How did stark cultural differences develop between the South and the North in the United States?
This sort of dichotomy was way before the civil war, way before the migration waves (I think?), and I don't believe Texas has much to do with it either, rather Texas was the product of this Southern culture.
Did different Europeans settle in? Because if they did how come English took over?
It only seems stark from the inside, to an outside observer you're much more alike than different, you just get caught up in the smaller details.
Split between Industrial and Agrarian economies. I'm leaving a lot of details out, but that's the gist of it.
Also, do your own homework. Open a book for gods sake.
I'm an outsider, not American.
>that pic
If anything it's the opposite.
Every thread there's someone whining about MUH /pol/, yet I have literally never seen someone complain about Veeky Forums on either /pol/ or any other board. Hell, I'm convinced most people don't know this board even exists
>I'm convinced most people don't know this board even exists
Good and it should stay that way.
The south was settled by different groups from Brittain. The south was settled by people from northern England, scotland and some Irish. They brought their own culture with them. New England got a lot of people from puritan comm8nities in southwest England.
Err i meant south east England not west
>The southern colonies were founded for economic agroculturual and trading interests
>the northern colonies were founded by religious interests
>now the south is the most religious part of the country while the north is the most economically driven agnostic part of the country
Really makes you think...
>Veeky Forums is anti immigration about its board yet not its countries
/pol/ is a board of peace
We wish to establish a multicultural board for everyone, why are you being so boardist?
>/pol/ is a board of peace
That's why you invade every other board and fill it with your garbage.
>doesn't get the reference
It's rather simple: North is Germanic and the South is Celtic
Different climates?
Deep South ! = all of the South you blithering dolt.
Yeah because revleft and leftypol garbage is way better, right?
this
>East Anglia to Massachusetts
The Exodus of the English Puritans (Pilgrims influenced the Northeastern United States' corporate and educational culture)
>The South of England to Virginia
Distressed Cavaliers and Indentured Servants (Gentry influenced the Southern United States' plantation culture)
>North Midlands to the Delaware Valley
The Friends' Migration (Quakers influenced the Middle Atlantic and Midwestern United States' industrial culture)
>Borderlands to the Backcountry
The Flight from North Britain (Scotch-Irish, or borderer English/Scottish, influenced the Western United States' ranch culture and the Southern United States' common agrarian culture)
America (or at least, the original America) is a BRITISH country, that is, a country settled and founded by people from the British Isles
Any American who is not directly descended from the British Isles is no better than a mexican or a nigger, they are a filthy immigrant come to leach off from the success of the Anglo-Celtic masterrace
The south was more feudal. The North industrialized faster and was therefore culturally capitalist earlier.
The south therefore has a small amount of legitimate Conservative culture due to it. The North never had as big of a feudal culture and therefore lacks any conservatism culturally.
>Anglo-Celtic
Ausnigger spotted. Stop mingling Anglos with Celtic garbage.
you know, that's actually the true.
Both of these, excluding SJWs, are better than /pol/'s pathological rants about niggers, jews and women.
Probably unrelated but a lot of people don't know that Texas had a lot of German settlers and there are entire towns with German influence and structure.
This is a nice summary of Albion's Seed:
slatestarcodex.com
>implying anglos aren't already mixed with the original celtic in habitants
both of you have been on Veeky Forums way too long today
I was just in from work lad
I dont know what you mean by this
These are bogeymen, /pol/ is real.
So pathological rants about how white people don't exist, the virtues of black supremacism and the evils of capitalism is fine though?
Nah, fuck off you white guilt SJW retard
>>>/leftypol/
Cracker culture > Albion's seed
>the ideology im opposed to cant help but shit up any community in the internet it comes across with its political rants, so we can do the same!
both of you retards, piss off. Veeky Forums is an independent blue board that iw elcoming of any other board crossposter as long as they can have serious discussions
Those that are are literally nigger tier, like in Dartmouth and Cornwall
>So pathological rants about how white people don't exist, the virtues of black supremacism and the evils of capitalism is fine though?
No, it isn't, which is why we don't have that and when they rarely pop out we denounce them. And bashing Germans doesn't count as that m8, Teutonics just can't handle bantz.
How long have you been on this board?
Before getting familiar with historical material you should first cover the essential "Red Pill" reading list, starting with this.
>These are bogeymen, /pol/ is real.
revleft.com
8cuck.pl
Rip leftypol btw
>leftypol is not real
They literally had threads about raiding us
>celts didn't inhabit the entirety of Britain
Just stop
i could post links to stormfront and /pol/. but that proves nothing. we already know that those cesspits exist. what did you prove with your post?
If they invade other boards it's subtle enough nobody cares. /pol/ has not got a subtle bone in its body.
Even in areas with the highest Anglo-Saxon settlement people only have about 20-30% Anglo-Saxon genetics.
East Anglia and Jorvik were Germanic you Fenian swine herder
>east anglia was germanic
Source
Except for the fact that when anyone from /pol/ tries to debate using their ebin stale talking points with someone from Veeky Forums, they get blown the fuck out.
I mean, this thread is a perfect example. Instead of debating the topic, you're shitposting to derail the thread. That's why >we are and shall always be better than you.
...
And what time period is this representing exactly?
Right now
>Starts the thread with SJW shit
>hurr why are people discussing the stupid SJW shit
OP here
I'll be honest, the thread was genuine but the pic was pure bait to trigger /pol/ and bask in the salt. Thing is, I don't even like /leftypol/ and I'd be glad when they'd leave, but holy shit /pol/ is so easy to get to.
And I'm referring to the past, where the original inhabitants of Britain were all celtic, therefore, all anglos are already mixed with celts
This thread is about the stark cultural differences between north and south leading up to the civil war. The picture was unrelated.
Just because it triggered you doesn't mean that it is the intended topic.
Also
>laughing at pol's retardation makes you a SJW
You guys are so full of self-loathing that it's hysterical. Anyway, this is my laugh off-topic (You), so enjoy yourself my pea-brained friend.
>SJW shit
m8 I just asked how come there's a cultural difference between the south and north in the US. The pic didn't even imply anything "SJW-esque", just that you're retards who shit up the board. Not everyone who disagrees with /pol/ is a SJW, user.
Read the book Cracker Culture from McWhiney, it will explain a lot
>/pol/ shits up the board
>when leftypol has been conducting raids sicnd day 1
Fuck off
Growing cotton, rice, and tobacco with slaves vs. growing local market food crops with traditional European family labor. Industry wasn't really a factor until the Civil War itself, the vast majority of Americans North and South, lived on farms in the first half of the 19th century.
p r o o f
r
o
or gtfo
f
...
Wow, what specific, conclusive and exhaustive evidence.
Southerners are mostly of mostly scots-irish descent, while northerners are mostly Germanic and Anglo Saxon.
The latter two groups are inherently more capable than the former. You don't like that answer because it's not the narrative you're interested in (evolutionary history), but that really is the answer.
ON THIS EPISODE OF BOARD WARS
>Instead of debating the topic, you're shitposting to derail the thread.
>Create bait thread with bait pic
>Act surprised when thread gets derailed
Right
How do I know that this isn't a shill from /pol/ false-flagging?
Also
>The latter two groups are inherently more capable than the former.
Sure, unless you count the Army of Northern Virginia and her several encounters with the Union columns .
>le economics attrition
You are non specific and racist.
Germans suck major dick, that's why they keep getting btfo on a civilization level. Celts, Huns, Italians, French, Anglo, Russian, Semitic.
The Union had every conceivable advantage in it's war with the Confederacy and yet could only just attain tactical victories at a cost prohibitive to their actual value.
>Sure, unless you count the Army of Northern Virginia and her several encounters with the Union columns.
Yes, if you extrapolate a single war to general success in the entirety of warfare, culture, economics, etc. over the course of many centuries.
>racist.
Agreed.
>Every thread there's someone whining about MUH /pol/
this is true.
>yet I have literally never seen someone complain about Veeky Forums on either /pol/ or any other board.
irrelevant
as a semi-regular /pol/ poster, I can say with complete certainty that Veeky Forums is pound for pound easily more intellectually adept than /pol/. Maybe not so much in the hardened and refined drive towards anal meme devastation, but certainly more so in the realms of subtlety and rare expression.
/pol/ is mostly just instinct, there really isn't a commanding structure to their movements contrary to what some may think.
Pretty sure most Scots-Irish settled in the Appalachians, not the deep south who are mostly English.
A bigger difference is the fact that the south had an Agrarian economy with stratified social classes and the North was more urban and adapted much more quickly to industrialization but you don't like that answer because it's not the narrative you're interested in.
Bingo
>The Union had every conceivable advantage in its war against the confederacy, so it won.
>but, uh, it wasn't worth it!
hmm, so you prefer NOT to know you're being invaded.
Maybe if you do care and yet still haven't even noticed, it's because their numbers are so damn small that you really couldn't if you tried.
1/5 Union men died dude.
>Yes, if you extrapolate a single war to general success in the entirety of warfare, culture, economics, etc. over the course of many centuries.
What does this imply about Germans?
>DROWNS IN A FUCKING RIVER
If I could find the article I would be a lot happier than I am right now but it was an excerpt from a book about the history of American colonization. Essentially there were 4 main groups from what I can remember:
Educated Puritans from England: They mostly settled New England. Had an extremely strict society.
Quakers: They went to Pennsylvania but were far and away the most accepting group. Arguably this was the group who would end up having the most influence on American society.
Borderers: People that lived on the edge of Scotland and England and were pretty much hated everywhere they went due to their rough and tumble ways. They settled in Appalachia because no one else would have them.
Aristocratic types: Basically uber wealthy landowners who wanted to establish their own kingdoms in the new world due to the unstable political climate of Europe. They colonized the south.
There's for more detail than just this and of course the events after initial colonization probably changed each culture greatly but this might help explain some of the basic ideology behind each region.
You seem focused on Germans but I only specified Germans and Anglo-Saxons as it pertained to the Northern US, and I was only comparing them to Ulster Scots (who are an accomplished people in many ways).
There are other successful white subgroups too (some of which you listed earlier).
South is hot so there's no hurry so they run on "southern time". Also most of the freed slaves ended up down there so there's your main cultural difference. I'm a Michigander and when I think of the south I think of a lot more blacks and the culture they bring along.
>not the deep south who are mostly English.
Correct. They're the descendants of Cavaliers - the southwestern English, who are distinct from the English Easterners and Northerners.
>A bigger difference is the fact that the south had an Agrarian economy
Because they weren't capable of anything more during that time period.
So you don't think the economic circumstances had anything to do with it, huh?
Not the climate, which made indoor production dangerous and unpleasant. Not the massive investments into the plantation economy that made the wealthy landowners tenuous to adopt a new method of production and lobby politicians to protect. Not population density. None of that?
It's a touch more complicated than you've made it out to be. You've gone with the simplest possible narrative to fulfill some Germanic supremacy bent.
For the most part (not entirely but largely) I think economic circumstances are a result of the capability of the people themselves. The problem I have with explanations like yours is that they sound really nice but there is absolutely no way to verify it. But there are ways to reasonably establish that some people are smarter than others, less aggressive than others, etc.
>to fulfill some Germanic supremacy bent.
I'm not invested in Germans being superior or inferior (I'm more Irish/Welsh/Celtic than Germanic). In some cases they just are.
Southerners are Celts
>claiming superiority over someone
>on a fucking Javanese cattle herding imageboard
How small is your dick, really?
I would disagree, establishing the effect of historical political actions or environmental and economic circumstances is somewhat messy but not incredibly imprecise. For example, we can determine pretty substantially that the American revolution began due resentment from colonials towards the British government over a perceived lack of representation. There are other factors, but this one can be singled out.
If instead we said "Americans descend from superior stock that's why they wanted independence", I mean hey that might be true, but it ignores a lot of other things going on. And is in fact pretty hard to verify in and of itself. How do you certify that English people from a certain region are "superior" to another? What do you mean by that even?
What, you think all that marxist posting is natural or something?
They're not subtle, you're just stupid
Half the Marx threads are obv lazy bait and the other half devolve into one marxposter taking all comers. And the third half is newbies from /pol/, hopped up on soft drinks, thinking they're gonna btfo all the pinkos in the people's republic of Veeky Forums. The political compass threads have been pretty consistent. We have a lot of left libertarians and right authoritarians, but few left authoritarians.
>we can determine pretty substantially that the American revolution began due resentment from colonials towards the British government over a perceived lack of representation.
It's not difficult to say X party was motivated by Y. It's difficult to say why some economies are less industrialized than others if you rely on any explanation that isn't related to biology. Anyone can claim that X is the culprit, and then when you present an example of a modern, prosperous economy where X is also present, you then get to fall back to "Y is the culprit".
It's a never-ending game. These stories are often non-explanatory, but they sound good so people just roll with it.
There are very few cultural differences between the South and the North. The only notable one I've noticed having recently been in both is that the South is noticeably more conservative.
I hear a lot of Northerners put down the South because of their consumerism, but I'd say it's pretty equal.
/leftypol/ discourages nationalism of all kinds.
Read this book
Whatever the South was at that point is gone.
Planters and Pilgrims you dumb nigger. The divide existed before America was even a thing
When has a polygamous civilization ever not had unnecessary tension? I don't believe that this entire board can believe that countries would be better with immigration. It dilutes the culture of a nation if it doesn't just keep to it's own people (I'm not even referring to race, African Americans are just as much American as white Americans)
>/leftypol/ discourages nationalism of all kinds.
Unless it's carried out by nonwhites
im pretty authoritarian and acording to political compass im liberal.
political compass is trash
This makes zero sense. The majority of white Southern Americans are descendants of English, Scottish, and Welsh settlers and colonists who came to the new world from the British Isles but where is this Germanic emphasis in the North stemming from?
North = Anglo-Saxon, German, Scandinavian, Dutch
South = Scots Irish, Irish, Scottish, Cornish, Welsh, West "English"
There has never been a significant Irish population in the South. Try again.
>what is West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia
>There has never been a significant Irish population in the South.
Wow that is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read.
en.wikipedia.org
They were different people from the beginning. One was looking for economic opportunities via slavery expansion from the Caribbean, and the other was more interested in settling a society with a level of independence, and also economic reasons (not really concentrating on slavery)
The south was born with slavery, and throughout its antebellum history was characterized by it. It may sound simple or cliche, but that's the reality of it