Talk:Scotch-Irish American/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Slavery issue

There is evidence of slavery in Appalachia, in particular Northern Virginia and what became West Virginia, where my Scots-Irish ancestors were. I don't know where the person providing a "Scots-Irish American personality" got this lovely bit social psychology. There are slave auction structures that still exist and are available for public viewing. I am going to remove that bit o blarney so we have something NPOV and factual. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 20:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Scottish?

I often refer to myself as Scottish. I find it quite odd that this article says that only 'Scots' is used - I use that sometimes, but mainly to refer to the Scots language. I'm pretty sure this is true generally, and 'Scottish' is a very common term where I'm from (Scotland). --Emma

"Scotch-Irish" and "Scotch whisky" are the two terms where "Scotch" rather than "Scots" or "Scottish" are customary and acceptable. 76.216.65.232 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Most Scots object to the term 'Scotch' --86.143.252.235 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)--86.143.252.235 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)--86.143.252.235 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)--86.143.252.235 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

1/3.. 1/3.. 1/3

The information in this article needs to be coordinated with Ulster-Scots. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 23:21, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Could someone kindly indicate which presidents exactly had Ulster-born parents?

I think Scots-Irish should be Scotch-Irish. That's what we identify ourselves as.

Research in Ireland is showing that about 1/3 of the so called Scots-Irish really had any connection with Scotland at all. One third were of English acendency and the other 1/3 were in fact Irish. There is a lot of myth building about this Scots-Irish thing and I plan to cause a major review of this article in the near future. Weighbloat

It goes back and forth from what I've read. The Irish saying they are virtually all Irish but the Northern Irish saying that's not correct. But yes - not all Scots-Irish are Scots or even Irish. It's things to do with the Plantation of Ulster, Ulster-Scots and that kind of thing.

There was much intermarriage between these groups way back then as there is today. Examples, Edmund Burke with an Irish Catholic mother and a English acendency protestant father, but then again Burke is a native Irish surname. A similiar situation pertained to the Duke of Wellington. So it was all fairly mixed. But at that time religion was the key to where one figured in the power scale, with 'Church of Ireland' (as in Church of England) being in the acendency.Weighbloat 18:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A fair percentage of the so-called Scotch-Irish were neither Scottish nor Irish but in fact French Huguenots who emigrated to Northern Ireland. David Hoag 06:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Of the "1/3" as said above that indeed come from Scotland, they too were ethnic English. Southeast Scotland was part of English Northumbria until the Scottish conquest (after Bruce's execution).

I'd like to see a source for this. The Scots-Irish are not only those people who arrived in Ireland from Scotland during the Plantation - they are also people who migrated back and forth between the two locations over the period of at least a couple of millenia. There was also a shared kingdom called Dal Riata, which accounts for some people of this background. Therefore, Scots-Irish Americans, and many Irish-Americans also, are likely to be of this ethnic grouping. As David Hoag suggests, its a very mixed group and quite complex. --Mal 16:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the 'Scots' involved in the original ulster plantation in the early 17th century were actually half english / half scots and wholly neither - borderers with allegiances that could be bought by either side. After the unification of the scottish and english crowns, King James, the now british king, cracked down on the border regions between the two countries and basically exiled the most lawless elements to ulster. The removal of any 'english' association appears to be down to the fact that at least in the early days of america, the english-american was regarded as the 'vanilla' flavour of american against which all other identities were expressed. CarlisleBorderer 26 September, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.27.50 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

I fixed up the bibliography, and added a few political points. And I incorporated some of the Celtic Thesis of McDonald & McWhiney, which James Webb has popularizedRjensen 05:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ulster-Scots?

This doesn't make sense at all, while the majority of Scotch-Irish settlers in Ireland lived in the Ulster province, not all of them did. For example in my ancestry there many of them came from County Longford, which is not in the Ulster province. It's not accurate to not mention those who didn't live in Ulster and those who lived in parts of Ulster no longer part of Northern Ireland, such as County Monaghan.

It's also inaccurate to portray them merely as Scottish immigrants to Ireland and seperate from today's Catholic Irish, when infact there was a lot of mixing between the native Irish, English settlers, Scottish settlers and even Welsh settlers to Ireland.. so that even most Irish catholics have Scottish/English heritage originating in this era, and that many of the Protestant Immigrants to America in the 1700s and early 1800s were thoroughly mixed with the native Irish and considered themselves to be Irish. Genetically speaking there's little to differentiate between those of Scotch-Irish stock and those of Catholic Irish heritage, because they generally mixed together over the years.

it's not genetics it's culture and history that make them different. Rjensen 23:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Tired of Bigotry

I am really sick and tired of all the bigoted comments made against people of Scotch Irish or Irish people in general. Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased. If you are going to make up information dont even bother contributing.

lets try to be unibiased when editing wikipedia, and simply provide the facts without writing from a particular view point. Anti-Protestant bigotry is just as bad as any other form of bigotry. User:Wikidude1 11 March 2006

Agree with last comment. Wiki is full of pigeon holing references, and that puts me off a bit. Sometimes there's a lot of NPOV stuff being pushed, and quite frankly it's difficult to avoid being sucked into the argument. I also know this is also true about Scots-Irish, I red a fascinating article about these immigrants in History Ireland monthly, and just one third of the said immigrants were from Ulster. They weren't all Scots-Irish, and actually far from it, with French Huguenots and German Palintines also figuring strongly. Bluegold 03:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Other ethnic groups

RJensen: I'm happier with the compromise you made recently. I should perhaps try to explain more fully the reasoning behind my edits (and subsequent reverts). Similar to the comments above regarding "pigeon holing", I feel there is too much emphasis placed on religion in many of these (similar types of) articles. While religion was apparently important to many of the individuals (Scots-Irish people), and freedom of religion also.. and while the fact that the later Irish arrivals (who were mostly RC) from the famine era tended to keep themselves separate to some extent from the already established American settlers (in contrast, apparently, to the Scots-Irish for example).. I do think that references to other ethnic groups should be moved to a later part of the article, as is usually the case with other types of articles regarding a wide range of subjects. I'm not suggesting they necessarily be moved to a See also section, as the interaction or lack of interaction with subsequent settlers possibly plays an important part in the history of the group.

I don't believe these groups should be mentioned in the opening paragraphs - the introduction. Also, the dynamics of the inter-ethnic groups is more complex than alluded to in the initial paragraph. For example, it mentions in the intro that they have "a strong historical opposition to Roman Catholicism". But this lessened considerably with time, whereas a feeling of Irish nationalism lasted far longer with later Irish immigrants (usually, but not exceptionally, RCs). And the intro fails to note how most of the Scots-Irish had brought with them a certain amount of resentment of the British establishment (possibly due in large part to the Penal Laws affecting Presbyterians back home), and had fought against the British for independence.

Irish history is a lot more complex than is often explained, and full of dichotomy, irony, changes of allegiences and is not always black and white. And that's the crux of the matter, in my opinion, when it came to my decision to remove the references to the other ethnic groups mentioned in the intro.

Further to that, I do think there is a case that can be made for creating a template which lists all of the major ethnic groups of the USA.. similar to the two templates at the bottom of the Northern Ireland article for example. I don't mind doing the initial work on the template, unless somebody else wants to have a crack at it. --Mal 09:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we disagree mostly on matters of presentation. For a beginner new to the topic it's very confusing to have these very similar overlapping groups. The goal is to help guide the readers to the right article, not to give a master solution in the opening summary. I would add that in my obervation, the Catholic Irish in USA kept a much stronger sense of community much longer. The comparison with Canada is striking. Rjensen 06:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that perhaps we disagree with the presentation of the article. However, I'd like to go ahead and make the edits as I see appropriate and you can see what it looks like and perhaps even agree with me. I will make the edits at a future date (it means creating a template and possibly some rewording/shuffling of the main body text). --Mal 20:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The need for specific references

The term is "Scotch-Irish," and it means people who moved from the Ulster plantantion to the American colonies in massive waves of emigration during the 18th century, with peaks in 1730 and 1770 and other years. The people were overwhelmingly Protestant, mainly Presbyterian, and their ancestors came to northern Ireland from the lowlands of Scotland as part of King James I's Plantation of Ulster. After spending several generations in northern Ireland, a combination of famines, rack-rents and religious persecution caused many of them to emigrate. They often just refered to themselves as "Irish," but in the 19th century, when large waves of Catholic Irish came to America, they adopted the term, "Scotch-Irish" in order to distinguish themselves. This is the history of the Scotch-Irish. Lots of people don't understand the term. My own father, who is more Scotch-Irish than I am, thought it meant a mixture of Scottish and Irish blood. But we can be clear about the term. (OBTW, Scots-Irish American, I believe, is something made up by a Wikipedian). Now I imagine this is going to launch some lively discussion, but let me propose that we rewrite this article, sticking to WP:Cite and WP:NPOV. Use of the <ref> to back up specific assertions will help us untangle this mess. Tomcool 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying to uphold Wikipedia policy goes without saying. Let's discuss specific assertions. I'm not sure which ones you have in mind as questionable.

Is it "Scotch-Irish" vs. "Scots-Irish"? They get about 1 million vs. 200 thousand Google hits respectively. Both are legitimate though I would support having the former be the actual article and the latter the redirect.

Is it whether immigration was almost entirely from Ulster vs. including large numbers of culturally similar people from the England-Scotland border region? Both views have their proponents who are already referenced in the article.--JWB 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Both Scots-Irish and Scotch Irish are in common use--the latter is more common in serious scholarship. JSTOR (full text of several hundred scholarly journals) has 1886 scholarly books and journal articles using "Scotch Irish" and only 439 using "Scots Irish". Few book titles in recent years use "Scots"Rjensen 02:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct, unbiased, historical term is "Scotch-Irish," not "Scots-Irish." This is the term that the people themselves adopted, and so when we speak of these people, this is the term that we should use. Otherwise, it's revisionism. It's good to google the variants; it's better to read some of the histories, or even to know the names of some of the pertinent historical societies. Here's one quote: ". . . in this country [USA], where they have been called Scotch-Irish for over two hundred years, it would be absurd to give them a name by which they are not known here . . . Here their name is Scotch-Irish; let us call them by it." This is one citation. We're talking about a people who identified themselves by this term in America; therefore, the American term should hold precendence, just as Lenape should hold precedence over Delaware. Tomcool (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(DNA story not well sourced (wiki waits until scholars reach consensus))

In this case the article was already documenting two well-established opposing scholarly points of view. The Genographic Project link was supporting one of the two. --JWB 20:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

America vs North America, Scots-Irish American vs Sots-Irish

As the article points out, Ulster-Scots emigrated to both the USA and Canada. However, American in popular usage has become synonymous with 'citizen of the USA'. Title and article seem to reflect this ambiguity. Might it be more accurate to rename the article 'Scots-Irish' or 'Scotch-Irish', and review the use in it of the term 'American'? Countersubject 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think 'Sots-Irish' would be a very good idea.

This article is on a par with other articles on US ethnic groups; see the categories at the bottom of the article.

Irish Canadian has only a little on Scots-Irish settlement in Nova Scotia. Scottish Canadian has nothing. There is a Category:Ulster-Scottish Canadians Category:Ulster-Scottish Canadians. --JWB 18:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're suggesting that 'Scots-Irish' would be a bad idea because there are seperate Wikipedia categories for US and Canadian ethnic groups. I detect the beginnings of a circular argument. Countersubject 07:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what argument you are making for change. 'Scots-Irish' or 'Scotch-Irish' already redirect to this article. If American is already ambiguous, than the article isn't excluding Canadians, or going out of scope by mentioning Canadians. There is also already an article Ulster-Scots on the Ulster-Scots people globally.

Sounds like you're from the other side of the pond. Here in The Colony (Canada) we never use the term "American" to refer to outselves, unless it's prefaced by "North". I came here because while there is currently a Category:Ulster-Scottish Canadians there is no article on that group; surprisingly given their prominent role in all the colonies which became Canada; there is an English Canadian page, which because of the nature of the place isn't about English ethnicity in specific, and there's Irish Canadian and Scottish Canadian. Here in BC the histories refer to most of these guys as Anglo-Irish, but not necessarily from Ulster; anglicized Irish is more what the term meant, so it's not quite the same thing as the Scottish-Irish presbyterian thing in the north. But Anglo-Irish redirects to Scots-Irish despite that; I came to Scots-Irish American to query about two individuals who were Premiers of British Columbia who are in the Category:Ulster-Scottish Canadians (John Foster McCreight, Andrew Charles Elliott) as I was about to put Category:Irish Canadians as I had for others who hadn't been premier (John Andrew Mara, Forbes George Vernon) but were also Anglo-Irish. Whether they were Ulsterites (my impression of Vernon is that he was from Dublin) or Protestant (CoE in many cases, rather than Presbyterian) or anglicized Irish in some other way, I don't know but I'm also perplexed by the overlapping definitions and variables in given cases; (1) there should be a Ulster-Scottish Canadian (and/or Anglo-Irish Canadian article) and (2) can someone explain to me the particularities of the wordworks in the preceding pernambulations? There are other prominent bios in BC who number among the Anglo-Irish, and/or the Irish, including premiers (e.g. John Hart), so I'm holding off until I understand this better, and until someone who has the knowledge writes up an equivalent article for Canada; speaking of which (3) the Canadian content here should be in a separate article, not one involving "America".Skookum1 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a category of articles for US ethnic groups. If you feel they should be merged with Canadian ethnic groups, you should consider it across the board. The subsequent histories of the US and Canadian Scots-Irish are fairly divergent, so there is a better case for individual coverage than there is for many ethnic groups. --JWB 18:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the title and the article are ambiguous, and that some thought should be given to clarification. The title qualifies Scots-Irish with American, rather of the USA, and in discussing geographical distribution, the article refers to Novia Scotia, a Canadian Province. However, there is then little discussion of the Canadian emigrants and their descendants, other than in contrast to the main theme of the article, the Scots-Irish of the USA. In addition, the article is tagged with US categories, but not Canadian.

I would suggest the options are (i) Rename the article to Scots-Irish of the USA. (ii) Broaden the article and its categorisation to include Canada. (iii) Some compromise between the two, e.g. a short summary article to cover the whole of North America, supplemented by detailed articles on the USA and Canada. Countersubject 15:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For (i) you would have to do this across all of the articles in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States. The "X American" format was probably set by agreement in some Wikipedia style document, though I don't have a reference handy. If you want to propose this major project, you should do so where the whole category is discussed, maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups.

I would suggest that if anyone has more substantial information about the Scots-Irish in Canada, in contrast to the very brief mention in this article, that they write an article Scots-Irish Canadian to fit the format of Category:Ethnic groups in Canada. The US and Canadian articles can make brief references to the other country and to any other relevant countries for comparison and cross-reference, as this article does now for Canada. Currently I do not have much information on Scots-Irish in Canada, or even that the term was widely used in Canada.

If you want a summary article covering both Canada and US, you could change Scots-Irish from a redirect to Scots-Irish American to a disambiguation page or worldwide summary article. However, it seems to me that a worldwide summary may be duplicating the function of Ulster Scots. Also, if Scots/Scotch Irish turns out to be a term that only ever had wide use in the US, it would make sense for the article to be US-centered as it is now. --JWB 21:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What about Irish Citizens?

This article basically states that Scoutch-Irish are only people living in America. What about the Scotch of Irish decent still living in Ireland. In fact Merrian-Webster defines scotch-irish as:

of, relating to, or descended from Scottish settlers in northern Ireland

My understanding is it is a term that was defined in the US and is used in the US. Ulster Scots covers Ireland. --JWB 15:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The implication of this is that the word 'American' in the title is redundant. Countersubject 07:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is part of the series on American ethnic groups, and 'American' is part of all their names. In any case, Scots-Irish etc. redirect here. JWB 17:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't directly address the observation. You may think that there's a good reason for the redundancy, and you may believe that precedence and redirection help justify it, but they are different issues, which can usefully be discussed once the redundancy is acknowledged. Countersubject 09:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pruning and References

This article could still do with some pruning and consolidation, e.g. the two paragraphs under Ulster-Scots. Also, Mal's suggestion (above) that the article should better reflect the complexity of the Scots-Irish and their history has yet to be effected. There are still unsupported assertions and generalisations that read more like tribal memory than an an encyclopaedic article, e.g. The Scotch-Irish celebrated their military victories over the Irish Catholics, which had saved their community from annihilation. Countersubject 14:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fighting Indians?

"Here they lived on the frontiers of America, carving their own world out of the wilderness, fighting Indians as backwoodsmen." This certainly needs a source, and is worded in such a way that I must remove the latter part of the sentence. -- SwissCelt 07:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Fighting indians" is rather appropriate. My Ulster-Scot roots are old, and are from the southern end of what is now Lancaster and Chester counties in Pennsylvania where local townships are still named Little Britian, Nottingham, West Lampeter, and Drumore. Many Ulster-Scot family histories from that location both verbal and written describe Ulster Scots from Philadelphia being employed or indentured to fight native american tribes in the westward hills of what is now the Susquehanna river. (Susquehannocks at the time were considered hostile by many German/Swiss Anabaptist, Quaker, and French Heugonaut settlers who were predominatly pacifist).

Writing about Ulster-Scots and finding references is difficult. Most did not keep accurate family records during or after thier indenture so emmigration patterns and census numbers can be rather difficult to trace since most were already in the mountains and rather reclusive during the 1900 U.S. census. The closest records to date have been through church records or civil society records of the day that MAY have names and dates of thier members that were of U.S. Ulster-Scots descent.

The saving grace for recording Ulster Scots activity in Lancaster/Chester PA has been through thier Pennsylvania German/Swiss Neighbors who were and still are very good scribes and recordkeepers. Many Ulster-Scots in the area intermarried with the anabaptist Pennsylvaina Dutch and as such thier family histories were documented at least until 1800-to the present day.

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias

The bias in favor of Irish Catholics in this article sickens my Ulster Blood.

Please make no mistake, Ulster-Scots are not "Green" Irish. That is Irish Catholic immigrats who came from Ireland during the 1843 potato famine. Ulster-Scots are predominatly that SCOTS. They emigrated from the Lowland and southern Highland areas of Scotland and were put to work in the British Plantations in Irish Ulster. This is STILL a point of contention today especially amoung Catholic "Green" Irish. Most Ulster-Scots were loyal to William of Orange and were amoung the Protestant Orangman of the day hence "Orange" or Protestant Irish.

My Opinion there should be no more than one or two sentences in this article differentiating between "Green" Catholic Irish immigrants of today, and the predominatly Protestant U.S. Ulster-SCOTS of the early 1700's. Any other references to the Green Catholic Irish should have its own page and not be included in the Ulster-Scots or American Scots-Irish Page.

S' Rioghal Mo Dhream

MacGregor (American Ulster-Scot)

There is no such thing as "Ulster Blood", you clown.

Most of the so called Ulster Scots are English (due to English Northumbria beng part of Northeast Scotland), Irish or French Huguenots.

Please keep your uneducated bigoted crap to yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misawaloveme (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I must have struck a nerve (laugh) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.66.16.116 (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't strike a nerve. You did prove what a moron you are though. I bet that sickens your "Ulster Blood". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.170.121 (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I know I am gonna lose sleep now :) Personal insults, name calling. Nice. Has to be one of the lowest forms of conversation. Remind me never to debate you for the simple fact that it would bore me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.66.16.116 (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Or the simple fact that you don't know what you're talking about and would be totally in over your head in a debate on this subject. As evidenced by the fact that you didn't try to refute any of the points I brought up about plantation settlers no being all Scots and the nonexistence of "Ulster blood". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.91.180 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The genetic ancestors of most Scots who went over to Ulster would have been partly Ulsterian in origine and even the language of some early Scots planters was still Gaelic. as for Northumbria being under Scottish control, its more the other way round. Lothian was disputed as part of Northumbria until the late Middle Ages (hence the apocryphal "Edwin's burgh" invention!), but the ancestors of those "Northumbrians" are more likely to be Celtic than they are to be from Denmark and recent genetic findings at Glasgow University have indicated an ancient gene flow from Ireland (through Ulster of course) into areas of Scotland on the East coast such as Moray, that predate the Dalriadan and perhaps even Roman period. The culture and language of the Ulster Scots who made up the original scotch Irish immigrant group would have been Scottish in character, despite their ancestry, just as modern Texans are Texan despite having German or Irish ancestry. 92.235.167.172 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It has been proposed that Scots-Irish be merged in here, and that Scots-Irish becomes a disambiguation page between Ulster-Scots and Scots-Irish American. Personally, I'm in favour of the proposal because it clears up what these three pages deal with. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Census

"In the United States Census, 2000, 4.3 million Americans (1.5% of the population of the USA) claimed Scots-Irish ancestry," this statement is misleading. I checked the source and no where did I see any Americans claiming Scots-Irish ancestry. I also looked for the statistics for the map and I could not find it. However, I did find Scotch-Irish, and if this is the case then the wording should represent exactly what the census claims. The U.S. census does not recognice the Scots-Irish, and stating that it does is misleading and should represent their view. Otherwise, this content is considered plagarism and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.80.13 (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish: A vastly over-extended identity and a far too easy way of explaining the South and Appalachia

I grew up in Western Virginia, in "Scotch-Irish" country, and I never once heard the term until I grew up and went to college. I also find that this term really expanded after Braveheart back home. I am not denying that there were some people who might be called Scotch-Irish, but I am not sure how widespread this group is, and I'd argue that lots of non-Scotch Irish settlers into the Southern Appalachians got lumped into this identity because this identity appealed, and appeals, to certain forms of historical and social propoganda.

My theory is that back home in VA we learned that we were Scotch-Irish from books written by outsiders and from newspaper accounts and other forms of popular media based on poor scholarship, e.g. Jim Webb's "Born Fighting", and McWhiney and McDonald's "Cracker Culture," and more recently Michael Lind and Jane Smiley's innane ramblings about Bush in 2004. Some of this stuff borders on the idiotic, and is used by natives to defend our special values (including violence), and by outsiders who justify their own prejudices towards the South.

I think this Scotch-Irish thing is also used, and has been used, as a way of distinguishing "mountain" people from "lowland" whites in the South. The freedom-loving Scotch-Irish mountaineers were often contrasted with the more slavish and degraded lowland whites, who were considered as the descended from the dregs of London, and other large British cities. Yet some people saw the mountaineers as being partially descended from the previously mentioned undesirable urban element from the British isles (Caudill, "Night comes to the Cumberlands"). This discourse about the mountains is also partially based in Anglo-Saxonism in the 19th century US.

Basically, people are trying to explain a complex process of identity formation in the colonies using hackneyed phrases and generalizations. This is why Southern mountaineers can be "pure Anglo-Saxons" or "freedom loving Celts" at the same time. Of course the problem is terms like Anglo-Saxon or Celt are themselves problematic terms and anachronistic ways of understanding the late Medieval and Early Modern British isles.

My grandmother came from Nicholson Hollow in Madison County, VA in the Blue Ridge mountains, in what is now the Shenandoah National Park. This area was largely settled by people from the VA Tidewater. Because these settlers hailed from the area called the Northern Neck (Stafford, Westmoreland and King George counties, VA) there was a large number of Northern English or Lowland Scottish surnames (assuming there is a difference here) amongst them, confusing some outside observers who see Scotch-Irish or PA-based cultural elements amongst them, ignoring the actual settlement patterns in this part of the Blue Ridge. The problem is nobody bothered listening to the local mountain people, who usually called their ancestors (and this is based on my own experience) "Tuckahoes" or sometimes "English, German and Arsh." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguy2008 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can expand on the critique of Webb etc. it would make a good addition to the article. I haven't read Webb, but I think Albion's Seed has a more nuanced view as well as some historical documentation. --JWB (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like some expansion of this as well it would make for a good discussion. I did read Webb, and while geographicaly its very hard to trace any written evidence of otherwise Scottish, Irish, or should I just say Celtic presence in the Blue Ridge Mountians due to poor record keeping. There seems to be a hold over culturally. I am a musician by hobby, and we all know as musicians types of music can and will vary from culture to culture. These variations can include tempo, beat, embellishments, and the like. There are two places where I have seen a heavy influence of Scottish, Irish or otherwise Celtic influence in our national identitity. That would be in the music of the people in the Apalachian Mountains. Two such influences come to mind.

As a Bagpiper (Piob Mohr) the Great Highland. "The Reel" Its seems ia almost totaly engrained in Celtic type music. The only two places a Reel has been heared or played was either with a fiddle. Or on the Bagpipe, Great Highland, Uilliean, Small pipe etc. This type of influence is supported by Webb. However there are so many people sporting Scottish or Irish surnames in the southern part of Virginia to North Carolina. That places like Mount Airy NC or Grandfather Mountain NC are literaly repleat with undoubtebly heavily Celtic influences.

I am somewhat familiar also with the emmigration patterns of the Shenandoah Valley, and they are not dissimilar to where I am from (Lancaster, Chester Counties PA). Family intermarriage can sometimes obscure heritage. Remember being and Ulster-Scot or an Irishman you were not very popular with the prosperous Anglicans of Eastern Virginia, and considered a necessary evil by the pacifist Saxon Germanics who saw you as a cheap way to keep the indians out of thier wheatfields. Anyway I better stop before I ramble, just a little food for thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.66.16.116 (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your argument and appreciate your well-thought discourse. However I do have some problems with it. You reference several times that "I never once heard the term until I grew up and went to college" and "the local mountain people, who usually called their ancestors (and this is based on my own experience) "Tuckahoes" or sometimes "English, German and Arsh." The mere fact that people think they are one thing (English, Irish, etc) or plain don't know (American) doesn't make them necessarily so. Some people are can't trace their heritage because of mixture of many ethnic groups/last names, lack of documentation, and time. That's the point the article, and more particularly, the "Census ethnic argument," is trying to explain. Many people are are unaware of their cultural or ethnic background, especially those whose families have bee here many generations. I was one of them. It wasn't until I got older, did some reading and research and found out that although I am of several European ancestries, Scottish (or Scots-Irish, I am still trying to figure out) being the largest. This is the point of the article (and Wikipedia) to inform those that don't know this information.

There are some times when the archetype doesn't fall correctly (your Blue Ridge anecdote) and but this doesn't necessarily reflect a malicious intent that, as you call it, "appeals, to certain forms of historical and social propoganda." There are gaps and nothing is perfect, that is the nature of the beast that makes an American. People want to grasp what that means and how we are. Frankly, I agree with Webb and others about the cultural connection. --ProdigySportsman (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to JWB

Hackett Fischer is more nuanced than anyone else on this subject. I respect his scholarship, but he does take liberties with documentation. For example, he uses William Byrd's History of the Dividing Line when discussing the so-called British borderers. Hackett Fischer says that Byrd encountered borders along the NC-VA border at the beginning of the 18th century. The problem is that Byrd would not have encountered said borderers. Settlers from PA and the Shenandoah Valley didn't settle in the Virginia Southside, where Byrd was travelling, until almost 30 years after Byrd's journey was over. In other words those "borderers" that Byrd encountered were products of Hackett Fischer's Cavalier culture. Furthermore, as I said my forebears were mostly from the Tidewater, but had "North Briton" surnames. Hackett Fischer downplays the Irish, Scottish and Welsh components in Tidewater VA, focusing instead on the West Country. I am not disagreeing with Hackett Fischer per se. I am just saying the situation is more complex. There are accounts of brawling and pastoralism (i.e. "border" behavior) amongst the lowland Chesapeake whites, once again problematizing Hackett Fischer's neat fourpart cultural division, which has been taken up by Kevin Phillips (The Cousins' Wars) and others. I think there was a cultural division between lowland whites and mountain whites. I just don't see it as Scotch-Irish vs. West Country English. I see it more as a PA-based cultural system (i.e. "Cohee") that included large numbers of individuals coming directly from the British isles and Germany (including "Scotch Irish") coming into contact with an already establish Anglophone creole culture (i.e. "Tuckahoe") that reflected cultural traditions from the Westcountry and Northern England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland combined with African and Native American cultural traditions. I apologize for the rambling. I can assemble some sources for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguy2008 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

But British-borderer descendants on the NC-VA line would not have been part of the PA-origin stream; this actually fits the focus on region of origin in Britain better than the focus on migration route through America.

Hackett-Fischer doesn't say people from each British region went exclusively and directly to a corresponding American region; he just says that the founders of each American region had a large enough contribution from a British region to set the tone of that American culture, and that once established, the American regional cultures tended to perpetuate themselves, with selective migration actually aiding this process. Some of those Borderers in the Virginia Southside no doubt eventually adapted to the local Cavalier rulers, while some no doubt eventually moved west to frontier areas, along with likeminded folks of various origins.

This is certainly still not to say that H-F's four cultures explain everything, and I applaud your effort to add a variety of perspectives to the article.

There actually is a Tuckahoe-Cohee article; thanks, I wasn't aware of those terms before! --JWB (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point on the multiple points of entry for the "North Britons." It doesn't discount Hackett-Fischer's theory; indeed, it reinforces it. Hackett Fischer made a good start on dealing with this topic, and giving substance to McWhiney and McGrady's theories but far more remains to be done on it! I think this relates to the ongoing problem of is Appalachia distinct from the South, or what is the South for that matter. Who knows, maybe my own regional origins are influencing the way I see the problem; I refer to my conflating Scotch-Irish or Appalachian history with Southern history. Certainly individuals from SW PA or WVA might see this issue differently.

Thanks for the Tuckahoe article reference! One of the books that the article cites (Perkins) is a must read for individuals interested in Scotch-Irish, Appalachian or Early Mid-western history. Thatguy2008 (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

-- I think H-F overstates the case for the Borderers to some extent, but on the main I agree with him and perhaps his take on things will go quite a way in counterbalancing the Scots-intensive view of the Plantation of Ulster. There were a great many who settled in Ulster from England (as my own people from Northumberland), and even from the continent (as the French family of the famed Davey Crockett). But since the majority of the settlers did indeed come from Scotland, Scotch-Irish is still a good short-hand name -- the term Scottish-English-Huguenot-Flemish-Palatinate-Irish would be a bit clumsy to use.

---- Thatguy2008. I agree with you. But I think Fisher's divisions between cultures 2 and 4 remained too distinct. And he ignores the number of borderers (not to mention Welsh) in the tidewater. It is interesting how Fisher ignores the fact that Tidewater rural men engaged in the same sorts of behavior as the so-called borderers in the Appalachians: eye gouging, bragging contests, desultory pastoralism, etc. Remember my earlier comments about HF using examples from the Tidewater to back his Borderer thesis. What do we do then? Argue for some sort of dual level society in the Tidwater. Are we to assume that borderers and west country men maintained distinct identities? I am not denying the distinction of Virginian vs. Back-country men, or the North Britons coming down out of Pennsylvania. I am just arguing that I disagree with HF's Border Thesis and the Scotch-Irish thesis as a way of adequately explaing this history.

-- To say that "Scotch-Irish" is not a particularly valid label because many in Appalachia aren't aware of the term, does not invalidate it as a descriptor for people of this descent. The majority of my own people (from the mountains of Tennessee and North Carolina) simply view themselves as Americans. And indeed thinking of themselves as anything else is pretty recent. When asked where we came from, the old folks would say "from around Knoxville" as the ultimate origin, while some of my generation would say "maybe from Ireland." But even though we don't have an origin handed down through the family, it is still useful to look at writings of "outsiders" concerning historical migrations and give the original people a name.

----Thatguy 2008. "give the original people a name." But the problem is in doing so we might be anachronistically creating an identity where one might not have existed. I understand, however, we need simple, if not always accourate, terms to describe complex realities. Language often doesn't do a good job here. My problem is, perhaps some of us might understand that a term like "Scotch-Irish" is simply an academic short-hand. But what happens when people assume it is a reality- and they then act on it.

-- Historically it seems to be accepted that the bulk of the settlers in the Shenandoah were Scotch-Irish or German in origin who migrated in from Pennsylvania, and not from tidewater Virginia.

---- Thatguy2008. "Historically it seems to be accepted that the bulk of the settlers in the Shenandoah were Scotch-Irish or German in origin who migrated in from Pennsylvania, and not from tidewater Virginia." This statement is problematic because it assumes that the early settlers of the 18th century in the Valley formed the bulk of the population by the 19th century, ignoring the large numbers of "Tuckahoes" who migrated into the region in the late 18th century and early 19th century. Also, German-American and "Scotch-Irish" Americans are a historiographically active group. I think we have a case of individuals sniffing out "Scotch-Irish" individuals where there weren't any, as I indicated in my earlier comments.

-- Two things are worrisome in current views of the Scotch-Irish. One, as Thatguy2008 pointed out, is the association of the Scotch-Irish with all things Scottish, as in Braveheart, bagpipes and tartans. Jim Webb is a bit guilty of this in his book. The Scotch-Irish, and the Ulster-Scots that they sprang from, were a new nationality, an amalgam of the groups I've mentioned above. The other worrisome development is the identification by some American Scotch-Irish with the trappings of some present day Ulster-Scots, i.e. Orange Orders, Lambeg drums, the Twelfth of July, and other such things that our American Scotch-Irish ancestors never heard of. The "Scotch-Irish" and the "Ulster-Scots" are different branches from a common stock, but they are not the same. Eastcote (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

--- By the way, the following is utter nonsense:

"The Scotch-Irish brought the potato with them from Ireland. In Maine it became a staple crop as well as an economic base."

The potato is a new world crop that was introduced to Ireland in the 17th century. It did not become a major food crop in Ireland until the mid to late 18th century, by which time the largest migration from Ulster to the American colonies was nearing its end. Moreover, oats were (and remained) an important food crop in Ulster. Claiming that the potato was introduced to Maine by the 'Scots Irish' is simply preposterous. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.190.73 (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

More on Scots-Irish vs Scotch-Irish

I've been reverted by a user over at Hillybilly regarding the correct termonlogy of Scots vs. Scotch. While I have restored "Scots" in that article, This would be a better place to discuss the correct name for our people. As a Scots-Irish American, I find the phrase "Scotch" to be higly offensive when applied to any person, be they from Scotland, Ulster, Canada, or the US, as do many of my fellow Scots-Irish friends and family in central Appalachia (a place chocked full of our lot). Using Scotch, even by our kinfolk, is akin to using the phrase "colored" in an article on today's African Americans. There might be a historical context, but it should not be refered to in the modern form, as it is born from a lazy assumption by folks of English background that we should be named after a whiskey rather than our ethnic group.

thos eof us on both sides seem pretty adamanet about this, as I would imagine that your grandfather identified as "Scotch-Irish," while mine would have punched someone in the mouth for such phraseology.

So what does everyone else think? youngamerican (wtf?) 15:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This has already been gone over at length in the discussion for this article. Most of us Scotch-Irish folks don't have such a high-strung problem with the use of "Scotch". "Scotch"-Irish is the accepted, non-pejorative, form in American usage, as well as the accepted form in the Ullans language per the Ulster-Scots Agency, aka Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch, http://www.ulsterscotsagency.com/. Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scotch-irish) dates "Scotch-Irish" to 1744. "Scots-Irish" only goes back to 1972. Eastcote (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was only discussed by a couple of folks (not at any great length, but that said, I value those opinions) and I disagree that it is non-pejorative. The root lies in English-Americans from east of the Appalachians confusing our Protestant Irish kin from Ulster with a liquor made by our cousins. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I received this email from a Mr. Millar of Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch in Belfast, and it is interesting to hear an Ulster viewpoint on the terms Scotch and Scots: "To a Scot in Scotland, Scotch has always been a term of some derision, as Scotch to a Scotsman is a reference to Whisky. I would say that it is almost never used by Scots when referring to themselves. In Ulster however, Scotch has been a regular way to refer to someone who is identified as being Scottish. Indeed, many of Ulster's towns and villages would retain street names such as English Street and Scotch Street where both these streets either run parallel or are adjacent to each other. Clearly it is a reference to the country and not to the drink. I don't personally know of any street in Ulster called Scots street. There are plenty of Scotch streets though. As these streets were named in some cases as far back as the 18th century, [or earlier] it seems likely that this would have been the normal way of referring to Scots or to matters Scottish. Being born in Scotland it always irked me as a young man in Ulster to see Scotch Streets around the Ulster country and found comments that 'Jim was Scotch' quite annoying. However having now spent more time in Ulster than Scotland, it currently bothers me very little. I think the determination of individuals and their perspective is important in this debate. For example, if you see your roots as predominately Scots, as opposed to Ulster-Scots, then it may be more likely to expect that you would prefer Scots Irish. I imagine that the Ulster-Scots descendants are more likely to see themselves as Scotch Irish." Eastcote (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A well-researched reply. I stand corrected. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Young American: I really am curious what part of Appalachia your family comes from. My family is from Western North Carolina and I've NEVER heard the term "Scots-Irish" used, except for newcomers to the area who have been to Scotland and therefore believe that we're using a pejorative term to describe ourselves. The term has *always* been "Scotch-Irish" in my family. It really irritates me when people make the claim that the term that has been used to describe our roots for many generations is "pejorative" or "demeaning". To try and change our name to "Scots-Irish" now is the epitomy of politically correctness.Esbullin (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, the sources mentioned above confirm Eastcote's position for the time being. As for my personal information, you can likely figure out the answer rather easily. In my area, it isn't just PC garbage (as it may seem in rural NC) but our actual preference of self-identification among the Scots-Irish community and, yes, the extra "h" is frowned upon here, too. Furthermore, I can also assure your lack of good faith in my point of view is just as aggrivating to me as your misunderstanding regarding our differing terminology is to you. That said, it is going to remain Scotch-Irish until proper sources say otherwise, so no need to get too worked up about it. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose where I'm unable to connect is how one can see "Scots"-Irish as THE correct, traditional term, when it appears to have only been around since 1972, the first recorded instance of it according to Merriam-Webster. "Scotch"-Irish has been the accepted term in scholarship since the mid-1800s, and is the term I was familiar with in my family in the 1960s. Indeed, the "definitive" work on these people by Leyburn is titled "Scotch"-Irish. Leyburn discusses the term, its initial rejection by the people themselves in the 1700s, and the ultimate acceptance of the term in the 1800s. It was not, by the way, rejected because the people preferred "Scots"; they preferred to be called simply "Irish" or "dissenters". Perhaps "Scotch" is offensive to modern-day Scots, but we aren't talking about modern-day Scots. Just because the Scots today do not like it when describing themselves, doesn't mean it is offensive today when we describe ourselves as Scotch-Irish. Even the Scots themselves used the term "Scotch" in the 1700s, notably Robert Burns, as in "My coat and my vest, they are Scotch o' the best", and "But bring a Scotchman frae his hill, clap in his cheek a Highland gill." Eastcote (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To further illuminate the discussion on "Scots-Irish" vs. "Scotch-Irish", it is interesting to see the recent changes in another traditional American term: Pennsylvania Dutch. I've seen recent variations on this name as "Pennsylvania Deutsch" and "Pennsylvania German". Both are attempts to reconcile the name with the fact that the Pennsylvania Dutch are German, and not Dutch. But the traditional term here has been "Pennsylvania Dutch" for a couple hundred years. It's an Americanism, which grew from older usages. I have a letter from 1834 referring to my mother's fourth great grandfather as "a German Dutchman", because it was standard usage. Traditional American usage may not always coincide with "the facts" or with modern European usage, but that's what makes tradition so colorful. Eastcote (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph

I think the opening paragraph needs to be changed, for a number of reasons! This is the paragraph, my reasons are below it:

Following the Norman conquest of England, Anglo-Saxons from England sought safe haven from the Normans in Lowland Scotland[citation needed]. Lowland Scotland, already a little mixture of Gaels, some remnants of Pictish culture, Vikings, Britons and Anglo-Saxons, collectively went on to be known as Lowland Scots, different in language and culture from the Gaelic of the Highlands and Islands. [1] Large numbers of Lowland Scots migrated to Ulster, a province of Ireland, as part of the Plantation of Ulster in the early 17th century. The Scotch-Irish are descendants of Ulster Scots immigrants to North America in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

1) I don't think that anybody in southern Scotland would have thought of themselves as 'Picts' in this time, indeed I doubt that many would have thought of themselves as Picts in Southern Scotland anyway, it wasn't part of 'pictland' (not that that term has any historical currency). 2) I also doubt that people would have thought of themselves as Vikings at that time as well. The Vikings in southern Scotland were not a discrete ethnic group. They didn't have any major urban centres (in contrast to places such as York but even that was more or less a generation and more earlier). 3) I think this over plays the very small influx of English refugees from the Norman conquest. This wasn't on the scale of hundeds of thousands, or even tens of thousands, fleeing into Scotland and changing the language. The reality is that the vast majority of those who moved into Scotland were nobles, and not that many of them either. Inglis (the original term for Scots) was already well established in parts of Scotland from the first Anglo-Saxon invasions. EoinBach (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's questionable. After looking at it for a while, I'm wondering if we could simply delete that whole paragraph. What follows it could stand without it, and if anyone really wanted the history of Scottish settlement, they could look up the article for Scotland. What's important for this article is the settlement of Ulster, and the subsequent migration to North America. Eastcote (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've waited the best part of a month to see if anyone would give an argument for keeping the history section. As no argument has been put forward and as the history section is really not very relevent (nor very accurate) I've removed it. EoinBach (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

English Colonies

I reverted An Siarach's change of English to British back to English as the colonies weren't 'British Colonies' they were 'English Colonies' and had been subject to the English Parliament. Although the Act of Union had already taken place (creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain) the colonies were still administered by the English, for example they came under the English legal system and not the Scottish system. EoinBach (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of Flags

I've reverted the addition of the Ulster and American flags. From time to time, flags pop up in the article. There is no specific "Scotch-Irish" flag. The flag of Ulster (red cross on a yellow field, with the red hand of Ulster in the middle) is the flag of the Irish Province of Ulster, and is not specific to the Scotch-Irish. Similarly, the Cross of St. Andrew shows up now and then, which is specifically Scottish. Periodically other flags are added to the article, such as the "Stormont Flag" or various "Ulster Scots"-styled flags. These are of 20th century origin and carry current political baggage having nothing to do with North America, and are not appropriate to an article on the Scotch-Irish, in my opinion. Eastcote (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Orange Order

A recent edit removing a link to the Orange Order article was acompanied by the justification that the founding of the order was 20 years after the main immigration of Scots Irish to North America. This does have some merit, however: The Scots Irish identity in Canada, at least, would seem to have some connection to the Orange Order, since it took root there and continues to this day, as it does to a lesser exten in the US. It would seem that connection to this relationship is appropriate. Shoreranger (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

While I think a reference to the Orange Institution certainly is appropriate in an article on Ulster Scots, it doesn't seem to me to fit in a discussion of the Scotch-Irish. The two groups are related and come from the same stock, but they are different - the Ulster Scots identity being formed by generations of life in Ireland, and the Scotch-Irish story playing out largely in America. I think a parallel would be the Pennsylvania Dutch, who arrived in North America from Germany about the same time as the Scotch-Irish. It would be inappropriate to include events and organizations in the subsequent history of Germany in an article about them. But this leads to larger questions: When did the Scotch-Irish migration end? Are Ulster Scot immigrants of 2009 to be considered Scotch-Irish when they set foot in America? Scholars have given roughly 1717 to 1775 as the main period of Scotch-Irish migration, cut off by the Revolution, with a small trickle of immigration lasting into the early 19th century. So it would seem that later Ulster Scots arriving in North America would not be "Scotch-Irish". The article on the Orange Institution only mentions activities occurring in the USA in the 1870s, in New York City, which was far removed from the centers of Scotch-Irish settlement, and in circumstances that seem more likely related to anti-Catholic feeling than to Scotch-Irish demonstration of ethnic pride. Perhaps in 1871 the July 12 parade mentioned in the article was conducted by more recent immigrants from Ulster. By this time Ireland was far from the thoughts of the Scotch-Irish, who were busy settling the West, and I'd venture to say that many if not most Scotch-Irish had lost any notion that they were even from Ireland to begin with. I think a link to Ulster Scots people is sufficient, and if someone wants to learn about the Orange Institution while there, that is more appropriate. Eastcote (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Immigration Numbers and other recent edits.

Anonymous user 65.124.250.132 has recently made edits to the numbers of 18th century Scotch-Irish immigrants. On 1 July he changed the number from 200,000+ to 60,000. I reverted this edit, and on 2 July 65.124.250.132 again edited the number, this time to 66,100, and deleted the multiple references supporting the higher number. His change to the number is supported by only one reference, and together with his other edits appears to come from a particular POV. I am therefore going to revert the edits once again. The number of 200,000+ for Scotch-Irish immigration between 1717 and 1775 is the apparent consensus among Scotch-Irish scholars:

• "more than a quarter-million" per Fischer in Albion's Seed
• "200,000" per Rouse in The Great Wagon Road
• "...250,000 people left for America between 1717 and 1800...20,000 were Anglo-Irish, 20,000 were Gaelic Irish, and the remainder Ulster-Scots or Scotch-Irish..." per Blethen and Wood in From Ulster to Carolina
• "more than 100,000" per Griffin in The People with No Name
• "200,000" per Leyburn in The Scotch-Irish
• "225,000" per Hansen in The Atlantic Migration
• "250,000" per Dunaway in The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania
• "300,000" per Barck and Lefler in Colonial America

Future changes from the well-cited figure of 200,000+ should be discussed on this page, with consensus reached prior to making any changes. I think it would be acceptable, if one wanted to present an alternative view, to leave the well-cited figures as they stand, but cite the alternative figure to show that at least one scholar thinks the figure is lower. Eastcote (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting the name issue

Is anyone interested in seeing if there is still consensus on the "Scotch" vs "Scots" naming issue? I cringe every time I see it as "Scotch". (American of Irish and Scottish descent) --> - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Still in favor of using the term actually historically attested in the US for this American ethnic strain. --JWB (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree. Scotch-Irish is the historical and much more commonly used name. Eastcote (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a cute little phonetic difficulty. My guess is that a majority of Americans tend to favour Scotch-Irish because of the way it sounds: wetter, crunchier and with a little more air, thus tons "louder". Scots-Irish takes a little longer to make happen and is so, so regular. DinDraithou (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

The Gallery of famous people is out of balance. There used to be all the same size, then suddenly someone added Jim Webb. Now the top rows are tiny. It should be removed to make it look normal. Removing it now. Wm.C (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a good reason to remove Webb. You could fix it, restoring the former proportions. Or simply delete John Wayne. Jim Webb is living and apparently more Scotch-Irish. DinDraithou (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DinDraithou. The initial reason Mr. Curtis gave for deleting Webb was "Some idiot put a picture of Jim Webb". I suggest Mr. Curtis take a look at Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Just because one doesn't particularly want to see Webb's mug is insufficient reason to keep deleting him. Like it or not, he is something of a poster child for the Scotch-Irish. Eastcote (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because this particular issue seems so contentious (please see WP:3RR), I recommend that before any further reversions we gather additional opinions and try to build a bit of consensus. Eastcote (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the proportions. Wm.C (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, could someone please fix the syntax for me? Thanks in advance. Wm.C (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it back again. The images were all over the page (in my browser anyway, and probably others). I'll see what I can do about resizing the images when I get a bit of time later. In the meantime, please be patient. Eastcote (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess it was my fault, since I really haven't had much experience with that type of gallery. Wm.C (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Religion of the Scotch-Irish Immigrants

I think it would be erroneous to state that the Scotch-Irish were "primarily" or "mostly" Protestant, when it was their very Protestantism that defined them, moreso than whether their origins were Scottish, English or Huguenot. The principal uniting factor among the Ulster immigrants to America in the 1700s was their particular brand of rough-and-ready Calvinism. Patrick Griffin wrestles with this in his book The People with No Name, arguing that "Scotch-Irish" is not the best identifier for them because they were such a mix of people from different places. It was, per Griffin, their non-conformist Protestant beliefs that they rallied around, and not a particular ethnicity. Donald Akenson also holds that a strident, unbending Protestantism was the defining cultural element in his God's People: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel and Ulster. It was the severe version of "the Kirk" as established in Ulster, and identification with the Old Testament notion of being a people chosen by God, that informed the Ulster Scots' interaction with those around them, whether Catholic or Anglican, and which ultimately became the defining element in their identity. Eastcote (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

Jackson indentified himself in his own words as Irish and did not refer to himself as an "Ulster-Scot" or "Scots-Irish" once. So why is he listed here?

When the "Ulster-Scots" came to America they identified themselves as Irish and nothing else. This myth building and historical revisionism is hysterically bad and has no place on wikipedia.

Are the descendents of Vikings in Dublin,Waterford and Wexford "Scandinavian-Irish". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.91.139 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am an Ulster Scot from Northern Ireland. Sometimes I will refer to myself as Irish, sometimes as Northern Irish, sometimes as British, sometimes as an Ulsterman, and sometimes as an Ulster-Scot. In fact, I am all of these identities - they all denote a different level of granularity of identity - often you will say a different one based on context. Therefore, identifying oneself as "Irish" does not prevent them from being an Ulster Scot.

Today, the meanings of the word "Irish" can get muddled very easily with the island due to the Republic of Ireland calling itself "Ireland", confusing it with the island of Ireland. Similarly the word "British" can mean now "of the United Kingdom", confusing it with the meaning of British as of the archipelago of the British Isles. My point is that terminology for identity from this part of the world is very complex, and cannot be understood by taking a brief and simplistic view of it. 80.219.51.173 (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't address any of my points during that baseless ramble. "Ulster Scot" was a completely made up label by Irish Americans to escape the anti Irish sentiments that was directed at newer Irish arrivals in America after the famine. Prior to this, they openly indentified themselves as Irish. "Ulster Scot" or "Scots Irish" was not mentioned anywhere during this time.

They are not a seperate people anymore than Irish people with English or Scandinavian backgrounds.

I find your reply and denouncement of my post as a "baseless ramble" rather insulting. I took the time to try to share with you a perspective of my Ulster Scot identity from the other side of the Atlantic, and that is what I get. As someone from Ulster (and not a wannabe ignorant "Irish American" or "Plastic Paddy" :P), I can tell you that "Ulster Scot" is NOT a term that originates from Irish America.

Your statement of "They are not a seperate people anymore than Irish people with English or Scandinavian backgrounds" is also nonsense. Both Ireland and Scotland are very similar culturally, so an ignorant person may not be able to recognise the more Scottish elements to culture that are prevalent in Ulster, but not in other parts of Ireland. Your comment does, however, have some slight truth, though only in the aspect that the "people" anywhere in Ireland aren't in reality (besides political borders) any more different than people from anywhere else in the British Isles.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this article is not about the Irish of today and who/what they identify as, nor is it about the meaning of "Irish" in the 21st century. For many of the "Scotch-Irish" of the 18th century, Ireland was only a stepping stone from Scotland or England to America. Some only spent a few years in Ulster. Others spent three or four generations. Certainly Jackson and the others called themselves Irish, but they did not identify with the "other" (i.e. Catholic/native or Anglican/Anglo-) Irish, any more than they identified with American Indians when they began to call themselves "Americans". One can be many things all at the same time, while not identifying with others. Note that the "Scotch-Irish" of the 1700s identified themselves as Irish, Scotch-Irish, Protestant, Presbyterian, Calvinist, American, and by various other labels that are not necessarily interchangeable. (One thing is curious in all this: I have not been able to find any documentation that they identified themselves as "Scots", other than those who were born in Scotland and spent only a few years in Ulster). And the name "Scotch-Irish" is much older than the late 19th century, so it is myth-making to say it was "made-up" in response to anti-Irish sentiment.Eastcote (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Y'all might want to sign your posts. It's getting a bit hard to tell who said what. Eastcote (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Certainly Jackson and the others called themselves Irish, but they did not identify with the "other" (i.e. Catholic)"

Any proof of this or is it more sectarian wishful thinking from you morons?

"And the name "Scotch-Irish" is much older than the late 19th century, so it is myth-making to say it was "made-up" in response to anti-Irish sentiment."

Wrong. They readily identified themselves as Irish. This is not in dispute. The "Scots-Irish" label only became widespread as a reaction to the anti Irish sentiments directed at newer Irish arrivals that the already established Irish community wanted nothing to do with.

"Your statement of "They are not a seperate people anymore than Irish people with English or Scandinavian backgrounds" is also nonsense."

Really? you think that the "Scots-Irish" are a totally genetically seperate people despite generations of intermixing with the Irish from the time of the Dal Riata and before,during and after the plantations? Tell us how that works.

"so an ignorant person may not be able to recognise the more Scottish elements to culture that are prevalent in Ulster"

How about Irish elements in Ulster like the Navan Fort, numerous passage graves,fierce resistance to English rule - or the Irish elements in Scotland like Bagpipes , kilts ,whiskey, gaelic language , gaelic music and the name of their country (from the Irish Scotti tribe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson may have had a Scandinavian sounding surname but so did Sir William Johnson, 1st Baronet, who was a MacShane O'Neill. It was very common in Scotland and Northern Ireland to take such names. Thomas Jefferson was of Welsh ancestry. DinDraithou (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Certainly Jackson and the others called themselves Irish, but they did not identify with the "other" (i.e. Catholic)"

Really? Then why was Jackson a prominent member of a Hibernian Society later in his life? Seems like a funny thing for a proud sash wearing,Catholic hating "Ulster-Scot" to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would get your facts straight about Andrew Jackson having been a Hibernian. Hibernians would have never knowingly admitted Freemason like Jackson. I suggest you check you sources and come up with something a little more convincing

This is not the place for modern-day Irish Protestant/Catholic partisanship. See the comments below on the Orange Order. However, the Scotch-Irish certainly did not identify with the Catholic Irish, other than on the point of national origin. Their Calvinism defined them, and they disliked both Catholics and Anglicans in equal measure. Just a simple fact of history, and nothing that needs to be contentious nearly three centuries later. And Jackson's membership in a Hibernian Society should be no surprise. For what it's worth, the Scotch-Irish figured prominently in the founding of such organizations as the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick. Eastcote (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"However, the Scotch-Irish certainly did not identify with the Catholic Irish, other than on the point of national origin."

Absolute sectarian revisionist garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talk • contribs) 17:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Any sensible understanding of "Ulster-Scots" history will tell you that (certainly in Antrim and Down) there was a significant degree of co-operation and inter-marriage among the Catholic Gaelic Irish and Protestant lowland Scots settlers in the early 1600s. So the “versus” stereotype breaks down from the year dot. But, if you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"I suggest you check you sources and come up with something a little more convincing"

Hilarious given the bogus and self contradictory garbage you've been spouting on this subject. Take your own advice please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talk • contribs) 11:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I aligned the images in the infobox. I noticed they were reverted with the comment that they were "unhelpful". Why is that?--Work permit (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The first four boxes were in line, but the last two were stacked on top of each other. It looks better now. Perhaps it was my browser that made the misalignment? I've gone back and looked at the reverted edit, but they seeme to be in line now... Eastcote (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

New Information

I added new information based on reliable sources. None of it is disputed by experts, and all of i deals with the topic at hand. Rjensen (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic vs. Protestant Conflict

Recently an editor added information that relates to conflict between Catholic and Protestant Irish in America, mainly in the late 19th century. Much of this same information, by the same editor, is currently under debate on the Irish American talk page. It is generally devisive (which is not in itself a reason for exclusion) and seems to be coming from a particular POV. Some of the information might be germaine here, but not all. Some is more appropriate on the Irish American page. My concern is that it is addressing activities that occurred far from the primary areas of Scotch-Irish settlement, and generations after the 18th century period of Scotch-Irish settlement that is agreed on by just about every scholar out there. Let's discuss here before adding the info back in. Eastcote (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Eastcote seems to want to end the article in 1770 when most immigration ended--as if the Scotch Irish suddenly disappeared. They did not disappear-- and the opening part of the page makes that clear. the line about "activities that occurred far from the primary areas of Scotch-Irish settlement" is not true (what areas?). I've been collecting information on the Scotch Irish for a long time now and all of my edits are based explictly on the work of experts in scholarly articles and books listed in the footnotes. indeed, the notion idea that "experts" end their studies in 1770 is contradicted by these footnotes. For example I added info on housing, quilts and speech patterns, all based on recently published studies. As for my "pov", perhaps Eastcote will tell us what it is. Rjensen (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Virtually all scholars on the Scotch-Irish agree that the major Scotch-Irish migration from Ireland ended with the American Revolution, with a small trickle still coming into the early 1800s. Some of this wave of immigrants came into New England and South Carolina, but primarily through Philadelphia, and spread out into the Appalachians, the Ohio Valley, the Carolina piedmont, and then on west into Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas and Texas. They intermarried with others along the way, and by 1800 they had ceased to be a recognizable ethnic group. They were now the archetypical American, the pioneer pushing westward. Read Leyburn. LATER immigrants from Ulster, whether Protestant or Catholic, who began coming in large number in the 1840s and later, are NOT recognized by virtually all mainstream scholarship as part of the Scotch-Irish wave of migration. They were part of a different era of later Irish immigration, they encountered far different conditions than had the Scotch-Irish, and they settled in the northeast, rather than the South, separate from the major areas of Scotch-Irish settlement. You are confusing later Irish Protestant immigrants with an earlier, discrete American settlement phenomenon. There seems to be an emphasis on religious conflict in your edits that just did not exist. There just plain weren't enough Catholics in Scotch-Irish areas for there to be any conflict. Perhaps later Protestant Irish immigrants brought the Orange Order with them to New York, but the Orange Order didn't even exist when Scotch-Irish migration ended, and the Scotch-Irish didn't settle in New York City. By 1870 something called an Orange Order would have been unheard of by the descendents of the Scotch-Irish in rural Alabama, Arkansas and Texas. Please respect WP:BRD and do not continue to add edits while this is under discussion, until consensus or compromise is reached. Eastcote (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, many of your other edits I don't have a problem with. Just the one pertaining to later Irish Protestants, and conflict with Catholics. Another one, though, I think you will find inappropriate if you do more research on it. Using Gone with the Wind as an indication of how big an impact the Irish had on the South in the Civil War is just weird. GWTW stands out to a Southerner as atypical precisely because it revolves around an Irish Catholic plantation family. You can probably count how many of those there were on one half of your little toe. And McWhiney is a disputed and disparaged unreliable source with most scholars on the topic. Barely worth a mention. His "Celtic Thesis" is full of holes. So using GWTW to support McWhiney is doubly weird. I think the GWTW research is your own OR, isn't it? Seems so from the reference. Eastcote (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The GWTW item is a summary of a recent scholarly article by Cantrell a PhD in Southern literature. It is NOT my work and not OR. As for Scarlet, there is very little mention made of her religion in the novel and none at all in the movie (Margaret Mitchell waqs Irish Catholic)--but I'll add some more on ethnicity in GWTW. Note the article starts out in the 21st century with 2000 census and McCain's photo, so recent history is not taboo. In any case the most recent history I included was over 50 years old, so it's not exactly currrent events. Rjensen (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I've said has anything to do with "recent" history. Recent relevant history concerning Scotch-Irish descendents is no problem. McCain is present because he is a descendent of the original Scotch-Irish. When did you last see GWTW? The O'Hara's are pretty obviously Catholic. Eastcote (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Eastcote, the GWTW thing is too weird. You are making wholesale changes here that are questionable and for which you have no consensus but your own. The key to getting along is to discuss these matters when other editors object. And I think most administrators would agree, that if editors are objecting or taking issue with particular matters, you have to use the talk page and work it out. And Eastcote seems to me to be a very reasonable fellow and a very knowledgeable one with a habit of putting in with good sources, so he's got credibility here.Malke2010 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Margaret Mitchell's religion is pretty irrelevant. Dinesh D'Souza is a Catholic from India, but that's not evidence that Indian Catholics are a major element within American Conservatism. Eastcote (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making changes in old material, I'm adding new, sourced relevant material by established experts. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Regarding geography: no the SI migration did not end in 1770. One leading scholar says explictly that "it did not in fact lose its impetus until thh 20th century." ("Scotch-Irish" in Harvard Guide to Ethnic History (1980) p 885.) And if you ask people millions today say they are "Scotch Irish" (including several of my in-laws). SI is alive and well -- and Senator McCain made frequent mention of it running for president 2 years ago. I think most historians have gone well beyond Leyburn's 1962 book in their analysis of ethnicity, and the article should reflect modern scholarship not just his old views. The Harvard Guide" gives much detail on the anti-Catholic and Orange activities of the 19c for example, and the "Scotch-Irish Society of America" was not founded until 1889 and McKinley (of Ohio) ran for the White House in 1896 boasting of his Scotch Irish heritage. --obviously the SI had not disappeared by then, Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. I ain't saying there ain't no Scotch-irish around today. I'm Scotch-Irish, as was my father, his father, etc. Lots of people are of Scotch-Irish descent. But any notion of Ireland was long passed from memory by the 1800s and most simply identified as "American". You are making it sound as if Scotch-Irish or Irish was/is the central part of their identity, along with opposition to Irish Catholics. It wasn't, and it ain't. Most probably never heard the term Scotch-Irish till the 1960s. There were a handfull of eggheads who got together and formed various Scotch-Irish Societies, and various presidents made much of their Scotch-Irish roots. But none of what a few elites were up to had any effect on those upland Southern Americans who were just trying to get a crop through the year. You are using a lot of references, but getting the interpretation all caterwampus, conflating the Scotch-Irish with later Ulster immigrants, and carrying over religious issues that just weren't part of the overall mix. (Don't get me wrong here...religion is and was a major part of their identity). Eastcote (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very well said, Eastcote. That's exactly the point. It seems Rjensen is making much ado about the religion as conflict where there is none.Malke2010 01:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, I suggest that you slow down and allow other editors the time to review and comment on the new additions. They are coming so fast and furious that there is no stability to the article. Eastcote (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It can't hurt Rjensen for you to stop and discuss your ideas for the articles first and get input from other editors. That's always the smart thing and you might be surprised at what comes of it.Malke2010 01:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK if you agree to stop erasing my material. Rjensen (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what the material is. For instance, your Civil War edits give undue weight to some relatively irrelevent novels and iffey research by neo-Confederates:

• The "Civil War" content is misleading because it uses references to Irish Catholics (GWTW), which is off-topic for this article.
• It is also misleading because it references the story of Paddy McGann, which though using an obviously "Irish" name, itself misrepresents the South's "Irish", i.e. the Scotch-Irish. (If it is the Scotch-Irish we're talking about, it misrepresents them; if it is Irish Catholics we're talking about, then it, too, is off-topic for this article). Paddy McGann is a tale of Yankee tyranny and Confederate nationalism. This ignores the historical reality that the most Scotch-Irish areas of the South were the most pro-Union areas and the hardest places for Confederate nationalism to get ahold of. Scotch-Irish West Virginia broke off from the Confederacy to remain with the Union, while East Tennessee was so rebellious that the Confederacy had to devote major manpower to keep down the resident Unionists. Even Alabama, that most Dixie of all Southern states, had trouble with its northern counties, which voted against secession and gave Unionist trouble throughout the war.
• Then there's Cantrell, a disciple of McWhiney, whose work has been reviewed as "erroneous and at times even meanders into the ridiculous", and "he swaggers into the chasm of Celticity and attempts to plant his Confederate Flag firmly in its nebulousness". Michael Newton of the Univ of NC opines that Cantrell's claims are "unsustainable in the light of contemporary statements from the people themselves."
• And finally the man himself, McWhiney, whose crazy "Celtic Thesis" asserts that the South was the way it was because of all the Celts living down there. Bunk. As Michael Newton put it, "followers of the 'McWhiney-McDonald' myth resist logic and historical reasoning". Irish American scholar Dennis Clark calls the Celtic Thesis a "fantasy of hyperbole", and "a historical confection surpassing that of the magnolia-drenched plantation fantasies of cheap Southern novels". And Rowland Berthoff's Celtic Mist Over the South, is an excellent review of the fallacies in the Celtic Thesis. The Celtic Thesis ignores so many areas of sound scholarship, its hard to know where to begin. The coastal and Deep South areas were settled by predominantly English folks, both big shots and peasants, and the "civilization gone with the wind" was the planter culture of manner houses and lords, inherited direct from England, and in no way Celtic. The Scotch-Irish in the upland South were of course not Celtic, either. They were in large part from the Anglo-Saxon areas of Lowland Scotland and north England, areas that had a thousand years earlier been the Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria. In any event, Scotch-Irish culture, whatever their genetic makeup, was not Celtic culture. The only area in the South with any claim to being Celtic was a small area of North Carolina settled by Scottish Highlanders. It is the North that has a better claim to "Celticness", as it had received significant infusions of Celts in the form of Irish Catholics.

So, edits like this based on questionable sources need to be erased, and then discussed, before becoming permanent. Eastcote (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This, while very neatly presented, is similarly misleading. It strikes of EXACTLY what Malke warned about--"...the author is selling a book and point of view and naturally he's going to find data to support his thesis....." It seems to attempt to paint an almost "ideal" Romantic image of Scots-Irish in the South--as separate amongst all others....i.e. pro-Union?? (Am I to presume anti-slavery too??? and NON plantation owners?? too...) PLEASE...yet EVERYONE else in the vicinity (those "English" descendants?) happened to fall sway to the Confedaracy except the mighty Scots-Irish??? even though they'all were livin IN the same South?..."the Scotch-Irish in the South were of course not Celtic, either" Really? Again--re-read Malke's quote. And the "South's Irish" were the "Scots Irish"??? I'll keep it civil and state that that's ah, a BOLD statement.

Nonetheless, all this drivel continues to highlight that this "separate group" and the components of its identity within, however derived or supported--belong IN THIS article--NOT elsewhere. :) 173.76.208.66 (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia NPOV rules require neutrality by editors: they state that if there is a debate among experts then BOTH sides have to represented --erasing one side is illegal under Wiki rules. As for irrelevant novels, GWTW is the single most influential novel about the South and the Civil War--regardless of the religious background od gthe author-- and Sims was one of the most important writers of the era. Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly GWTW is greatly influential, and much should be written about it, and much is written, in the appropriate places. But it is irrelevant to an article on the Scotch-Irish, and citing an authority who uses it doesn't really add anything to the article. And that whole Celtic theory of McWhiney and others is Neo-Confederate pop scholarship. It is a "fringe theory", which Wikipedia is not favorable to, and in the definition of which Wikipedia includes "novel re-interpretations of history". But, I'm not going to restate my objections above. This article is not about the general "Celticness" of the South, it is about a specific group, and content should be directly relevant. My objection really is not necessarily that the theory is false, but that what you have written is irrelevant to this article. (And again, don't get me wrong. I had a great-grandfather and two gr-gr-grandfathers in the Confederate army, which I'm proud of. So I have no problem with the Confederacy, per se. I do have a problem with weird theories. When I was 18, I read a theory that the Loch Ness monster was really a long necked seal, and all the "facts" the author provided had me convinced. I'm a lot older now, and I know a Piltdown Man when I see one.) Eastcote (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Westward Movement and Religion

I am deleting some content recently added under Westward Movement, and under Religion. I agree these areas need some work, and perhaps we can craft a better overview for the role the Scotch-Irish played in the overall history of westward movement and policy toward the west, and in the role they played in religious life in America, particularly their significant role in the development of the Bible Belt.

I deleted the content because rather than giving an overview so that the reader can understand the overall story of the Scotch-Irish, recent edits are too specific and isolated without informing the reader of the larger picture.

• For instance, under “Westward Movement”, the info only pertains to isolated facts about Ohio, (and actually talks about the eastward movement of the Wilson family). The Scotch-Irish certainly moved into the Ohio region, but they also swept across Tennessee to Arkansas, Texas, and the American Southwest. The significance of the Scotch-Irish in overall westward movement is that they were the first to ignore the colonial demarcation line of 1760, and begin the push across the American continent. They were the first group whose focus was westward toward the interior of America, rather than eastward across the ocean to Europe. The picture is broader than a single state, and this narrow focus does not illuminate the reader to what was happening.
• Similarly, under “Religion”, the relevance is uncertain in singling out the Associate Reformed Church. Churches were being established wherever the Scotch-Irish (and any group for that matter) went. It is more instructive to the reader to give an overview of what was happening, religiously, with the Scotch-Irish (such as turning from Presbyterianism to other denominations). Otherwise, undue weight is given to one very specific example, without anyone knowing why, or whether, it is particularly significant.
• There is also reference under “Religion” to Vann, who “explores the link between the Scotch-Irish and the creation of the Bible Belt”, but nothing in the edit tells us what Vann says about that link. In order to find out, we have to go read Vann. Mention is made of educational levels, 'thought worlds,' and politics of the colonial era, but nothing is shown to connect this to the Scotch-Irish. It’s confusing.

Discussing these things here first may result in a better edit with several editors looking at it. I will look at crafting a new "westward movement" section to cover an overview of Scotch-Irish involvement. As for "religion", the influence of the Scotch-Irish on religion in America has been huge, not just for the Bible Belt, but also for the development of American evangelicalism in general. Rjensen, can you see if you can craft a more indepth view of this development? Eastcote (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We agreed not to delete material before discussion. Every item is fully sourced, is based on relible sources, and deals with the topic at hand. If material is confusing we should consider that before erasing it. Eastcote seems to think migration of the Scotch Irish to Ohio was unimportant--or that it should not be mentioned for some reason. It is well known that Presbyterians were quite important for this group, but a detailed study of one Presbyterian group gets erased. Rjensen (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-read what I had to say, please. Never said movement into Ohio was unimportant. It should be mentioned, in proper context. Your edit made it seem as if that was all there was to "Westward Movement". A detailed study of one Presbyterian Group doesn't say why it's important, and misleads reader into thinking this is more significant than it is. Most Scotch-Irish left Presbyterianism anyway and became Baptists, Methodists, etc. Read Wikipedia rules on undue weight. Let's work together on this and we can get a better product. Eastcote (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Associate Reformed Church

Why does the Associate Reformed Church merit specific mention? What is its significance in the big picture? I get Princeton. That's a major university and rates special mention. But why the ARC? Something special about it? Eastcote (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting on an answer to this question. If no relevance is shown, this is getting deleted once again. It gives undue weight to the establishment of a single church. Eastcote (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)