 1960 - well before there was ever a Southern strategy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy) drawing Southern Democrats to vote Republican. Although it's not a perfect proxy for historic voter registration, the aggregating of the election data together like this serves a similar purpose.

Because of the historic, regional nature of American politics, this map shows where most of the Republican Midwestern settlers and Democrat Southern settlers of Oklahoma wound up. It's consistent with the accounts describing each Oklahoma land opening and where most of the settlers originated from.

While northeast Oklahoma was pretty evenly meshed between Democrat voters and Republican voters (outside of Tulsa), the rest of the state is much more starkly divided. North-Central and Northwest Oklahoma resembled Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa in its agriculture, culture, demographics, and politics. The rest of the state was pretty uniformly Southern in its agriculture, culture, demographics, and politics.

This sort of contradicts the notion that Southeast Oklahoma, or Little Dixie, is historically the exception rather than the rule; the entire southern quadrant of what used to be Oklahoma Territory was largely indistinguishable from Little Dixie culturally, despite possessing a more arid and rugged landscape.

Furthermore, the counties of North-Central and Northwestern Oklahoma historically (and today) had smaller populations than the rest of the state. It follows that Oklahoma's historic Democrat political machine stemmed from it being largely settled by Southerners.

The unfortunate legacy of Oklahoma's Jim Crow era doesn't make sense without understanding the connection between Oklahoma and the rest of the South. It can be difficult to examine unpleasant history objectively, but we can discuss topics like segregation in Oklahoma without endorsing it. Relatedly, I struggle to see how we can celebrate local heroes like Clara Luper and their contributions to Oklahoma society without trying to understand the problems they sought to resolve.

According to Google, Oklahoma is a South Central State. It says "nothing" about being in the Midwest. I feel the State leans more culturally and geographically towards the South. I am not saying the "Deep South". If you think about it, Arkansas our neighbor to the east, is classified as a Southern State.

I was born and raised right here in OKC, and have been here all my life, sans in 1990 when I was in Albuquerque for a year. I've always considered Oklahoma as being "Southern Great Plains", or simply "South Central".

According to Google, Oklahoma is a South Central State. It says "nothing" about being in the Midwest. I feel the State leans more culturally and geographically towards the South. I am not saying the "Deep South". If you think about it, Arkansas our neighbor to the east, is classified as a Southern State.

Because Arkansas was part of the confederacy.

That's a big distinction.

Because Arkansas was part of the confederacy.

That's a big distinction.

It would seem to be less of a distinction for Oklahoma politicians historically, considering we flew the Confederate flag at the state capitol for a few decades.

16920

Source:

https://i.imgur.com/GuPCMtA.jpeg

I vividly recall learning that Oklahoma was in the Southwest with Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona in my school age years.
To this day, I believe we are closer to that distinction than the Midwest, although we are often lumped as "Midwest."

However, I'm now 50/50 between American Southwest and Southern Great Plains (KS, OK, TX). Do we have Midwestern influences? Absolutely. Do we have Southern and Western values and influences? Absolutely. But OK is just in that odd position where it's not predominantly controlled by any one influence or sub-culture.

I don't like being lumped in with The South, but politically we are now very much aligned with them.

And in terms of religion, the Southern Baptists in this state dominate and have for a very long time. That drives a tremendous amount of the culture. My family was Catholic and we moved down from Milwaukee when I was about 3 years old. My parents often went on and on about the influence of the Baptists. I always felt different around my schoolmates and their families; back in the '60s and '70s the percentage of Baptist was even higher in the state.

This chart shows that Oklahoma has the 3rd highest percentage of Southern Baptists; the top 14 states are all from the confederacy and then us. Neighboring Kansas has nothing like our numbers.

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/baptists.jpg

That doesn’t make us part of the south, Pete.

I believe a major reason why Oklahoma is so Christian conservative is because it was required to enter the union as a dry state for 21 years. At the end of 21 years, it couldn't repeal it, because Prohibition was still in effect. After Prohibition ended, all Oklahoma wanted to do was have 3.2% beer at the most. And that must have attracted yet more Christian conservatives to Oklahoma. But that attraction started waning when legal sale of alcohol was approved in 1959. Finally, in 2018 alcohol laws were significantly reformed to be like most states, so I now I don't think Oklahoma has much to offer Christian conservatives wanting to move in from the outside any more.

My parents were Baptists and hardly ever drank. Their parents came to north central Oklahoma from Kansas and Missouri.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Enabling_Act

That doesn’t make us part of the south, Pete.

The Southern Baptist faith is a widely-known marker of Southern culture (one of several). It strongly correlates with perceptions of the cultural region that is "the South." Geographically, Oklahoma objectively forms the northwestern corner of this contiguous religious region.

Unsurprisingly, the map of where Southern Baptists live looks an awful lot like the map of where Southern Accents are found historically, which looks a lot like the map of where state-mandated Jim Crow laws proliferated, which looks a lot like a map of the Confederate States & claimed Territory, etc. etc. etc.

That's all to say that, yes... it kinda does make Oklahoma part of the South.

No it doesn’t.

No it doesn’t.

Ok. You’re not providing much of a defense though.

Ok. You’re not providing much of a defense though.
I already have. There are multiple posts in this thread you can look back on.

I normally refrain from saying this out loud. I don’t like Oklahoma. I do like the south. I stay here because I have massive student debt. And I can afford to make payments on it. I don’t like to group OK in the south because honestly it’s not cool enough.
I will say that there seems to be a somewhat hostile culture. Quite a lot of anti intellectualism or anti education sentiment. Which doesn’t mean we’re southern but it seems more common here. Probably more due to prevalence of rural culture.
That said I can’t rationalize Oklahoma as Midwestern because of our geography. Our winters are pathetic by Nebraska or Iowa standards. I’ve seen native Sabal Palms and alligators here there are yuccas and cactus covering half the state. Our summers are far more brutal than our winters.
Also according to the us census website we’re south.
And perhaps the Wikipedia could correct this but wasn’t chattel slavery common amongst the tribes here prior to the civil war?If I’m wrong blame my Oklahoma public education and the 25 years it’s been since I took a history class.

Oklahoma is a southern state. The 5 Civilized Tribes were slave owners who left their lands in what became the Confederate States so they could do the same in Oklahoma. The 5 Civilized Tribes sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War and fought with the southern forces. The 5 Civilized Tribes were forced to free their slaves after the war and had to make the freed slaves tribal members. This had different resolutions in different tribes. The Tribes lost operational control over the western half of Oklahoma after the Civil War and much of it was given away via land run. Oklahoma is as far south as Confederate States Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina. There were no Union States south of Oklahoma.

Oklahoma is a southern state. The 5 Civilized Tribes were slave owners who left their lands in what became the Confederate States so they could do the same in Oklahoma. The 5 Civilized Tribes sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War and fought with the southern forces. The 5 Civilized Tribes were forced to free their slaves after the war and had to make the freed slaves tribal members. This had different resolutions in different tribes. The Tribes lost operational control over the western half of Oklahoma after the Civil War and much of it was given away via land run. Oklahoma is as far south as Confederate States Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina. There were no Union States south of Oklahoma.

By this definition New Mexico and Arizona are southern states as well. I mean both states currently sit on territorial land the confederacy once claimed. They are further south in geography than many confederate states and there were no Union States south of them.

As much as I like the prospect of OU joining the SEC, doing so is going to only further cement the national perception that Okla. is a decidedly southern state.

By this definition New Mexico and Arizona are southern states as well. I mean both states currently sit on territorial land the confederacy once claimed. They are further south in geography than many confederate states and there were no Union States south of them.

I agree. However, I don't "think" they were as politically aligned with the south, didn't share agricultural production at a high level, or had similar climate.