And while there were some informative parts, there were some parts I found to be downright biological determinist and reactionary. The first issue I had with it was it seems to want to almost bring back the myth of Teutonism and Anglo Saxonism. it talks about how essential America's British past was and how it was what made America, not the broken backs of minorities and poor people . The second issue I had with it was the chapter on the "borderers" people from the north of England and lowland Scotland as well as Northern Ireland who settled in Appalachia and the Ozarks and are what people call "white trash" today. He basically implies these people were dirtier, dumber and more promiscuous than the rest of the British colonial stock, I won't say it feels racist because these people were largely of white ancestry, but this part of the book feels very classist and elitist.
I'm selling it short i'm sure. I'm not the brightest guy around, but in my gut I could feel why some on the right say this is one of the best books on American history. Because it appeals to that myth of "Anglo Saxon white America" they've got constantly playing in their heads.
Anyone else read this? What did you think?
I won’t say it feels racist because these people were largely of white ancestry, but this part of the book feels very classist and elitist.
Imagine thinking that English aristocrats aren't racist enough to view the Irish as an inferior race. They are 100% that racist. You should see the shit English politicians said about the "Irish subhumans" during the Potato famine (an intentional genocide).
I was speaking strictly in regards to ulster scots and lowland Scotland protestants, not south Irish Catholics. who I agree were treated like shit even by Scotland and Wales.
The second issue I had with it was the chapter on the “borderers” people from the north of England and lowland Scotland as well as Northern Ireland who settled in Appalachia and the Ozarks and are what people call “white trash” today. He basically implies these people were dirtier, dumber and more promiscuous than the rest of the British colonial stock, I won’t say it feels racist because these people were largely of white ancestry, but this part of the book feels very classist and elitist.
I haven't read it, but what you're describing is racism. The same racism that was used against the Irish.
Skin colour differences are not a required aspect of this racial ideology. What underpins it is a belief in ancestry, bloodlines and eugenics.
That's funny, I read this in either late high school or college, and it was recommended by a lib social studies teacher who used a few excerpts in our APUSH class. Overall I thought it was interesting but way too fucking long. This was supposed to be the first part of a series, and the second book was going to be kind of a similar idea, but tracing the cultures of Black people back to Africa. I heard about this, like, fifteen years ago, and he still hasn't written the book, so I don't think it's going to happen, probably because a) it requires way more work (i.e., understanding African languages) and b) it undermines the idea that white folks in America were Guided By Ideals of Liberty (TM).
The author has another book I read, The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythms of History, which is about how sometimes prices go up and sometimes they go down, and this is caused by Literally Anything Except Capitalism, extending back about five hundred years through European history. And I also read Washington's Crossing, which is about how Washington Is Awesome and he was friendly to his favorite slave (no mention of Ona Judge) and how it was cool and good for Washington to "condescend" to the lower classes because it was normal back then to be a huge fucking asshole. And I listened to most of the book he wrote about Samuel de Champlain, which is about how the guy was actually nice to indigenous people and wanted to create a new civilization with them and also about how they were kind of barbarians anyway so it was cool for them to be enlightened by the French. Yeah, I was and still am a fucking dork.
When I was a lib I loved that social studies teacher and got only A's in his classes although I was generally a C student. After I went to college and lived in South Korea for years I came back home and ran into him at a political event which was, ironically enough, held in the gorgeous, secluded mansion of an old white liberal (not the teacher) who freely admitted in a letter to the editor to the local paper that his ancestors had owned slaves. This was probably late 2017. I told the teacher about universal health care in South Korea and how it was so much better than the system in America in countless ways, mentioned that I had used it personally hundreds of times (mostly for vaxxing my young kids), and he looked at me like I was insane. He must have voted for either Biden or Warren in the primary. It's just funny to me that you can tell a liberal about a personal experience you have had, provide evidence to support even a relatively moderate point (universal health care), and they will still think you are a raving lunatic.
it talks about how essential America’s British past was and how it was what made America
i mean where the colonizers came from is really important for how the project used and justified the cruel practices they would. British people created racial hierarchies based on concepts they debuted in ireland; the spanish worked indians and africans into a precolombian system based on religion and fractions of descent
We can’t forget the Swedes for giving us Carl Linnaeus, the man who pioneered modern taxonomy and also biological racism. There’s something evil in those north sea waters I tell ya
I agree. It just doesn't seem like Fischer is using it to explain the racial caste system in America, moreso the book to me almost read like an attempt to revive the Teutonic people's myth again.
one of those cases where someone misappropriates a valid line of historical inquiry into bunkum
He basically implies these people were dirtier, dumber and more promiscuous than the rest of the British colonial stock
I'd say that parroting King James I talking points used to justify the forced relocation of the border Scots to Ulster to replace the Irish, there, and who became the Scots Irishz is pretty racist.
Fair enough, prejudice is prejudice. He even ranked them on a scale if I remember correctly English Anglicans at the top, Scottish Presbyterians in the middle and the Irish Catholics at the bottom. The majority of my fathers ancestry is from ulster and while I don't doubt there are some reactionary Appalachian scots irish, I don't think they are intrinsically Violent, promiscuous or prone to stupidity. My dad's family were very sweet salt of the earth type people working class farmers.
Appalachian scots irish are fascinating. I can't say that they didn't ultimately perform some of the same acts as the other settler groups, but there's something to be said for running off to the uncolonized appalachians to do zero impact subsistence farming. The reason that the miners were more willing to fight capitalists than other groups is because they had the same material trajectory essentially as most other colonized producers of raw materials, despite being white.
Characterizing folks from Appalachia and similar places as violent brutes is necessary to justify the systemic violence, institutional neglect, and social murder levelled against the. You know Calvinists. Always separating people in to the worthy and the damned.
The thesis of the populations being separate from each other is pretty fairly applicable for the Puritans, but it's a much weaker argument for the other 3.
No one outside of Virginia knows or cares what a Cavalier is.
I tend to think that people under estimate the role biology plays in psychology. However I think that the mechanism being able to work on the small scale on english pesents is wildly overstating the claim. That is some skull shape level thinking. There is no mechanism for the effect to be that strong. Claiming it is that localizeable ignores alot about what we know in reguards to pelple moving around and hooking up. It is mostly a liberal attempt to explain away historical materialism.
Heritage is another thing under the broad umbrella of "things people are somehow proud of despite having contributed nothing to and people are somehow okay with that"
Call me a weirdo but I just don't get it. Proud of family that died before you existed? Proud of your hometown because of a local dish you have never made? Proud of a sports team that's in a city you've never visited? Proud of a country you just kinda live in, your only contribution being taxes that you bitch about constantly? Couldn't be me. Just seems fucking nonsensical. You didn't do anything. You just sort of decided this was a part of your identity and started swelling up your ego like a balloon over it.
there were some parts I found to be downright biological determinist and reactionary
I HATE SECULAR CALVINISM
I H ATE SECULAR CALVINISM
should put the name of the book in there in case anyone searches for it
oh and if they fix the time-wall, I guess
I would say it actually is racist and serves as an important reminder that whiteness isn't about skin color but about hierarchy and your relation to power. Who is considered white has changed dramatically over the centuries. At one point Irish, Italians, Slavs, and even Germans were not considered to be "white races". The expansion of the privilege of whiteness happened gradually over time and usually correlated with the existing whites needing to bolster their numbers to retain political and economic control.
The Appalachians are so remote and economically marginal that the people who live their have been written off by all the major political factions in the us. It's not an accident they were settled by the subjugated peoples of the British Isles.
Ironically, the total abandonment of Appalachia makes it a pretty good recruiting ground for Leftists. People there know exactly how badly capitalism has fucked them over. A little bit of theory and they have the context to assemble why and how it happened. And they're generally survivors, even in communities ravaged by drugs and neglect. There's a couple of good leftist podcasts coming out of Appalachia though the names escape me at the moment.
