ABSTRACT
Native Texans' Perception
of Yankees
Byron D. Augustin
and Dennis E. Fitzsimons
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.
Yankees, Texans, perceptual
regions, region.
KEY WORDS:
INTRODUCTION
Geography
and Planning Department
Southwest Texas State University
San Marcos, Texas 78666-4616
56
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 stu dent could take such a seemingly illogical 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 m ind 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. Th is
problem was most frequent with the 1218 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, Hel gren 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 Maryland 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 affiliations 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
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 between the core of Yankeeland and nonYankeeland . Generally perceived by
geographers as being Middle West by
Perce ntage
description, all five of these states are
viewed as marginal source areas for
Yankees by native-born Texans. Ohio,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin are included
59
_b______________~
Percent Yankee
Im:::ml 72.6 - 93.5
1:» 151.0 - 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 lists 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
abrupt
accent
accented
adaptable
aggressive
airhead
alien
aloof
American
annoying
arrogant
awesome
baseball player
beer
bigot
bitchy
blue belly
bluebellies
boisterous
boneheads
bossy
Boston beans
brash
brusque
bum
calculating
carpetbagger
caustic
charming
cheap
cheaters
chowder
chump
classless
clipped
closeminded
clueless
cocky
cold
communist
complainer
conceited
condescending
conservative
crass
crazy people
cursed
cynical
dead
demanding
democrats
dense
deprived
different
62
different idea
dimwit
dlrtbag
discourteous
displaced fools
distant
do-gooder
dogmatic dull
dumb
dweeb
egotistical
Englander
expletive
fake
fast
fast-paced
fast -talking
feminine
fine
fools
foreign
foreigner
freaks
freedom
freeloaders
friend
friendly
frigid
frontiersman
funny accent
funny-talking
great
greedy
green
greenhorn
groovy
guarded
hard-headed
harsh
hasty
heartless
hemorrhoids
hero
honky
hostile
hot dogs
human
hurried
hurting
hypocrites
idiots
ignorant
ill-mannered
illegal aliens
illiterate
Impatient
Imperious
Impersonal
Impolite
Impossible
Inconsiderate
Incorrigible
Indifferent
Inhospitable
insecure
insensitive
Insolent
Intellectu al
Interesting
invader
Inventive
Irritating
Jerk
Jews
know-it-all
leech
liberal
lonely
loser
lost
loud
loudmouthed
rna terialistic
mega-rude
migrant
misfit
misrepresented
mom and dad
moron
mully-grubber
narrow-minded
nasal
nerds
New York
New Yorker
nice
noisy
non-aware
non-Southerner
non-Texan
north
Northeasterner
northern
Northerner
Northerners
obnoxiOUS
odd
okay
opinionated
opportunist
out of town
outlandish
outsider
outspoken
over-bearing
over-educated
pale
people
pests
pleasant
presumptuous
proud
pushy
quarrelsome
queer
red necks
road hog
robbers
rodent
rude
rushed
ruthless
sarcastic
self-absorbed
self-centered
selfish
senseless
settler
slang
slick
slime
slow
smart aleck
smug
sneaky
snob
snobbish
snobby
snobs
snooty
snooty-toots
snot
snotty
snowbird
sophisticated
spanky
spirited
step-child
strange
stressed
stubborn
stuck-up
stuffed-shirtish
stupid
TABLE 2 (continued)
Descriptive Words for Yankees
sweet
tacky
ta lkative
talks odd
terr ific
th em
tight
tigh twa ds
tole rated
tourist
tourists
transpla n t
tunnel vis ion
t urkey
u gly
u n -Texan
uncaring
unconcerned
uncool
uncouth •
unemployed
unfortunate
unfriendl y
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 ig norant 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
ungentlem e n -like
ungracious
u nionist
unknowing
unliked
unnecess ary
unplea s ant
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 i ng . 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
(