The Bizarre Diversity of the UK (Anglos), as seen through the results of their colonialism

[Visitor]

I'm reading a book called "Eleven American Nations" by Colin Woodard which describes how various settlers from the British isles colonized North America (FYI, it's this one: http://www.amazon.com/American-Natio...dp/0143122029/ , the book is great).

As we know, the US is extremely different (the religious Bible Belt in the South, the moderates in the North, etc.) and Canada is even more liberal than the US.

The book is great, and Woodard argues that North America is comprised of "11 separate American nations" -- some were French and Spanish, but the majority were from the British Isles. Still, the British Isles introduced a mind-boggling array of diverse cultures which had nothing in common with each other.

What strikes me is the sheer weirdness and diversity of the UK/Anglo DNA. Apparently, the British isles were the source of the following entirely different cultures:

- The Tidewater regions (Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina) - settled by aristocratic conservative "manor gentlemen" who wanted to recreate the rural countryside of England. A caste system rooted in aristocracy and hierarchy. Liberty was an "earned privilege" and Tidewaterists like George Washington upheld slavery. They were royalists and supported the British royalty. Rural, uneducated, ignorant, and mostly kept to themselves.
- The Yankee regions (Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.) - TOTALLY different. These were, on the one hand, religious fanatics (Puritans); but at the same time, these Puritans were freedom/education-loving missionaries. They valued education so much they built lots of universities (e.g. in Boston), they believed everyone was free, they abhorred slavery, and were all-around free-thinking, liberal people. The only thing was they had terrible hangups about sex. If you remove the sex hangups and their weird religion which caused them to be m missionaries, they were liberal leftists. They came from various cities in East England.
- The Appalachian regions - settled by a totally different group, the Scots and Scots-Irish, from the regions bordering England to the North. Violent, aggressive, boorish, proud, always ready to fight and defend themselves, they've advocated for every war the US has ever fought. Based on tight family clans, vigilante justice, even lawlessness. Apparently in the UK, Scots were the people of choice when wars had to be fought, due to their fiery patriotism and violence.
- The Deep South - British colonialists who migrated from the earlier colony of Barbados, and put down the roots of slavery. Very different from all of the above; these were the most toxic UK colonialists of them all. Not only uneducated, religious, and caste-based, but extremely cruel and malicious, who to this day want to shove religion and their conservative culture down everyone's throat. Unabashed racists, opponents of any kind of governance or civilization, true extremists.
- The Quakers - yet another weird religious group supplied from the UK. They settled in the US midland region. A bit weird, with an unconventional interpretation of Christianity, and attitudes of plurality and tolerance.

One gets the impression that the US was founded by religious lunatics (even the liberals, as we've seen, were religious Puritans), yet at the same time, I know that the UK is home to educated liberals and humanists: Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, etc. Surely there are plenty of left-thinkers and liberals in the UK, so the "Anglo DNA" seems to be somehow inconsistent.

How can the British isles be home to so many wildly different cultures, making their colonial settlements so wildly different? If someone tells me a country was settled by the French, I expect the "French DNA" to leave a footprint there, so to speak, whatever that means. But here, a bewildering set of cultures was supplied to the New World from a small localized place, the British isles, with no uniform culture or tradition. There is no "British DNA." Can someone explain?

[HillY35]

I'm reading a book called "Eleven American Nations" by Colin Woodard which describes how various settlers from the British isles colonized North America (FYI, it's this one: http://www.amazon.com/American-Natio...dp/0143122029/ , the book is great).

As we know, the US is extremely different (the religious Bible Belt in the South, the moderates in the North, etc.) and Canada is even more liberal than the US.

The book is great, and Woodard argues that North America is comprised of "11 separate American nations" -- some were French and Spanish, but the majority were from the British Isles. Still, the British Isles introduced a mind-boggling array of diverse cultures which had nothing in common with each other.

What strikes me is the sheer weirdness and diversity of the UK/Anglo DNA. Apparently, the British isles were the source of the following entirely different cultures:

- The Tidewater regions (Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina) - settled by aristocratic conservative "manor gentlemen" who wanted to recreate the rural countryside of England. A caste system rooted in aristocracy and hierarchy. Liberty was an "earned privilege" and Tidewaterists like George Washington upheld slavery. They were royalists and supported the British royalty. Rural, uneducated, ignorant, and mostly kept to themselves.
- The Yankee regions (Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.) - TOTALLY different. These were, on the one hand, religious fanatics (Puritans); but at the same time, these Puritans were freedom/education-loving missionaries. They valued education so much they built lots of universities (e.g. in Boston), they believed everyone was free, they abhorred slavery, and were all-around free-thinking, liberal people. The only thing was they had terrible hangups about sex. If you remove the sex hangups and their weird religion which caused them to be m missionaries, they were liberal leftists. They came from various cities in East England.
- The Appalachian regions - settled by a totally different group, the Scots and Scots-Irish, from the regions bordering England to the North. Violent, aggressive, boorish, proud, always ready to fight and defend themselves, they've advocated for every war the US has ever fought. Based on tight family clans, vigilante justice, even lawlessness. Apparently in the UK, Scots were the people of choice when wars had to be fought, due to their fiery patriotism and violence.
- The Deep South - British colonialists who migrated from the earlier colony of Barbados, and put down the roots of slavery. Very different from all of the above; these were the most toxic UK colonialists of them all. Not only uneducated, religious, and caste-based, but extremely cruel and malicious, who to this day want to shove religion and their conservative culture down everyone's throat. Unabashed racists, opponents of any kind of governance or civilization, true extremists.
- The Quakers - yet another weird religious group supplied from the UK. They settled in the US midland region. A bit weird, with an unconventional interpretation of Christianity, and attitudes of plurality and tolerance.

One gets the impression that the US was founded by religious lunatics (even the liberals, as we've seen, were religious Puritans), yet at the same time, I know that the UK is home to educated liberals and humanists: Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, etc. Surely there are plenty of left-thinkers and liberals in the UK, so the "Anglo DNA" seems to be somehow inconsistent.

How can the British isles be home to so many wildly different cultures, making their colonial settlements so wildly different? If someone tells me a country was settled by the French, I expect the "French DNA" to leave a footprint there, so to speak, whatever that means. But here, a bewildering set of cultures was supplied to the New World from a small localized place, the British isles, with no uniform culture or tradition. There is no "British DNA." Can someone explain?

This is total propaganda... I'd have highlighted one more line, but it's a waste of my time and mental energy at this point.
What a warped understanding of American history.

[RandomlyRenounced]

For the most part, that book's description sounds like left-wing rubbish that portrays Southern Whites as the "ignorant racist redneck" stereotype.

So uneducated aristocratic gentlemen settled in North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia? Can you please explain to me what this "uneducated aristocratic gentleman" is.

[Gooding]

This is total propaganda... I'd have highlighted one more line, but it's a waste of my time and mental energy at this point.
What a warped understanding of American history.

You said it better than I could. I think I'll save my money. It's propaganda like that that leads to resentment among many Southerners as to how they're still stereotyped in this country. The sad thing is that in 2015, there shouldn't be any need for this kind of divisiveness.

[Gooding]

For the most part, that book's description sounds like left-wing rubbish that portrays Southern Whites as the "ignorant racist redneck" stereotype.

So uneducated aristocratic gentlemen settled in North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia? Can you please explain to me what this "uneducated aristocratic gentleman" is.

Obviously, the planter classes were educated, usually by private tutors. The poor subsistence farmers didn't have the luxury of modern education, as that was expensive in those days. They had their hearts, their work ethic and their knowledge of local lore. They also knew when and how to plant crops and successfully hunt.

[Weedman]

I'm reading a book called "Eleven American Nations" by Colin Woodard which describes how various settlers from the British isles colonized North America (FYI, it's this one: http://www.amazon.com/American-Natio...dp/0143122029/ , the book is great).

As we know, the US is extremely different (the religious Bible Belt in the South, the moderates in the North, etc.) and Canada is even more liberal than the US.

The book is great, and Woodard argues that North America is comprised of "11 separate American nations" -- some were French and Spanish, but the majority were from the British Isles. Still, the British Isles introduced a mind-boggling array of diverse cultures which had nothing in common with each other.

What strikes me is the sheer weirdness and diversity of the UK/Anglo DNA. Apparently, the British isles were the source of the following entirely different cultures:

- The Tidewater regions (Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina) - settled by aristocratic conservative "manor gentlemen" who wanted to recreate the rural countryside of England. A caste system rooted in aristocracy and hierarchy. Liberty was an "earned privilege" and Tidewaterists like George Washington upheld slavery. They were royalists and supported the British royalty. Rural, uneducated, ignorant, and mostly kept to themselves.
- The Yankee regions (Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.) - TOTALLY different. These were, on the one hand, religious fanatics (Puritans); but at the same time, these Puritans were freedom/education-loving missionaries. They valued education so much they built lots of universities (e.g. in Boston), they believed everyone was free, they abhorred slavery, and were all-around free-thinking, liberal people. The only thing was they had terrible hangups about sex. If you remove the sex hangups and their weird religion which caused them to be m missionaries, they were liberal leftists. They came from various cities in East England.
- The Appalachian regions - settled by a totally different group, the Scots and Scots-Irish, from the regions bordering England to the North. Violent, aggressive, boorish, proud, always ready to fight and defend themselves, they've advocated for every war the US has ever fought. Based on tight family clans, vigilante justice, even lawlessness. Apparently in the UK, Scots were the people of choice when wars had to be fought, due to their fiery patriotism and violence.
- The Deep South - British colonialists who migrated from the earlier colony of Barbados, and put down the roots of slavery. Very different from all of the above; these were the most toxic UK colonialists of them all. Not only uneducated, religious, and caste-based, but extremely cruel and malicious, who to this day want to shove religion and their conservative culture down everyone's throat. Unabashed racists, opponents of any kind of governance or civilization, true extremists.
- The Quakers - yet another weird religious group supplied from the UK. They settled in the US midland region. A bit weird, with an unconventional interpretation of Christianity, and attitudes of plurality and tolerance.

One gets the impression that the US was founded by religious lunatics (even the liberals, as we've seen, were religious Puritans), yet at the same time, I know that the UK is home to educated liberals and humanists: Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, etc. Surely there are plenty of left-thinkers and liberals in the UK, so the "Anglo DNA" seems to be somehow inconsistent.

How can the British isles be home to so many wildly different cultures, making their colonial settlements so wildly different? If someone tells me a country was settled by the French, I expect the "French DNA" to leave a footprint there, so to speak, whatever that means. But here, a bewildering set of cultures was supplied to the New World from a small localized place, the British isles, with no uniform culture or tradition. There is no "British DNA." Can someone explain?

the tidewater and deep south cultural roots were the same.

most of those Anglo Planters from Barbados came from the exact same place in England as the Chesapeke settles did and for the exact same reason and at the same time.
Most had come from Virginia, at some point, or had roots and ties there, or family ties in the same region in the south-west of England also. And came from the same background.

not to mention, Virginia got most of it's African slaves and trade from the west indies.

they're not 2 cultures
but just a larger continuation of what was started in the Chesapake and Virgina/TideWater

all that book is referring to, is the main differences between South Carolina and Virginia at the time, as slave trading centers. But they had the exact same settlers and they got their slaves and trade from the same regions too.


funny how it says the tidewater elites were 'backward, rural and uneducated' ,then mentions someone like George Washington as being from that culture (?)
I don't see how the fuck someone like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, or George Washington was anything close to being 'backward and uneducated.' LMFAO

and the Jeffersonian Republicans, who ruled the south during the time of the American Revolution, were some of the first ones and strongest fighters/patriots against the British.

they were not in favor of British Royalty by the time George Washington came along. That's nearly 100 years removed.

They were only royalists-from the English Civil War- during the initial settlement and the few years after.

[Brianna]

The Tidewater regions (Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina) - They were royalists and supported the British royalty. Rural, uneducated, ignorant, and mostly kept to themselves.

What an accurate and wonderful description of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe, Henry, Mason and the Lees. What a bunch of king-loving, stupid morons those clannish hicks were.

[Gooding]

What an accurate and wonderful description of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe, Henry, Mason and the Lees. What a bunch of king-loving, stupid morons those clannish hicks were.

Weren't they, though? Damned Anglos! up

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Puritans hated slavery? lol Puritans were scumbags.

The first certain reference to African slavery is in connection with the bloody Pequot War in 1637. The Pequot Indians of central Connecticut, pressed hard by encroaching European settlements, struck back and attacked the town of Wetherfield. A few months later, Massachusetts and Connecticut militias joined forces and raided the Pequot village near Mystic, Connecticut. Of the few Indians who escaped slaughter, the women and children were enslaved in New England, and Roger Williams of Rhode Island wrote to Winthrop congratulating him on God's having placed in his hands "another drove of Adams' degenerate seed." But most of the men and boys, deemed too dangerous to keep in the colony, were transported to the West Indies aboard the ship Desire, to be exchanged for African slaves. The Desire arrived back in Massachusetts in 1638, after exchanging its cargo, according to Winthrop, loaded with "Salt, cotton, tobacco and Negroes."

"Such exchanges became routine during subsequent Indian wars, for the danger of keeping revengeful warriors in the colony far outweighed the value of their labor."[2] In 1646, this became the official policy of the New England Confederation. As elsewhere in the New World, the shortage and expense of free, white labor motivated the quest for slaves. In 1645, Emanuel Downing, brother-in-law of John Winthrop, wrote to him longing for a "juste warre" with the Pequots, so the colonists might capture enough Indian men, women, and children to exchange in Barbados for black slaves, because the colony would never thrive "untill we gett ... a stock of slaves sufficient to doe all our business."

[Prisoner Of Ice]

What an accurate and wonderful description of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe, Henry, Mason and the Lees. What a bunch of king-loving, stupid morons those clannish hicks were.

The south was mainly loyalist in the revolution.

The south was fine with being a provider of agricultural products with slave labor. The north was seriously squeezed by the taxes though.