Charles Murray's "Human Accomplishment"

[Crimson Guard]

A bit of background into Murray's "Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950" book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment

White males leave the others for dead



Charles Murray believes Western men alone are responsible for all the great achievements of civilisation, writes Julian Coman.

To say that Charles Murray makes enemies easily is something of an understatement. His last major academic work was variously branded as "racist, philosophically shabby, politically ugly, disingenuous and creepy".

These were judgements on his mid-1990s bestseller, The Bell-Curve, in which Murray argued that for genetic reasons African-Americans had significantly lower average IQs than whites or Asians. He then lay low, perhaps wondering how such a masterpiece of political incorrectness could be bettered.

The answer comes in the form of Human Accomplishment: the Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950, an extraordinarily ambitious resume of the major cultural achievements, from music to philosophy to chemistry. Its robust conclusions have already had the singular effect of enraging feminists, members of ethnic minorities, lovers of 20th-century modernism, orientalists and Islamic fundamentalists.

Put bluntly, Murray has tried to prove scientifically the overwhelming cultural superiority of dead white males. By pursuing an arcane 134-year-old statistical method known as "historiometry", he claims to have scientifically demonstrated what every cultural conservative instinctively knows: white males have been head and shoulders above all rivals when it comes to significant cultural achievement in the arts and sciences.


Think Shakespeare. Think Michelangelo. Think Louis Pasteur. Don't think women or non-Caucasians.

According to Murray, the idea that no one culture or tradition can ever be judged objectively superior to another has led to a wilful and quite unjustified "trashing" of Dead White Males.

"In anthologies of literature now, women and black writers are represented out of all proportion to their merit, in order to promote equality," he says. "Let's not take Shakespeare - it's too obvious. But, for example, why are pupils reading Toni Morrison instead of Joseph Conrad? Conrad is incomparably better than Morrison could ever dream of being. But if you say that you will be accused of male, white, Anglo-Saxon prejudice."

The methodology of Human Accomplishment is disarmingly simple. For five years, Murray assessed 167 encyclopedias, adding up the space accorded to the most significant scientists and artists throughout history, stopping the count at 1950.

Sceptics point out that all but three of the encyclopedias were published in the latter half of the 20th century, giving the experiment a modern bias. Murray argues, however, that within 50 years, greatness will almost always have made itself known. So all pre-1950 candidates for posterity were given a fair chance.

In the end, 4002 artists, scientists and philosophers make the final cut. They are divided into a set of league tables claiming to rank scientifically the best and brightest members of the human species up to 1950. The more words devoted to a philosopher, a musician or a physicist in Murray's encyclopedias, the greater his significance and achievement.

Shakespeare naturally takes the Western literature prize, as the most discussed writer of all time. Goethe is next. Beethoven and Mozart tie for music, Isaac Newton wins in combined sciences; Galileo is second. Women, it emerges, have contributed almost nothing. Africa is not even on the map. Confucius gets an honourable mention. But in general, Eastern cultures have just not tried hard enough:

"You have a philosophical and theological culture in East Asia that states that this life is not that important," Murray says. "This is one of a whole cycle of lives if you're a Buddhist. Striving in this life is seen as a source of suffering rather than a source of pleasure. That's explicit in Buddhism, but is also present in Daoism."

By contrast, the development of the Christian notion of vocation, particularly from the 14th century onwards, saw a flowering of intellectual and artistic achievement, almost exclusively among men. "To express yourself, to create beauty, to discover the miracle of God's works through science was seen as pleasing to God. That was extremely powerful in its effects."

Thus, between 1400 and 1950, Murray's method has found that 72 per cent of significant figures in arts and sciences came from Britain, France, Germany and Italy alone. Overall, male Europeans and North Americans are shown to be responsible for 97 per cent of scientific accomplishment from 800 BC to 1950. Statistically, when it comes to curing disease, building bridges, inventing glasses or devising new, better modes of transport, Western man is in a league of his own.

"What the human species is today," he says, "it owes in astonishing degree to what was accomplished in just half a dozen centuries by the peoples of one small portion of the north-western Eurasian land mass."

Unfortunately, there is a sting in the tail. In the 20th century, Western societies lost their religious convictions while equality and inclusion replaced the pursuit of excellence as the highest social goal. The result: nihilism, relativism, Toni Morrison and "unreadable" literature such as James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. "The 20th century tipped over into a kind of sterility. Finnegans Wake will become a curiosity, like atonality in music."

Instead of the vibrant vision of a Dante, readers got the bleak absurdities of the likes of Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre and even Woody Allen, all utterly depressed by the meaninglessness of life. For a nihilist, says Murray, producing great work is "just harder".

As for women and the ethnic minorities: "Let's see them produce the art. It's not necessarily true that justice, freedom and the social good go hand in hand with the production of great art."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/27/1075088021392.html

I recently obtained his book here and will post scans from it starting now:



http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/1-4.jpg
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/2-3.jpg
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/3-2.jpg
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/4-2.jpg
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/5-3.jpg
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/page300.jpg


http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/4-1.jpg
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/5-2.jpg
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/6-1.jpg

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/7-1.jpg
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/8-1.jpg
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/7.jpg
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/9.jpg

[Beorn]

So basically he has scientifically proven what is already common knowledge: The British Isles have provided; shaped and sculpted; and generally ensured the world span upon its axis for centuries.

Seeing as when people speak of Britain they always mean England, and vice versa, it can be concluded that the English are the greatest people this world has ever witnessed.

[The Khagan]

Albert Camus, a nihilist? HAHA, no.

[Jarl]

Seeing as when people speak of Britain they always mean England, and vice versa, it can be concluded that the English are the greatest people this world has ever witnessed.

Certainly because of all the immigrants! ;)

[Beorn]

Certainly because of all the immigrants! ;)

Yes, I'll admit those Scots immigrants have complimented the English.

[Jarl]

How about the Jewish, the French and the Welsh?

[Beorn]

How about the Jewish, the French and the Welsh?

Hmm? I think we could live without Fish n' Chips, White flags and mistaken inventions for child prevention :swl

[Jarl]

How about the talented East Euros?

[Beorn]

How about the talented East Euros?

You tell me. :) I have to admit I have only learnt about what my people have done and the contribution of Northern Europeans.
Only marginally have I perused what others have accomplished.

[Jarl]

Copernicus, Chopin, Curie? ;)

[Jarl]

Well... there is Olszewski, Smoluchowski, Mendeleyev - chemists, Pawlov - physician, Banach - mathemathician, and G. Mendel. Some geographers - Czerski, Strzelecki and Czekanowski. Most of them were poets and writers tho.

And don't forget all the Russian, XIX-century composers ;)

[Zyklop]

Poland ahead of the Balkans? Sure...

[Jarl]

;) Nothing better than a pinch of German optimism!

[nisse]

...and what good are all these accomplishments? All they "accomplished" is getting us to today :( :mad:...

The way I see it, the areas that have accomplished nothing are the only ones innocent of the sh!t we find ourselves in today...we are just victims of your progress :cry

[The Lawspeaker]

Fact of the matter is that it is finally on black and white: we Dutch are the master race.

[Murphy]

People always seem to forget the Irish. When England was in the so-called "Dark Ages", the Irish peasentry were conversing in Greek and Latin! We are from the Land of Saints and Scholars!

We are the mastard race!

Regards,
The Papist.

[Agrippa]

Strengths and weaknesses of the West were formed in Medieval times, based on various reforms in the Frankish Empire. I wrote about that in a longer text which I posted on Skadi some time ago:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=159954#post159954

[Loki]

Looking at America, it is interesting to note that the northern half of the US seems to be the accomplished section of the nation:

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/7-1.jpg

... and that is not only because of early historical settlement, as can be seen in a fairly recent distribution:

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/7.jpg

By contrast, see where the "Bible Belt" is located ... almost the inverse of above maps:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Map_of_USA_highlighting_Bible_Belt.png

Coincidence? Or shall we regard this post in the religious vs intelligence thread as well? ;)

[Electronic God-Man]

Coincidence? Or shall we regard this post in the religious vs intelligence thread as well? ;)

The North, and specifically the region colored the darkest in this map, is far more industrialized than the South. Also, the population size is greater.

The South has been largely agriculturally based until very recently. And even now it's nothing like New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

[Agrippa]

Its religion, the kind of immigrants coming and the economy they established.

The East-North East being closer to the European Northern climate, so capable, independent farmers and townspeople could come from Europe directly to this area and going on in the way the were used to it.

In the South you have plantations, rich landlords, poor dependent farmers of early immigrants and black slaves, superstition of a more primitive kind, a climate further away from that in Europe etc.

Its not by chance that the black slaves got there, because they were better workers on the plantations in the respective climate. Thats no work for a Northern European in that climate - at least they do worse physically.

The great changes and inventions, social reforms etc. of the Frankish Empire, I mentioned in the last thread, were all made and suited best in the temperate and cool-temperate climate.

Before the heavy plow, kumet, three-field crop rotation etc., the South produced more corn than the North. The whole corn-eater process of the dependent farmers, the population growth and density, wouldnt have been possible in the North Western parts of Europe without this reforms.

The skilled farmers, craftsmen and businessmen, especially from the Germanic and Germanic influenced (culturally at least) lands, which came with the newest innovations and a high social and biological standard to the USA, settled in the regions shown primarily.

Climate-race map:
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5941/klimata2k.th.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/klimata2k.jpg/)
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5941/klimata2k.jpg

The best areas for "the Frankish people and way of life" is easy to recognise. When the New English colonies were already full of people, the Germans and related people went further West, but mostly along the climatic line.

Some went to Texas etc. later, because of the cheap land and other kinds of business, but the typical bible belt of the plantations, poor farmers and black slaves being largely circled around.

Lutherans were always more rational, social, group oriented of the Protestant groups, this changed in Germany and other countries of Europe just after the 2nd World War and the complete "re-education" or "2nd reformation" of the Lutherans.

Look for German names, there are better sites than this one but still:

F.e. names like Schmidt, Karst, Mueller, Mayer etc.

The main exceptions in the South, for obvious reasons in later times, are Texas, Florida and California. The typical German settlers in larger groups however went mostly to the states mentioned, where they significantly influenced the local culture.

A good example for a harscher environment, yet good enough for the "Frankish way of life" being Wisconsin:

The five largest ancestry groups in Wisconsin are: German (42.6%), Irish (10.9%), Polish (9.3%), Norwegian (8.5%), English (6.5%).


Christianity is the predominant religion of Wisconsin. The largest Christian denominations are Roman Catholic and Lutheran;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin

The whole "developed belt" West of the old English settlements of European character of the map wouldnt exist without the European immigrants, Germans as the primary group and cultural factor, together with the habitat and economy in question.

There could be independent people, living in close knit communities, not farmers in a wide and often rather foreign land...


The South has been largely agriculturally based until very recently.

But for a fast and enduring development, one needs good farmers too, as well as a specific population and community. This was present in the farmer type of the North more often than in the South.

Of course, we shouldnt forget the Civil War and related issues of interstate-interamerican competition though, yet if just looking at the way of life, the people of the Northern states are just much more like the Europeans at home and kepts more faithfully their cultural potential so to say...

[Electronic God-Man]

The best areas for "the Frankish people and way of life" is easy to recognise. When the New English colonies were already full of people, the Germans and related people went further West, but mostly along the climatic line.

Some went to Texas etc. later, because of the cheap land and other kinds of business, but the typical bible belt of the plantations, poor farmers and black slaves being largely circled around.

Lutherans were always more rational, social, group oriented of the Protestant groups, this changed in Germany and other countries of Europe just after the 2nd World War and the complete "re-education" or "2nd reformation" of the Lutherans.

Look for German names, there are better sites than this one but still:

F.e. names like Schmidt, Karst, Mueller, Mayer etc.

The main exceptions in the South, for obvious reasons in later times, are Texas, Florida and California. The typical German settlers in larger groups however went mostly to the states mentioned, where they significantly influenced the local culture.

A good example for a harscher environment, yet good enough for the "Frankish way of life" being Wisconsin:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin

The whole "developed belt" West of the old English settlements of European character of the map wouldnt exist without the European immigrants, Germans as the primary group and cultural factor, together with the habitat and economy in question.

There could be independent people, living in close knit communities, not farmers in a wide and often rather foreign land...

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that Germans mainly built up the Western frontier lands?




But for a fast and enduring development, one needs good farmers too, as well as a specific population and community. This was present in the farmer type of the North more often than in the South.

The North used up a lot of what the South grew, especially in terms of things like cotton. Our industrialization was fed by Southern agriculture.

[Loddfafner]

I've read a few explanations Ive heard for these geographical distributions in America and Europe. In the US, the original patterns of settlement in New England and around the Chesapeake Bay set the terms for the cultural gaps that later spread westward. In New England, the communities of small farms forced employers in early industry to pay higher wages since their workers could easily just pack up and go homesteading in Vermont. The approach to religion led to a higher value for literacy that, thanks to the Transcendentalists, went beyond the Biblical sermons of the first generations of settlers.

In the South, the plantation economy based on coerced labor led to wages too low to sustain a complex economy and to a culture that valued authority and intimidation over literacy.

In Europe, the contrasts between east and west correspond to the regions subjected to the so-called 'second serfdom' between the 16th and 19th centuries while serfdom was replaced by wage labor in the west.

One explanation for the prosperity of the low countries and of northern Italy is that they were too far from the main imperial centers for the kings to squelch urban entrepreneurship.

[Agrippa]

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that Germans mainly built up the Western frontier lands?

Rather they made with their influence the extension of the New English lands possible.


The North used up a lot of what the South grew, especially in terms of things like cotton. Our industrialization was fed by Southern agriculture.

Correct, but typically Frankish and early Industrial economy needed a lot of water too. The use of water and wind power was typical for the early developments.

The Dutch position with their industry and trade wouldnt have been possible without the sea and rivers in the country, which led to a higher evolved and more sophisticated economy too, together with all the other factors already mentioned.

Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermill#Medieval_Europe

You can also see that all this mill types were invented or at least first used on a large scale in Europe's "Banana".

The water and wind mills were among the first major innovations which allowed to reduce manpower and use it elsewhere, always critical for higher development - like Greece and Rome, which was a slave-based economy so to say, but in Medieval Europe, this began to be a broader phenomenon than in Antiquity even.


Local supplies of coal, iron, lead, copper, tin, limestone and water power, resulted in excellent conditions for the development and expansion of industry. Also, the damp, mild weather conditions of the North West of England provided ideal conditions for the spinning of cotton, providing a natural starting point for the birth of the textiles industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

[Comte Arnau]

So the methodology was based on what occupied more space in English encyclopaedias? Lol.

I'm sure that if I base my research on what has been written in Catalan sources, out of a sudden there'll figure many a Catalan in the list of human achievements...

Not to mention if we look up Chinese sources.

[Debaser11]

I don't know that his methodology is as flawed as you're making it sound, Ibex. Charles Murray strikes me as one of the more honest writers out there. It's not like you can alter the facts of world history just because you speak another language or come from another culture. And while I have not read his book, his basic argument about where the achievement came from at least strikes me as correct.

[Comte Arnau]

I don't know that his methodology is as flawed as you're making it sound, Ibex. Charles Murray strikes me as one of the more honest writers out there. It's not like you can alter the facts of world history just because you speak another language or come from another culture. And while I have not read his book, his basic argument about where the achievement came from at least strikes me as correct.

You cannot alter the facts, but you can interpret them. And no historian or society, no matter how fair they try to be, can be free from interpreting them or being somewhat biased in one way or another.

It is quite logical, after all, that sources in English dedicate more space to talk about artists, scientists, etc, that have affected the English-speaking world in a significant way, and therefore the ones using the English language will be the ones prevailing. A mediochre English writer may occupy just as space then as the most important writer from another culture, because that important writer didn't affect the Anglosphere much. And the same thing happens in the other way round, Raymond Lully may occupy just as much or more than Shakespeare in a Catalan encyclopaedia. Logical too.

So I don't doubt of his honesty, but the research, if we want to be more accurate in that methodology, should at least be thoroughly done in all major encyclopaedias in a wide variety of languages, to widen the scope of interpretations about what is 'important' or 'significant'. That's my opinion, of course.

[San Galgano]

LOL
At nazi internet fags claiming italians never accomplished anything. Ignorance reigns between them.
We have given the world Rome and Renaissance, and we are in 4th place in human accomplishments even if we couldn't count over a centralized and stable nation as other countries had.

[Debaser11]

You cannot alter the facts, but you can interpret them. And no historian or society, no matter how fair they try to be, can be free from interpreting them or being somewhat biased in one way or another.

It is quite logical, after all, that sources in English dedicate more space to talk about artists, scientists, etc, that have affected the English-speaking world in a significant way, and therefore the ones using the English language will be the ones prevailing. A mediochre English writer may occupy just as space then as the most important writer from another culture, because that important writer didn't affect the Anglosphere much. And the same thing happens in the other way round, Raymond Lully may occupy just as much or more than Shakespeare in a Catalan encyclopaedia. Logical too.

So I don't doubt of his honesty, but the research, if we want to be more accurate in that methodology, should at least be thoroughly done in all major encyclopaedias in a wide variety of languages, to widen the scope of interpretations about what is 'important' or 'significant'. That's my opinion, of course.

Part of the problem is that because classical ideas about virtues and aesthetics are no longer valued and even are seen as false, someone will always criticize someone else trying to objectively evaluate cultures. "Who are YOU to judge?!" is an obnoxiously modern meme. In modern liberal academia, you can't even assert that the ancient Greeks were better than a bunch of Zulus with spears.

Murray's book is a hard book to write. The book that you're describing that you want written sounds damn-near impossible. Maybe in some magical world such a book exists where a team of god-like writers exist who can leaf over all these encyclopedias written in different languages (putting bias aside) and then all collectively come to the same universal conclusions to write a book about something as broad as human accomplishment.

[Comte Arnau]

Part of the problem is that because classical ideas about virtues and aesthetics are no longer valued and even are seen as false, someone will always criticize someone else trying to objectively evaluate cultures. "Who are YOU to judge?!" is an obnoxiously modern meme. In modern liberal academia, you can't even assert that the ancient Greeks were better than a bunch of Zulus with spears.

And it is partly true. We are dealing with relative appreciations, therefore we should be ready to admit that the results can be relative too. Papuan tribes who have managed to live harmonically fo millenia deep in the New Guinean wild landscape have had their share of human accomplishment, but of course, only applied to their own society. The difference in this case is that our Western 'tribes' or ethnicities have developed a more complex interrelated society, and as such, our achievements need to be more complex and are perceived then as 'better'. Therefore, we can say for certain that, at a more significant level (that is, at one that affects more people), European 'tribes' have reached more human accomplishment than the Papuan ones. But then discussing which of the European ones has reached a highest level will really become a matter of subjective interpretation, because if quantity is hard to determine objectively, quality is just impossible.


Murray's book is a hard book to write. The book that you're describing that you want written sounds damn-near impossible. Maybe in some magical world such a book exists where a team of god-like writers exist who can leaf over all these encyclopedias written in different languages (putting bias aside) and then all collectively come to the same universal conclusions to write a book about something as broad as human accomplishment.

Not that impossible today. Digitilization of major encyclopaedias can make the quantification of spaces quite easy in fact. :)

I must say, though, that as much as I criticize this kind of categorizations, I also love this type of books. Just as I love those lists of 'the best 500 albums/films ever', even if 498 albums of them are always in English. :D

[Debaser11]

And it is partly true. We are dealing with relative appreciations, therefore we should be ready to admit that the results can be relative too. Papuan tribes who have managed to live harmonically fo millenia deep in the New Guinean wild landscape have had their share of human accomplishment, but of course, only applied to their own society.

Right, but given the choice, most would rather live in Western society (due to the amenities). Where do the amenities come from? Western behavior. (Of course, this is something that dumb minorities (especially blacks) fail to grasp, though some East Asians get it.) They were fine living in their society for all those years because they HAD TO BE in order to exist. It's not like they had a choice over the matter. If I stuck out my hands and asked one, "would you rather live here where you can drive a car, live in nice home, be tried by a court of law, and have access to modern medicine or would you rather chuck spears at fish for food?," which do you think they'd pick?


The difference in this case is that our Western 'tribes' or ethnicities have developed a more complex interrelated society, and as such, our achievements need to be more complex and are perceived then as 'better'.

I think they are simply better. Period. I think Plato and Aristotle's notions of form and ideal have a great deal of universal truth. As Christians like to say, "it's written on your heart." I think it's obvious that the Western societies (although they don't reach the ideal b/c it can never be realized) are much closer to it.


Therefore, we can say for certain that, at a more significant level (that is, at one that affects more people), European 'tribes' have reached more human accomplishment than the Papuan ones. But then discussing which of the European ones has reached a highest level will really become a matter of subjective interpretation, because if quantity is hard to determine objectively, quality is just impossible.

I agree with you that the matter is more difficult to sort out among Europeans, yes. However, I think Murray's effort was a decent shot at doing so.



Not that impossible today. Digitilization of major encyclopaedias can make the quantification of spaces quite easy in fact. :)

Now that is something. That's actually an interesting idea. However, you still have the problem of coming up with a universal interpretation among the intersecting areas between the encyclopedias.


I must say, though, that as much as I criticize this kind of categorizations, I also love this type of books. Just as I love those lists of 'the best 500 albums/films ever', even if 498 albums of them are always in English. :D

You're right about the English slant. But in fairness, the dominant world pop culture comes from English speaking lands. Those "best of" albums, from my experience, always seem to be evaluating musical pop culture so it's only natural that the biggest impacts would be the ones on the list. It would be interesting to see one devised that relied on something outside of pop culture impact. It would also be much more difficult to put together. I would expect to see many classical musicians from Europe at the top, though (much to the chagrin of other peoples).

[Osweo]

Conrad is incomparably better than Morrison could ever dream of being. But if you say that you will be accused of male, white, Anglo-Saxon prejudice."

He was a Polish SLAV! GAH!!!!!!!!

[Debaser11]

He was a Polish SLAV! GAH!!!!!!!!

Somehow, I think Murray knows this. It was either a slip or he was just saying what the common response would be about that evaluation. (All you honkies be the same lookin' anyway.) And he's right about Conrad. Polish Power!!;)

[Libertas]

The Scots-Irish/ Scotch-Irish had an immense influence in the Indian wars and frontier life in the Appalachians and then in the West.

The old Western films show the Scots-Irish kin-centred mentality and touchy sense of honour perfectly.

The Scotch-Irish were mainly descended from southern Scots Presbyterians (Calvinists) who had settled for a time in Ulster and to a smaller extent from Northern English dissenting Protestants (Methodists,etc) of similar adventurous, authority-hating mentality.

The Scotch-Irish were influential in the Revolution against Britain and in later US industry and in the US Presidency.

[Osweo]

The Scots-Irish kin-centred mentality and touchy sense of honour
You should look up some of former member Barreldriver's old posts... ;) :D

[Johnston]

Looking at America, it is interesting to note that the northern half of the US seems to be the accomplished section of the nation:

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/7-1.jpg

... and that is not only because of early historical settlement, as can be seen in a fairly recent distribution:

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/7.jpg

By contrast, see where the "Bible Belt" is located ... almost the inverse of above maps:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Map_of_USA_highlighting_Bible_Belt.png

Coincidence? Or shall we regard this post in the religious vs intelligence thread as well? ;)


The North, and specifically the region colored the darkest in this map, is far more industrialized than the South. Also, the population size is greater.

The South has been largely agriculturally based until very recently. And even now it's nothing like New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Two of these pictures should help. I also edited my own in photoshop. The Republican Red-State/Democratic Blue-State division is featured in that picture. The darker colored is for the colonial 13. Red is for English colonies (i.e. pre-1707) and their diaspora states and the Union, before Confederate expansion. The Blue shows the original Confederate states, outward from the British colonies (i.e. post-1707), in the Confederate Constitution.

This shows truth in the Scottish origin of the rednecks in the Deep South, and they obviously expanded enough to influence the size of the CSA, although under the "slavery" premise. English are in all of America from the beginning, but Scots only became appended since the British Union, with the newer colonies here. That also explains their difference in standard of living, comparing England and perhaps the Anglo-Scottish Borders. Indeed, the Deep South is transitional between the rest of America and Canada, because Canada is wholly more Scottish in origin.

English Parliamentarians founded America, despite Southern Loyalism, and the Southerners are apparently cut off from their Nova Scotian brethren, Jacobites, the lot of them. The Democrats began with Andrew Jackson, a Scotch-Irishman from South Carolina, where the Civil War began. Jackson hated the deal between the Anglo-Saxon planters in the Federalist and Jeffersonian parties, which marginalized the Scottish component of the population by preferential treatment to the majority Anglo-Saxon population in Westward expansion.

[Albion]

People always seem to forget the Irish. When England was in the so-called "Dark Ages", the Irish peasentry were conversing in Greek and Latin! We are from the Land of Saints and Scholars!

We are the mastard race!

Regards,
The Papist.

The difference is England was invaded and developing out of nothing, Ireland was pretty much the same as it had been in the Iron Age but with additional Roman influences such as Christianity.

The dark ages in England were very brief compared to the dark age which would eventually befall Ireland for the next centuries. Ireland never did see a second golden age IMO.


LOL
At nazi internet fags claiming italians never accomplished anything. Ignorance reigns between them.
We have given the world Rome and Renaissance, and we are in 4th place in human accomplishments even if we couldn't count over a centralized and stable nation as other countries had.

Such as? Maybe on Skadi, but not many here. Northern Italy has been hugely important in European history, up there with France, England, Germany, Spain and some others, I think most here will acknowledge that.

Northern Italy is clearly included:

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/3-2.jpg

[Joe McCarthy]

I read this several years ago. Murray is one of a handful of today's thinkers that I strive to read thoroughly.

[Libertas]

He has done some good work but his geography is shakey as far as Italy is concerned.

The most productive Italian area on his map (in dark blue) is not just "Tuscany" as he had it but Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna too (the Bologna-Parma-Rimini area).

[Hamlet]

Bumping this thread for interest, also look at the correlation between concentrations within the European core and this map of individualism:

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/individualism-map-2.gif

[Peterski]

This website is better (and also includes data from Murray):

http://pantheon.media.mit.edu/about/team

[renaissance12]

https://i.imgur.com/axMBgsy.jpg

Where is Greece in the list ? Iceland and Norway are in the list but Greece ? There is something wrong..

[jingorex]

https://s13.postimg.org/yq7xpu7mv/US_moon_cool_story.jpg

[renaissance12]

Greece in the moon...