Sowell's (and your) entire argument, essentially that whites set a bad example for blacks and thus it isn't blacks fault,
No it doesn't. His point is that culture, and especially family and community ties, is a major aspect that determines economic success. You seem to have selectively parts of what he said, assumed the absolute worst possible interpretation, ignored anything that contradicts you, and burried you head in the sand screaming about Leftists and Black supremacy.
My god, you ignored the point that New England whites explicitly set a good example which lead to blacks achieving a 50% literacy rate from 0% literacy rate within 3 generations which is effectively unheard of.
You also ignored that his complaints about blacks... were coming from black people!
thus it isn't blacks fault, rests on false, racially (and formerly nationally) motivated blood libel
What the absolute fuck are you talking about? He never said anything even kind of like that.
The thing he genuine condemns more than anything else is the welfare state for supporting, endorsing, an incentivizing the destruction of the family unit.
Scotland was every bit a leading scientific center even before the industrial revolution.
Riiiiight. Real "Prussian Academy of Sciences" up there.
And let's not forget the contributions of William Rowan Hamilton, James Watt, or Lord Kelvin during and after the Industrial Revolution.
He didn't forget about the contributions that the Scots made during the industrial revolution. He fucking cited it, and I quoted it!
Sowell himself got this idea from Grady McWhiney, who created the Celtic Thesis out of whole cloth. Simply put the Celtic Thesis cannot be correct because more Ulster-Scots immigrated to the north, prior to the civil war than to the south.
Just because there is a larger number of immigrants does not mean that the impact of those immigrants are the same. You haven't read it, but he's written an entire book on the issue called "Immigration And Culture".
Each wave of immigration represents specific peoples of specific places of specific times. Sowell goes on to explicitly point out that even Japanese immigrants to Brazil, coming from the exact same city and places, had entirely different cultures because they immigrated from Japan in completely different times, when Japan had entirely different environments. He points out the same thing for Chinese immigrants as well coming to the US. Not only do different provinces and regions of China generate different results, but even different neighborhoods. Compounded with cultural differences in time, there's no reason to believe that all immigrants are going to behave exactly the same; but they will be taking many of their home lives with them to the new place.
It sounds to me that you're obsessing about a racial determinist hypothesis of the Ulster-Scotts that he isn't making, because it's one you probably make on your own time.
We would need to know which time frame Ulster-Scott people (in time) migrated to which area. We would also need to know how much of have been effected by other communities, and if they would have continued to isolate themselves out from other communities that could have effected them. It's possible that northern communities could have adopted more New England attitudes. Additionally, the situation could be reversed in the south where other groups fed into the same bad cultural behavior and magnified the problem.
All of this is an interesting look into how immigration effects societies, and how societies effect immigrants, but because your making crazy statements about a 'blood libel', I need to stop and point out that he mentioned that the Ulster-Scotts moved the fuck on and aren't doing anything like this now.
Again, changes between domestic and immigrant populations are another topic he goes over in that book.
He is just another leftist looking to blame whitey.
While this is hilariously wrong on it's face with anyone who's read anything by the man at all, I'd love to hear your explanation about why he has more than one chapter dedicated to the fact that both English colonists and Indian settlers in Africa repeatedly complained about the difficulty of Africans being unable to adopt the cultural techniques that would make them productive, or even reliable, workers in any sense of the imagination. Including, but not limited to, all of the things you quoted.
This is also ignoring the fact that I specifically pointed a quote where he identifies that black students just don't work as hard as whites.
I'm sure the guy who was arguing against mandatory busing and racial quotas in the 80's has really been a crypto-black-supremacist for the past 7 decades.
Finally lets look at where Sowell is coming from... Harvard and Columbia University...
And then he got a Ph.D in the University of Chicago, adopted Chicago School economics, and has been teaching at the Hoover Institution since before I was born, you utterly mis-shapen banana.
Much of the cultural pattern of Southern rednecks became the cultural heritage of Southern blacks, ... The very way of talking, later to be christened “black English,” closely followed dialects brought over from those parts of Britain from which many white Southerners came, though these speech patterns died out in Britain while surviving in the American South,143 as such speech patterns would later die out among most Southern whites and among middle-class blacks, while surviving in the poorer black ghettos around the country.
This is flat out wrong in multiple ways. The speech patterns of white southerners, especially in eastern Tennessee, is the last place on Earth that preserves how English was spoken in the early 1700. In England itself, English was mutated by class strife as groups, both elite and common tried to separate themselves. In the north east, English was contaminated by the British pronunciations. In Mississippi and Georgia English was destroyed by the blacks, as they do with everything. In the west, well who the fuck knows where the retardation of how Californians speak comes from.
Given the historical background of crackers and rednecks in Britain, it could hardly be expected that intellectual activity would be a major interest of theirs in the United States.
The pattern is one said by Professor McWhiney to go back to descriptions of ancient Celts as “boasters and threateners, and given to bombastic self-dramatisation.”
Most of the common white people of the South came from the northern borderlands of England—for centuries a no-man’s land between Scotland and England—as well as from the Scottish highlands and from Ulster County, Ireland.
Touchy pride, vanity, and boastful self-dramatization were also part of this redneck culture among people from regions of Britain “where the civilization was the least developed.”
John Napier (1 February 1550 – 4 April 1617), a Scottish mathematician, made his discoveries (the logarithms in 1614) around the same time the colony of Jamestown was established (1607). But he was just a backwards illiterate Scot.
The neglect and disdain of education found among antebellum white Southerners
Given the historical background of crackers and rednecks in Britain, it could hardly be expected that intellectual activity would be a major interest of theirs in the United States. A study of 18,000 county records from seventeenth-century colonial Virginia showed that nearly half of all the white male Virginians “were so illiterate that they could not sign their names” and simply made a mark on legal documents.
Compare that to the English literacy rate of the same time.
The definition of the term "literacy" in the 17th and 18th centuries is different from our current definition of literacy. Historians measured the literacy rate during the 17th and 18th century centuries by people's ability to sign their names.
so the comparison is valid.
The rate of illiteracy decreased more rapidly in more populated areas and areas where there was mixture of religious schools. The literacy rate in England in the 1640s was around 30 percent for males, rising to 60 percent in the mid-18th century. In France, the rate of literacy in 1686-90 was around 29 percent for men and 14 percent for women, before it increased to 48 percent for men and 27 percent for women.
The "poor stupid" white southerners of the 17th with their literacy rate of 50% were more literate than the English or the French of the same time period. It is Sowell's underhanded lack of context that makes 50% literacy seem bad.
Every assertion Sowell made about white southerners or celts is wrong. He is wrong about their lack of education, he is wrong about their lack of contribution before the industrial revolution, he is wrong about their industriousness, and he is wrong about where they came from and migrated to.
And to cap it all off, you missed the entire point of my original post. If this:
"The cultural values and social patterns prevalent among New York Jews include an aversion to work, proneness to prevarication, neglect of hygiene, sexual promiscuity, nepotism, avarice, lack of ethics and morals, relentless undermining of the surrounding culture, perversion of others' arts, and a style of oratory marked by claims of victimhood, unbridled greed, and narcissism."
is the antisemitism you are always to quick to accuse other of, then this:
The cultural values and social patterns prevalent among Southern whites included an aversion to work, proneness to violence, neglect of education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of entrepreneurship, reckless searches for excitement, lively music and dance, and a style of religious oratory marked by strident rhetoric, unbridled emotions, and flamboyant imagery.
You are adding emotional connotation where there isn't any, and you're doing it because you want to be mad.
Every assertion Sowell made about white southerners or celts is wrong. He is wrong about their lack of education, he is wrong about their lack of contribution before the industrial revolution, he is wrong about their industriousness, and he is wrong about where they came from and migrated to.
You haven't shown any of those things at all, and worse, he wasn't talking about celts. Again, it really seems like you're trying to insert both a deterministic and moral claim that doesn't exist.
I suspect this is because you're fighting a race war in your head and ascribing the black man with glasses to be an opponent in that war; regardless of whether or not he is even prepared to accept the premises of your narrative.
The cultural values and social patterns prevalent among New York Jews include an aversion to work, proneness to prevarication, neglect of hygiene, sexual promiscuity, nepotism, avarice, lack of ethics and morals, relentless undermining of the surrounding culture, perversion of others' arts, and a style of oratory marked by claims of victimhood, unbridled greed, and narcissism.
This isn't anti-semetic because it's not even about Semites. Because you've specified New York and Jews, you're still talking about a culture among New York Jews. You are not talking about an innate and fundamental character of all Jews.
Once again, I have to bring you up to speed on Immigrations and Cultures where he goes over this very fact of the different cultural behaviors and attitudes of Germanic Jews and Eastern European Jews who migrated to Germany in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
Since I'm pretty sure this is where your fundamental misunderstanding is coming from, I'll try to be clear: Culture is not the result of racial genetic determinism. Stop back-filling his observations about culture as a criticism of the racial genetics of Celts.
No it doesn't. His point is that culture, and especially family and community ties, is a major aspect that determines economic success. You seem to have selectively parts of what he said, assumed the absolute worst possible interpretation, ignored anything that contradicts you, and burried you head in the sand screaming about Leftists and Black supremacy.
My god, you ignored the point that New England whites explicitly set a good example which lead to blacks achieving a 50% literacy rate from 0% literacy rate within 3 generations which is effectively unheard of.
You also ignored that his complaints about blacks... were coming from black people!
What the absolute fuck are you talking about? He never said anything even kind of like that.
The thing he genuine condemns more than anything else is the welfare state for supporting, endorsing, an incentivizing the destruction of the family unit.
Riiiiight. Real "Prussian Academy of Sciences" up there.
He didn't forget about the contributions that the Scots made during the industrial revolution. He fucking cited it, and I quoted it!
Just because there is a larger number of immigrants does not mean that the impact of those immigrants are the same. You haven't read it, but he's written an entire book on the issue called "Immigration And Culture".
Each wave of immigration represents specific peoples of specific places of specific times. Sowell goes on to explicitly point out that even Japanese immigrants to Brazil, coming from the exact same city and places, had entirely different cultures because they immigrated from Japan in completely different times, when Japan had entirely different environments. He points out the same thing for Chinese immigrants as well coming to the US. Not only do different provinces and regions of China generate different results, but even different neighborhoods. Compounded with cultural differences in time, there's no reason to believe that all immigrants are going to behave exactly the same; but they will be taking many of their home lives with them to the new place.
It sounds to me that you're obsessing about a racial determinist hypothesis of the Ulster-Scotts that he isn't making, because it's one you probably make on your own time.
We would need to know which time frame Ulster-Scott people (in time) migrated to which area. We would also need to know how much of have been effected by other communities, and if they would have continued to isolate themselves out from other communities that could have effected them. It's possible that northern communities could have adopted more New England attitudes. Additionally, the situation could be reversed in the south where other groups fed into the same bad cultural behavior and magnified the problem.
All of this is an interesting look into how immigration effects societies, and how societies effect immigrants, but because your making crazy statements about a 'blood libel', I need to stop and point out that he mentioned that the Ulster-Scotts moved the fuck on and aren't doing anything like this now.
Again, changes between domestic and immigrant populations are another topic he goes over in that book.
While this is hilariously wrong on it's face with anyone who's read anything by the man at all, I'd love to hear your explanation about why he has more than one chapter dedicated to the fact that both English colonists and Indian settlers in Africa repeatedly complained about the difficulty of Africans being unable to adopt the cultural techniques that would make them productive, or even reliable, workers in any sense of the imagination. Including, but not limited to, all of the things you quoted.
This is also ignoring the fact that I specifically pointed a quote where he identifies that black students just don't work as hard as whites.
I'm sure the guy who was arguing against mandatory busing and racial quotas in the 80's has really been a crypto-black-supremacist for the past 7 decades.
And then he got a Ph.D in the University of Chicago, adopted Chicago School economics, and has been teaching at the Hoover Institution since before I was born, you utterly mis-shapen banana.
This is flat out wrong in multiple ways. The speech patterns of white southerners, especially in eastern Tennessee, is the last place on Earth that preserves how English was spoken in the early 1700. In England itself, English was mutated by class strife as groups, both elite and common tried to separate themselves. In the north east, English was contaminated by the British pronunciations. In Mississippi and Georgia English was destroyed by the blacks, as they do with everything. In the west, well who the fuck knows where the retardation of how Californians speak comes from.
John Napier (1 February 1550 – 4 April 1617), a Scottish mathematician, made his discoveries (the logarithms in 1614) around the same time the colony of Jamestown was established (1607). But he was just a backwards illiterate Scot.
Compare that to the English literacy rate of the same time.
(unfortunately this information is from wikipedia, James van Horn Melton, Absolutism and the Eighteenth-Century Origins of Compulsory Schooling in Prussia and Austria (2003), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Age_of_Enlightenment#cite_ref-9 ) Their definition of literacy:
so the comparison is valid.
The "poor stupid" white southerners of the 17th with their literacy rate of 50% were more literate than the English or the French of the same time period. It is Sowell's underhanded lack of context that makes 50% literacy seem bad.
Every assertion Sowell made about white southerners or celts is wrong. He is wrong about their lack of education, he is wrong about their lack of contribution before the industrial revolution, he is wrong about their industriousness, and he is wrong about where they came from and migrated to.
And to cap it all off, you missed the entire point of my original post. If this:
is the antisemitism you are always to quick to accuse other of, then this:
is no different.
You are adding emotional connotation where there isn't any, and you're doing it because you want to be mad.
You haven't shown any of those things at all, and worse, he wasn't talking about celts. Again, it really seems like you're trying to insert both a deterministic and moral claim that doesn't exist.
I suspect this is because you're fighting a race war in your head and ascribing the black man with glasses to be an opponent in that war; regardless of whether or not he is even prepared to accept the premises of your narrative.
This isn't anti-semetic because it's not even about Semites. Because you've specified New York and Jews, you're still talking about a culture among New York Jews. You are not talking about an innate and fundamental character of all Jews.
Once again, I have to bring you up to speed on Immigrations and Cultures where he goes over this very fact of the different cultural behaviors and attitudes of Germanic Jews and Eastern European Jews who migrated to Germany in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
Since I'm pretty sure this is where your fundamental misunderstanding is coming from, I'll try to be clear: Culture is not the result of racial genetic determinism. Stop back-filling his observations about culture as a criticism of the racial genetics of Celts.