Where the heck is Texas? Agencies say its part of these regions, but Texans don't buy it
One thing's for sure: it's nowhere near the Pacific Northwest, the Northeast or the Midwest. But really — where the heck is Texas, y'all?
It's a longstanding debate, and for good reason. Texas defies easy regional labels thanks to its massive size, central location and the striking cultural differences across the state.
It's clear that folks along the Texas–Louisiana border, from Texarkana to Beaumont, are far more Southern than those in Dallas.
Fort Worth proudly embraces its cowboy heritage, calling itself "Where the West Begins" — a nod to its deep roots in cattle culture and its historic ties to the Chisholm Trail. Meanwhile, Austin is also becoming increasingly Western — but in a different way, where it's more coastal, tech-driven and cosmopolitan than the 'Wild West.'
Communities in El Paso and the Trans-Pecos region align more closely with the cultural Southwest than with populations in the South, while Amarillo and Lubbock feel firmly rooted in the Great Plains.
Houston and San Antonio? Who knows ... they sit somewhere in between.
So, where is Texas officially? The debate continues.
Even within the federal government, there are differing opinions on which region truly claims the Lone Star State. These classifications often vary depending on the purpose of the agency or service, whether it's for economic analysis, job distribution or administrative convenience.
The U.S. Census Bureau: West South Central (with Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma)
Bureau of Labor Statistics: Southeast
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: West South Central
The Federal Emergency Management Administration: No set region but grouped with Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico and Oklahoma
U.S. Forest Service: Southern
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Both the Southwest (SNAP) and Plains Area (Agricultural Research)
A Reddit post on the r/Texas subchannel explored this exact question, and there was almost a consensus. For most Texans, the answer couldn't be simpler: Texas is Texas.
"One thing's for certain though, Texas is not in the Midwest," one user wrote, while another replied, "It's the wild wild West."
Another shared that the drive from Beaumont to Jacksonville, Florida, is a shorter stretch than that from Beaumont to El Paso, so "Texas is literally wider than the entire 'South,'" while the same holds true for El Paso to San Diego, so "Texas is also wider than the entire 'Southwest'" as well.
"It is its own region!" that user wrote.
One shared that their dad from Tennessee says, "You're not a Southerner if you're from Texas, just a Texan," to which many agreed.
Where is Texas? Let me know by sending an email to baddison@gannett.com!
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Is Texas in the South? What region is Texas in? Depends on who you ask
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
U.S. men are doing a record-high 100 minutes of housework per day
Men in the U.S. are spending a record-high amount of time on household activities, though inequalities between men's and women's contributions persist, an NBC News analysis of new Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows. Men spent an average of 100 minutes per day in 2024 doing household activities such as laundry and cleaning, an increase of 20 minutes from 2003 and the most of any of the years captured in the American Time Use Survey. But the gap is closing, slowly. In 2003, the first year of the survey, women worked an hour more than men on the home. In 2024, women worked 40 minutes more. At this rate, housework will be equal sometime around the year 2066. The additional work from men is most apparent in food preparation and cleanup. Men spent an average of 16 minutes per day cooking in 2003 — that value has since jumped to 28 minutes. The survey, which each year asks thousands of Americans 15 and older how they spent their past 24 hours, is designed to develop a 'nationally representative estimate of how people spend their time.' Sociologists have said the growth in men's household work may indicate broader progress toward gender equality. In a recent study, scholars used the 2003-2023 time use data to analyze changes in men's and women's daily housework. Cooking, along with other routine and frequent tasks such as house cleaning and laundry, is referred to as 'core' housework, which has traditionally been seen as feminine. The shift in men's work, largely concentrated in cooking and cleaning, has been particularly pronounced since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. Melissa Milkie, a professor of sociology at the University of Toronto and author of the study, explained why men are doing more. 'It's a possibility that it's just this cultural change,' Milkie told NBC News. 'Men are expected to do more. They feel that they should do more and they're sort of stepping up, which is a pretty neat thing to see.' 'The pandemic seemed to push [men] in an important way that seems to have stuck.' This article was originally published on
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Boston Globe
What Makes Someone Cool? A New Study Offers Clues.
The study, published Monday in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, surveyed nearly 6,000 participants from 12 countries around the world. Their beliefs about what's 'cool' were similar regardless of where the study participants lived, and despite differences in age, income level, education, or gender. 'What blew my mind was the fact that it was pretty much the same result everywhere,' said Caleb Warren, one of the authors of the study and a professor at the Eller College of Management at the University of Arizona who has researched consumer psychology for two decades. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In the study, each participant had to recognize the word 'cool' in English, without translation, suggesting that they were already familiar with — or maybe even idolized — notions of coolness from wealthy Western countries like the United States. Advertisement In that sense, the study offers a window into the spread of cultural beliefs from one group of people to another, said Joseph Henrich, an anthropologist and a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University who was not involved in the study. 'Globally, American success has led to the diffusion of music styles and an immense amount of cultural content, including, apparently, the concept of cool,' Henrich said. Advertisement Coolness is not a widely studied subject. Past research has found that coolness is usually considered something positive: People who are cool are also friendly, competent, trendy, and attractive. But Warren and his colleagues wanted to know what makes a person distinctly 'cool' rather than just 'good.' So the researchers asked the participants to think of specific people: one who is cool, one who is not cool, one who is good, and one who is not good. Then they asked the participants to evaluate each person by answering questionnaires that collectively measured 15 different attributes. While the cool and good people had overlapping traits, compared with their cool counterparts, good people were perceived as more conforming, traditional, secure, warm, agreeable, universalistic (the extent to which a person sees everyone and everything as being equal or equally worthy of care and respect), conscientious, and calm. Those who were perceived as capable were equally considered cool and good. One limitation of the study was that anyone who did not know the word 'cool' was automatically filtered out. As a result, the data cannot determine how frequently the word is used in different countries or, whether in certain cultures, coolness will lead to a higher social status relative to others. In addition, while the study included participants with a wide range of ages, the population skewed young: The average age from each region was generally 30 or younger. Other studies have shown that there are important cultural differences that can affect the traits that we value. 'Factors like aggression make us have higher status in some Western cultures and simultaneously give us less status in the East,' said Mitch Prinstein, the chief of psychology at the American Psychological Association, who has written two books about popularity, which can be a consequence of coolness. Advertisement Research on coolness suggests that the desire to be cool is particularly strong during adolescence, and it influences not only what people buy or whom they admire, but also how they talk and what they do for fun. But what's considered cool by the broader culture might not be the same as what you personally believe is cool. This is why Warren and his colleagues asked each participant to think about the people they considered cool vs. good. Interestingly, across the board, the types of traits that are typically associated with kindness or helpfulness were more often perceived as good instead of cool. So is coolness a trait that's worth pursuing? To that end, Warren said, 'I have serious doubts.' Coolness that involves risk-taking and being socially precocious during adolescence may offer popularity during youth, but one study published in 2014 found that many teenagers who behaved in this way would later struggle in their 20s, developing problems with alcohol, drugs, and relationships. 'They are doing more extreme things to try to act cool,' one of the researchers told The New York Times. For the popular kids in school, 'status is dominance, visibility, attention,' Prinstein said. But, he added, it is how well-liked you are that contributes to long-term success. 'Even the most uncool kid will probably fare well if they have at least one close friend,' he added. Perhaps coolness -- particularly the dismissive 'too cool for school' variety -- isn't all it's cracked up to be. This article originally appeared in
Vox
27-06-2025
- Vox
Cancel the grizzly bear
is a freelance journalist who covers science, the environment, wildlife, and the outdoors. She is based in Laramie, Wyoming. In the early 1900s, long before smartphones and selfie sticks, tourists flocked to Yellowstone National Park — not for the geysers or scenery, but for a grotesque show: A nightly spectacle of grizzly bears raiding cafeteria scraps from open-pit landfills like desperate, starving pirates. The bears were in dangerous proximity to humans: Hungry bears tore at open car windows. Tourists posed a little too close with their film cameras. Yellowstone park rangers logged dozens of injuries each year — nearly 50 on average. Eventually, the Park Service ended the nightly landfill shows: feeding wild animals human food wasn't just dangerous, it was unnatural. Bears, ecologists argued, should eat berries, nuts, elk — not leftover Twinkies. In 1970, the park finally shut down the landfills for good. By then, though, grizzlies were in deep trouble. As few as 700 remained in the lower 48 states, down from the estimated 50,000 that once roamed the 18 Western states. Decades of trapping, shooting, and poisoning had brought them to the brink. The ones that clung to survival in Yellowstone National Park learned to take what scraps they could get and when they were forced to forage elsewhere, it didn't go so well. More bears died. Their already fragile population in the Yellowstone region dipped to fewer than 250, though one publication says the number could have been as low as 136, according to Frank van Manen, who spent 14 years leading the US Geological Survey's grizzly bear study team and now serves as an emeritus ecologist. The Yellowstone bears had been trained to rely on us. And when we cut them off, their population tanked. In 1957, Yellowstone tourists often got a little too close for comfort — like this driver, who leans out the window to snap a photo of a mother bear and her cubs. Today, this kind of wildlife encounter would be a big no-no for safety reasons. Corbis via Getty Images And so in 1975, the US Fish and Wildlife Service placed grizzly bears on the endangered species list, the country's most powerful legal mechanism to stave off extinction. The grizzly's place on the list afforded them some important protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Hunting was off limits, as was trapping or poisoning, and the listing included rigorous habitat protections. Grizzlies slowly came back. Today, more than 1,000 grizzly bears live in and around Yellowstone alone, and tourists who visit the park by the millions every year can observe the bears — no longer desperately feeding on trash but lumbering in and out of meadows with their trailing cubs, or sitting on their haunches feasting on elk carcasses. The recovery effort was a major success, but it's brought a whole new slate of issues. In recent years, grizzlies have spilled out of their stronghold in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem — a broad swath of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming — and into human territory, where coexistence gets messy. In 2024 alone, more than 60 grizzlies were killed in Wyoming, most of them lethally removed by wildlife officials after killing cattle, breaking into cabins and trash cans, or lingering in residential neighborhoods. It's the classic species recovery paradox: the more bears succeed and their populations expand, the more trouble they get into with humans. And now, a controversial debate rages over whether or not to delist the grizzly bear. No species is meant to be a permanent resident on the Endangered Species List. The whole point of the ESA is to help species recover to the point where they're no longer endangered. A delisting would underscore that the grizzlies didn't just scrape by in the Yellowstone area — they exceeded every population requirement in becoming a thriving, self-sustaining population of at least 500 bears. But to remove federal protection would mean grizzly bears would face increasing threats to their survival at a time when some biologists argue the species' recovery is shaky at best. The stakes here are bigger than just the grizzly bear alone — what happens next is about proving that the ESA works, and that sustained recovery is possible, and that ESA protection leads to progress. Because if a species like the grizzly, which has met every biological benchmark, still can't graduate from the list, then what is the list for? 'The [ESA] is literally one of the strictest wildlife protection laws in the world…but in order for people to buy into it, they have to have respect for it,' says Kelly Heber Dunning, a University of Wyoming professor who studies wildlife conflict. 'If it starts to be seen as…part of the culture war, that buy-in will go away.' What's the Endangered Species Act for anyway? Since President Donald Trump has taken office, the Republican Party's assault on the Endangered Species Act hasn't been subtle. But ironically, to prevent a full unraveling of one of the world's most powerful protections for wildlife and wild places, conservationists need to grapple with the mission creep of the ESA. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, left, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright deliver remarks outside the White House on March 19, 2025, in Washington, Republican President Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act in 1973, the country's wildlife had been in a century-long nosedive. After decades of habitat destruction, unregulated hunting and industrial expansion, federal officials had already flagged more than 70 species at risk of extinction — with many more lining up behind them. In the decades that followed, the ESA proved to be one of the most powerful conservation tools in the world. More than 50 species, including the Canada goose and bald eagle, thrived with their newfound federal protections and were later delisted; another 56 species were downgraded from endangered to threatened. But others, like the black-footed ferret, Houston toad and the red wolf, for example, remain endangered — even after almost 60 years of federal attention. Today the act protects more than 2,300 plant and animal species in the US and abroad. And still more wait in line, as overworked federal biologists triage petitions amid dwindling resources, aggressive layoffs and budget cuts. But when it comes to the grizzly bear, the debate has become bigger than just biology — it's become a referendum on what the Endangered Species Act is for, says David Willms, a National Wildlife Federation associate vice president and adjunct faculty at the University of Wyoming. 'The ESA is a science-based act,' he says. 'You have a species that is struggling, and you need to recover it and make it not struggle anymore. And based on the best available science at the end of the day, you're supposed to delist a species if it met those objectives.' The trouble begins when species linger on the list indefinitely, not because they haven't recovered but because of what might happen next, out of fears of possible future threats. But the ESA was only meant to safeguard against 'reasonably foreseeable future threats,' Willms argues. Congress has the ability to protect species indefinitely — like it did for wild horses under the 1971 Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act or for numerous species of birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. But those were specific, deliberate laws. 'If there are other reasons why somebody or groups of people think grizzly bears should be protected forever, then that is a different conversation than the Endangered Species Act,' he says. But this power works in the opposite direction, too. If grizzly bears stay on the list for too long, Congress may well decide to delist the species, as lawmakers did in 2011 when they removed gray wolves from the endangered species list in Montana and Idaho. Those kinds of decisions happen when people living alongside recovered species, especially the toothy, livestock-loving kind, spend enough time lobbying their state's lawmakers, says Dunning, the wildlife conflict researcher. When Congress steps in, science tends to step out. A political delisting doesn't just sideline biologists, it sets a precedent, one that opens the potential for lawmakers to start cherry-picking species they see as obstacles to grazing, logging, drilling, or building. The flamboyant lesser prairie chicken has already made the list of legislative targets. 'Right now, the idea of scientific research has lost its magic quality,' she says. 'We get there by excluding people and not listening to their voices and them feeling like they're not part of the process.' And when people feel excluded for too long, she says, the danger isn't just that support for grizzly bears will erode. It's that the public will to protect any endangered species might start to collapse. The case for delisting the grizzly For Dan Thompson, Wyoming's large carnivore supervisor, the question of delisting grizzlies is pretty simple: 'Is the population recovered with all the regulatory mechanisms in place and data to support that it will remain recovered?' he says. 'If the answer is yes, then the answer to delisting is yes.' That's why Thompson believes it's time to delist the grizzly. And he's not alone. The Greater Yellowstone ecosystem population is 'doing very well,' says van Manen. In fact, grizzlies met their recovery goals about 20 years ago. Getting there wasn't easy. After the landfills closed and the bear population plummeted, it took a massive, decades-long effort from states, tribes, federal biologists, and nonprofits to bring the grizzlies back. The various entities funded bear-proof trash systems for people living in towns near the national parks and strung electric fences around tempting fruit orchards. They developed safety workshops for people living in or visiting bear country, and tracked down poachers. And little by little, it worked. Bear numbers swelled, and by the mid-2000s, more than 600 bears roamed the Yellowstone area. 'Grizzly bears are incredibly opportunistic and use their omnivorous traits to shift to other food sources,' says van Manen. So losing one food — even a high-calorie one — did little to change the population. The move to delist them paused as the federal government addressed the federal court's concerns, including researching the grizzly bear's diet. And bear numbers kept climbing. In 2016, the Fish and Wildlife Service — under President Barack Obama — updated delisting requirements including more expansive habitat protections, stricter conflict prevention, and enhanced monitoring. The agency then proposed a delisting. The following year — under Trump — it delisted the grizzly bear. This time the Crow Indian Tribe sued and — determining in part that delisting grizzlies in the Yellowstone region threatened the recovery of other populations of grizzlies — a federal judge overturned the government's decision to delist the bears and placed them back on the list. In 2022, Wyoming petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service to delist bears in the Yellowstone region. The service took a few years to analyze the issue, and then this January, days before the Biden administration ended, it issued a response to that petition: Grizzly bears would stay on the Endangered Species List. All of these years of back and forth reflected the change in how the federal government viewed the grizzly population, largely a result of the bear's own success. The Yellowstone region's bears, they argued, are no longer distinct from bear populations in northern Montana, Idaho, and Washington. And because northern populations haven't met the recovery benchmarks yet (with the exception of a population in and around Glacier National Park), the species as a whole is not yet recovered. But the goalposts for delisting grizzlies keep moving, Thompson told Vox. Grizzly bears would still be managed even after a delisting. States would be responsible for them, and — miracle of miracles — state and federal agencies actually agreed on how to manage grizzlies after ESA protections end. Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana are committed to maintaining between 800 and 950 grizzly bears if the creature ever leaves the endangered species list. And states like Wyoming know how to manage grizzly bears because for years, under the supervision of the feds, they've been doing the gritty, ground-level work. Wyoming's wildlife agency, for example, traps and relocates conflict bears (or kills problem bears if allowed by the Fish and Wildlife Service), knocks on doors to calm nervous landowners, hands out bear spray, and reminds campers not to cook chili in their tents. Despite all that, 'nobody trusts us,' Thompson, with Wyoming's state wildlife agency, said. 'There's always going to be a way to find a reason for [grizzlies] not to be delisted.' A grizzly bear cub forages for food on a hillside near the Lake Butte overlook in Yellowstone National Park, now might be the right decision. It would still be a gamble Even though grizzly bears may be thriving in numbers, they're not ready to go it alone, says Matt Cuzzocreo, interim wildlife program manager for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition Grizzlies. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition has spent millions of dollars over the past few decades helping bears and humans more successfully coexist. But whatever comes next needs to build on the past 50 years of working with locals. As bears expand into new territory, they're crossing into areas where residents aren't used to securing garbage and wouldn't know how to respond to 600-pound predators ambling down back roads or into neighborhoods. Simply removing bears from the list and handing management to the states, which is the default after a species delisting, isn't enough, says Chris Servheen — not when so much is still in flux. Servheen, who led the Fish and Wildlife Service's recovery program for 35 years, helped write the previous two recovery plans. He says a delisting could leave them dangerously exposed. 'Politicians are making decisions on the fate of animals like grizzly bears and taking decisions out of the hands of biologists,' Servheen says. Montana and Idaho, Servheen points out, already allow neck-snaring and wolf trapping just outside Yellowstone's borders — traps that also pose a lethal threat to grizzlies. And now, the Trump administration has slashed funding for the very biologists and forest managers tasked with protecting wildlife. Once states take over, many are expected to push for grizzly hunting seasons, and some, like Wyoming, have already set grizzly bear hunting regulations for when the creatures are no longer protected. Layer that on top of existing threats — roadkill, livestock conflicts, illegal kills — and it's easy to imagine a swift population slide.
