Whether they were valid, whether you agree, whether they are debatable are all questions that would be worth raising. Instead you chose to head off on what you thought was a humorous rant against a rather obscure group of people, complete with sweeping, unsupported and insulting generalizations (and misspellings).[/quote]
I supported it with two books. Statistics are not as easy to come by. You have to dig a little deeper and connect a few dots. [/quote]
You don’t really have to dig a lot deeper than Wikipedia, which identifies a lot more information about the American Scotch Irish population than you did. For example, they founded Princeton University (I guess that was before they discovered the joys of debauchery). Hmm, but wait, it also shows data identifying 12 U.S. Presidents as being of Scotch-Irish heritage, not to mention John Wayne, George Patton, Elvis Presley and John McCain. The map included in the Wikipedia listing doesn’t show the origin of its data, but it depicts a rather large population of people of Scotch Irish background in the northern plains and pacific northwest, which may even be larger than the population in the east. Your choice not to look a little closer into this issue suggests to me that you prefer your rather one sided view of things, which makes you rather a “culturalist” I would say.[/quote]
So your glancing at Wikipedia proves I don’t know what I am talking about.
Is it that fact that we have a growing white underclass since WWII(accelerating after the mid 70s, then put into hyper-drive in the past decade) or the fact that I said they were primarily scots-Irish that you find offensive? Or that I compared them to the black underclass?
