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.
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.