Native Texans' Perception of Yankees

Byron D. Augustin and Dennis E. Fitzsimons

Geography and Planning Department Southwest Texas State University San Marcos, Texas 78666-4616

56

ABSTRACT

Texas now ranks as the third most populous state in the United States. Over the past 40 years, much of the popula­tion growth can be attributed to migra­tion from outside the state's boundaries. Not all native Texans look favorably on the new growth patterns. "Yankee" is a term which some native Texans tend to label any new resident who does not en­ter from Mexico.

The purpose of this paper is to delin­eate those states which are perceived by native Texans to produce Yankees. A second goal is to provide insight into the perception that native Texans have re­garding the word Yankee.

The data for the study were acquired by administering a questionnaire to 787 native Texans. The study group repre­sented five different age categories, a wide range of occupations, both male and female respondents, and every ma­jor region in Texas. A cartographic rep­resentation of "Yankee states" produces some interesting patterns regarding hardcore Yankee states, non-Yankee states, and states of transition. The per­ception of Yankees by native Texans is described by more than 300 different vocabulary words and produces an im­age that is fascinating but not especially complimentary.

KEY WORDS: Yankees, Texans, perceptual regions, region.

INTRODUCTION

Most Americans carry with them some set of stereotypical images about the State of Texas. They may include Cad­illacs with horns for hood ornaments, oil wells gushing liquid gold, the hottest chili west of the Sahara, and almost always some perception of "BIG" (Jordan et al. 1984). Upon arriving in Texas, one soon discovers that Texans carry their own set of stereotype baggage, including some interesting concepts about the word "Yankee."

Even though one author (Augustin) was born in Nebraska in the core of James Shortridge's " Vernacular Middle West" (1985), and the other (Fitzsimons)

grew up in Southern California, we found Texas students referring to us as "Yan­kees. " On one occasion, in the heat of an animated classroom exchange, Dr. Augustin remarked to a student that he would never understand how the stu­dent could take such a seemingly i llog­ical position. The student responded that Dr. Augustin would never understand because he was a Yankee! When Dr. Au­gustin reminded him that Nebraska was not even a state when the Civil War was fought and that he was a midwesterner, the student replied that none of that mattered-if you came from north of the Red River, you are a Yankee!

Intrigued by this description of the source of Yankees, we decided to try to measure this concept in greater detail. We wanted to see if we could map na­tive Texans' perception of where Yan­kees came from. In addition, we were in­terested in determining what stereotypical images Texans held of the word " Yankee."

METHODOLOGY

A single-page questionnaire was ad­ministered to 787 native-born Texans. Respondents came from one-half, or 127, of the state's 254 counties. All reg ions of the state were represented. Each pa rtic­ipant was asked to list their Texas county of birth, as well as gender, occupation, age, and whether they held a college de­gree. Approximately equal numbers of respondents in each of five age cate­gories (12-18, 19-25, 26-35, 36- 50, and over 50) were sought to reduce bias.

The 50 states were listed in alpha­betical order and provided with a blank next to the state name. Participants were asked to place an " X" in the blanks next to those states that were thought to be states which Yankees came from . Fi­nally, a blank space was provided at the bottom of the questionnaire with in­structions that the respondent was to write, "the one word that best describes a Yankee. "

The respondents were not provided with a map of the United States but were required to produce a "cognitive" or mental map (Downs and Stea 1977). It has long been recognized that n • •• maps

can be created in the mind without re­course to pen and paper" (Tuan 1975, p. 209). Most participants were quite com­fortable with the perception of the United States which a cogn itive map provided. However, a few struggled with the de­cision of whether to identify a state as a source of Yankees because they were not sure where the state was located. This problem was most frequent with the 12-18 year-old age group. One 16 year-old professed that he did not realize that Vermont was a state and certainly had no idea where it was located. Some problems with location geography were expected considering the recent surveys of geographic place-location illiteracy among Americans (Grosvenor 1988, Hel­gren 1983).

YANKEELAND

The data analysis provided one very st rong conclusion-consistency. The gender of a respondent, their occupa­tion, age, and possession of a college degree had little impact on the responses.

In 1980, Wilbur Zelinsky stated, " . . . the vernacular, or popular region, was the product of the spatial perception of average people, the shared, sponta­neous image of territorial reality, local or not so local, hovering in the minds of the untutored" (p. 1). He then proceeded to define a total of 14 vernacular regions for North America. Much to his aston­ishment, " Yankee" was not one of his newly established vernacular regions.

To the contrary, a native-born Texan has a very strong and well-defined im­age of where " Yankeeland" exists (Fig . 1). The composite map, showing all states which were selected by more than 70 percent of the respondents as the source of Yankees produced a strongly identifiable core region which focuses on the northestern portion of the United States. It includes all of the traditional New England states as well as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Michigan. New York wins the somewhat dubious honor of being " the most Yankee" of all states. Table 1, which displays a rank order listing of all 50 states, indicates that 93.5 percent of the respondents view New York State as

57

Percent Yankee

Wm:ml 72.6 - 93.5

Figure 1. " Hardcore" Yankee states; those which received a "Yankee" ranking by more than 70 percent of the respondents.

being a source of Yankees. The inclusion of Michigan and Mary­

land as core Yankee states might regis­ter some surprise at first glance. Michi­gan has almost always been identified as a part of the Middle West, and was included as such in a 1986 special issue on the Midwest in the Journal of Ge­ography. However, in that same issue, John Hudson (1986) points out that the original settlers of southern Michigan were born in New York or New England and that a definite Yankeeland occurs across southern Michigan. Shortridge's 1980 research on "The Vernacular Mid­dle West" supports the exclusion of Michigan as a middle-west state in a survey of Michigan residents. Additional research by Shortridge in 1987 reflected that almost 25 percent of a Michigan survey group preferred to think of them­selves as being regionally affiliated with

58

the East rather than the Middle West. Maryland, with historically strong af­

filiations with the South was also per­ceived as a Yankee state . The urban growth in and around Washington, D.C., has produced an invasion of urban, in­dustrial, multi-ethnic images for Mary­land. It appears to make sense that Tex­ans perceive Maryland as a leading source of Yankees. After all, in Short­ridge's regional analysis, more than 95 percent of the Maryland respondents considered themselves residents of the East (1987). Association with the East is a strong reason for a Texan to identify a person as a Yankee.

The identification of those states which produce more than a 50 percent re ­sponse as the source of Yankees will ex­pand the region of Yankeeland only a lit­tle (Fig. 2). Five additional states including Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, Indiana, and

TABLE 1 Rank Order of Yankee States

Rank State Percentage Rank State Percentage

1. New York 93.5 26. Missouri 18.4

2. New Jersey 87.3 27. South Dakota 18.2

3. Massachusetts 86.4 28. Montana 17.3

4. Maine 84.6 29. Oregon 16.9

5. Rhode Island 84.5 30. Kansas 15.2

6. Connecticu t 83 .9 3l. Wyoming 13.6

7. Pennsylvania 83.7 32. Utah 12 .5

8. New Hampshire 83.1 33. Alaska 11.2

9. Delaware 82.7 34. Colorado 10.3

10. Maryland 74.8 35. Kentucky 9.7

11. Vermont 73.6 36. California 9 .0

12. Michigan 72.6 37. South Carolina 8.9

13. Illinois 66.0 38. Nevada 7 .5

14. Minnesota 60.5 39. Tennessee 6.5

15. Ohio 56.9 40. Oklahoma 4.8

16. Indiana 53.5 41. Arkansas 4 .3

17. Wisconsin 51.0 42. Mississippi 4.3

18. Iowa 38.8 43. New Mexico 4 .3

19. Virginia 29 .9 44. Alabama 4.2

20. North Dakota 26.2 45. Arizona 4 . 1

2l. Washington 26.2 46. Hawaii 3 .9

22. West Virginia 25.9 47. Florida 3 .7

23. Idaho 25 .3 48. Georgia 3.6

24. Nebraska 20 .8 49. Louisiana 3.2

25. North Carolina 18.9 50. Texas 0 .9

Wisconsin form a zone of transition be- description, all five of these states are tween the core of Yankeeland and non- viewed as marginal source areas for Yankeeland . Generally perceived by Yankees by native-born Texans. Ohio, geographers as being Middle West by Minnesota, and Wisconsin are included

59

•

_b ______________ ~ Percent Yankee

Im:::ml 72.6 - 93.5

1:» 1 51.0 - 66.0

D 0 .9 - 38.8

Figure 2. Native Texans' perception of Yankee states. Class limits reflect the actual percentages as ranked by respondents.

in Hudson's "Yankeeland in the Middle West" with many original settlers com­ing from New York and New England. This may well contribute to the Texan perception that these folks are Yankees. Location in the North also helps push them into the Yankee realm.

Illinois appears to be a special case where the impact of the large urban center, Chicago, creates an image of a state which is industrial, multi-ethnic, crowded, and urban rather than rural. Since Yankees come from Chicago, and Chicago is in Illinois, the state must be a Yankee state. Indiana seems to be in­cluded more by geographic location in the region than for any other reason. An academic "guilt by association" would seem to be at play.

60

Figure 3 illustrates those areas of the country that are believed to be the least likely source of Yankees. Only states that produced a response of less than 10 percent on Table 1 by those questioned are shown on the map. All of the states included here are considered to be southern or western. Texas, as might be expected, was viewed as the least Yan­kee of all states. However, even Texas was viewed as a source area for Yan­kees by a dozen respondents. Their view was that Yankees can come from Texas if they leave the state after having lived here for a short time. One Hispanic gentleman stated that in his mind a Yan­kee was anyone who lived north of the Rio Grande. Finally, in one less than ob­jective evaluation, a respondent stated

()

Percent Yankee

Immmi Less than 10%

Figure 3. Non-Yankee states; those which received a " Yankee" ranking by less than 10 percent of the respondents.

that Yankees come from any state that pronounced the word roof as " ruff. "

YANKEE IMAGES

The second major objective of our study was to measure native Texan im­ages of Yankees. Each respondent was asked to write the one word that best describes a Yankee. The purpose was to determine if the term " Yankee" aroused a positive response, a negative re ­sponse, or a perceptual neutrality. When Shortridge (1985) measured perceived cultural characteristics of midwester­ners, he discovered that they were viewed as friendly, traditional, easy­going, hard-working, naive, thoughtful , honest, and practical. The native Texan image of a Yankee is much less flattering.

Several respondents complained that it was " impossible to describe a Yankee in one word. " Most, however, tried .

When the analysis was over, nearly 300 separate descriptions had been of­fered-including 31 individual profani­ties! Table 2 l ists the range of percep­tions offered with the exclusion of the profanities. If we list the eight most common responses in an attempt to compare them to the perception of Shortridge's midwesterners, we find that Yankees are characterized as rude, ob­noxious, arrogant, northern, different, pushy, cold, and unfriendly. Slightly more than seventy percent of the respondents registered a response that was negative in connotation, while less than five per­cent chose words reflecting a positive image. The remainder of the responses were neutral.

Native Texan perception of the term "Yankee" illustrates the strong feelings that can be invoked by a single word. Still, the responses should not come as

61

J

TABLE 2 Descriptive Words for Yankees

abrasive different idea illiterate opportunist abrupt dimwit Impatient out of town accent dlrtbag Imperious outlandish accented discourteous Impersonal outsider adaptable displaced fools Impolite outspoken aggressive distant Impossible over-bearing airhead do-gooder Inconsiderate over-educated alien dogmatic - Incorrigible pale aloof dull Indifferent people American dumb Inhospitable pests annoying dweeb insecure pleasant arrogant egotistical insensitive presumptuous awesome Englander Insolent proud baseball player expletive Intellectu al pushy beer fake Interesting quarrelsome bigot fast invader queer bitchy fast-paced Inventive red necks blue belly fast -talking Irritating road hog bluebellies feminine Jerk robbers boisterous fine Jews rodent boneheads fools know-it-all rude bossy foreign leech rushed Boston beans foreigner liberal ruthless brash freaks lonely sarcastic brusque freedom loser self-absorbed bum freeloaders lost self-centered calculating friend loud selfish carpetbagger friendly loudmouthed senseless caustic frigid rna terialistic settler charming frontiersman mega-rude slang cheap funny accent migrant slick cheaters funny-talking misfit slime chowder great misrepresented slow chump greedy mom and dad smart aleck classless green moron smug clipped greenhorn mully-grubber sneaky closeminded groovy narrow-minded snob clueless guarded nasal snobbish cocky hard-headed nerds snobby cold harsh New York snobs communist hasty New Yorker snooty complainer heartless nice snooty-toots conceited hemorrhoids noisy snot condescending hero non-aware snotty conservative honky non-Southerner snowbird crass hostile non-Texan sophisticated crazy people hot dogs north spanky cursed human Northeasterner spirited cynical hurried northern step-child dead hurting Northerner strange demanding hypocrites Northerners stressed democrats idiots obnoxiOUS stubborn dense ignorant odd stuck-up deprived ill-mannered okay stuffed-shirtish different illegal aliens opinionated stupid

62

TABLE 2 (continued) Descriptive Words for Yankees

sweet tacky ta lkative talks odd terr ific them tight tigh twads tolerated tourist tourists transpla n t

tunnel vis ion turkey ugly u n -Texan uncaring unconcerned uncool uncouth • unemployed unfortunate unfriendly

a surprise in a state where the confed­erate flag is prom inently displayed and where the playing of " Dixie" at a public gathering frequently precipitates a more enthusiastic response than the "Star­Spangled Banner." . The State of Texas is southern, and it is western in its regional affiliation. Both Zelinsky (1980) and Shortridge (1985) slip the state into a vernacular region they simply define as the Southwest. The his­tory of Texas is punctuated with events that alternatively place it in the south or west. As Jordan et al. (1984) point out, by 1850, 81 percent of the immigrants in Texas originated from southern states with Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi leading the way. Only three percent were believed to have origi­nated from Yankee areas.

Texas chose to fight with the Confed­erate States during the Civil War, and when it was over they suffered many perceived injustices at the hands of the carpetbaggers, or " Yankees," from the North and East. Easterners also wrote the laws that strongly affected the western frontier of Texas in the late 1800's. To Texans the policies and instructions which came out of Washington were ig­norant because they came from men ig­norant of local conditions or affairs (Fehrenbach 1983). A strong foundation for a negative image of Yankees was being constructed , and it would con­tinue to grow.

In his classic work of Texas history, Fehrenbach suggests that "Every major

ungentlemen -like ungracious u nionist unknowing unliked unnecessary unpleasant unwanted unwelcome uppity uptigh t

wasp weird whiney white-complected wimps wit hdrawn worthless Yankees you guys yuck yuppies

social change that came in the 20th cen­tury was forced upon the State of Texas by outside pressures" (p. 709). These in­cluded female suffrage, desegregation, Negro voting rights, welfare programs, and various forms of the so-called civil rights policies. Furthermore, outsiders did not seem content to interfere with only social issues. Washington always seemed to be wanting to regulate and control the individual's use of his private property. First, the government tried to steal oil from Texas along the coastal tidelands. Then those "Yankees" succeeded in controlling the price Texans could re­ceive for their natural gas sold in inter­state commerce (Stobaugh and Yergin 1983). This led to the popular Texas bumper sticker, "Cap a Gas Well-Freeze a Yankee!"

Finally, the negative perception of Yankees, specifically, and outsiders in general, has been strengthened by the continuing mass migration of popula­tion into the state. Native Texans proudly display T-shirts and bumper stickers an­nouncing their native birth. They view the new migrants from the north as competitors for scarce jobs and talk of restricting their access to the state. In 1985, Texas Monthly advertised the sale of bricks which would be used to build a wall around Texas to keep the dreaded Yankee out. The Texas Employment Commission bought advertising time on New England radio stations to warn that unemployment was also serious in Texas. Sti ll, the outsiders kept arriv ing . Be-

63

tween 1970 and 1980, there was a net population increase of 1.4 million peo­ple in Texas from in-migration (Texas Data Management Program 1985).

Many native Texans are over­whelmed by the rapid pace of change that is occurring in their state. New tech­nology requires new faces and perhaps the secret admission of a need for "Yan­kee ingenuity" to help them out of their current economic slump. It is our opin­ion that the negative responses regis­tered in this study are a reflection of the shoot-from-the-hip style consistent with the western lore of days gone by. The response is not consistent with the per­sonality of the Texans we know as warm, friendly, helpful, and thoughtful. Addi­tionally, it may reflect one of Fehren­bach's closing statements: "Texans could not resist a longing for the Yankees to let the natives in the hinterlands run things for themselves, whether the Great White Father liked the way they were run or not" (p. 714).

CONCLUSIONS

Native born Texans have a very clear perception of which states serve as source areas for Yankees. They strongly identify 12 states in the northeast as the dominant domain of Yankees, with New York as the most likely source area. Five additional states in the northern Middle West were selected as potentially signif­icant suppliers of Yankees. Southern and western states are least likely to produce Yankees.

A one-word response reflecting the image that Yankees have among native Texans produced extremely negative re­sults, with Yankees being characterized as rude, obnoxious, arrogant, northern,

64

different, pushy, cold, and unfriendly. The negative response appears to have strong historical connotations, as well as a slightly xenophobic reaction to outsiders.

LITERATURE CITED

Downs, Roger G. and Stea, David. 1977. Maps in Minds: Reflections on Cognitive Map­ping, Harper & Row, New York.

Fehrenbach, T. R. 1983. Lone Star. , American Legacy Press, New York.

Great Wall of Texas Society, 1985. Advertise­ment in Texas Monthly, 4: 9.

Grosvenor, Gilbert M. 1988. From the Presi­dent-Pandas in Panama? National Geo­graphic, 174: iv.

Helgren, David B. 1983. Place Name Igno­rance Is National News, Journal of Geog­raphy, 82 : 176-178.

Hudson, John C. 1986. Yankeeland in the Middle West, Journal of Geography, 85 : 195-200.

Jordan, Terry G., Bean, John L. and Holmes, William. 1984. Texas : A Geography, West­view Press, Boulder.

Mather, Cotton. 1986. The Midwest: Image and Reality, Journal of Geography, 85: 190-94.

Texas Data Management Program, 1985. Net Migration In Texas: 1970-1980, The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station, 1: 1.

Shortridge, James R. 1987. Changing Usage of Four American Regional Labels, Annals of the Association of American Geogra­phers, 77 : 325-336.

Shortridge, James R. 1985. The Vernacular Middle West, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 75 : 48-57.

Stobaugh, Robert and Yergin, Daniel. 1983. Energy Future, Random House, New York.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1975. Images and Mental Maps, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 65 : 205-213.

Zelinsky, Wilber. 1980. North America's Ver­nacular Regions, Annals of the Associa­tion of American Geographers, 70: 1-16.

T

(

- -