Talk:Scotch-Irish Americans

Ulster

I wanted to point out, that in America, Scots-Irish is used collectively for Scots and Irish. Geneologically, there is not much difference. I can not comment on Ulsterman, but such distinctions don't matter in America. All decendants of a Gaelic tribe that left, fled or was forced out of Ireland or Scotland or Britian at some point. I personally have ancestry from Northern Ireland and Ireland and relatives from Scotland and Scots-Irish is just a less confusing way of saying things that doesn't seem to raise any hackles. In early 20th and late 19th century cencus records, Irish is generally used, because there wasn't always a "Northern Ireland" as a disctinct country. My point is that I see a great deal of northern/southern irish/british tension in this which, as it now refers to the USA, has no place. Wiredrabbit (talk)

Sort of a belated reply, but as this comment was placed at the top of the page, here goes. In America, Scotch-Irish is NOT used collectively for Scots and Irish, and it is not "a less confusing way of saying things that doesn't seem to raise any hackles". The term raises plenty of hackles. Irish are Irish, Scots are Scots, and Scotch-Irish are a whole 'nuther fish. It is erroneous to say they were all Gaelic tribes that were forced out of Ireland and Scotland. The Irish and the Scottish Highlanders were Gaelic, but the Highlanders also have significant infusions of Norse and Norman ancestry. Lowland Scots are a mixture of Celt, Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Norman. Significant areas of the Lowlands were once part of the Saxon kingdom of Northumbria, and by the 17th century Lowlanders were culturally and linguistically little different from their English counterparts south of the border. The Scotch-Irish are descendents of mainly Borderer Scottish and English tenant farmers who had been relocated to Ireland during the 17th century Plantation of Ulster. About a quarter of a million Scotch-Irish arrived in America in the 18th century, settling mainly in the Appalachian Mountain region. I agree that a lot of present day "Irish/British tension" surfaces in discussion of the Scotch-Irish, which has no place in reference to the modern USA, but it is not because these people are all really the same. Genetically, 20,000 years back, they were mostly the same. Genealogically, 500 years ago, they were very different. In between the prehistoric genetics and the medieval genealogy, a lot of historical, linguistic, cultural and political changes made them different. Eastcote (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"but the Highlanders also have significant infusions of Norse and Norman ancestry."

So do people in Dublin, Waterford and Wexford. Does that make them a seperate people as well?

Kobashiloveme —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC).

“The term is also misleading because some of the Scotch-Irish had little or no Scottish ancestry at all”?

You may wish to read up on the plantation of Ulster as this is completely inarticulate!!!!!! Originally it was to be 50% English and 50% Scots. Most of the English (and Scots) were wiped out in the 1640s Irish rebellion. The Scots parliament (not English) then sent 10 000 soldiers to quell the unrest. 200 000 Scots settlers would then head to Ulster and if you were to read up a little you would find the majority of the Ulster Scots heading to the new world were only in Ulster for a few generations having came from lowland Scotland (not northern England!!!). Modern day Ulster Scots (living in Ulster) have 95% Scots ethnicity and the other 5% is actually more German and French huguenot than English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.35.93 (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

" by the 17th century Lowlanders were culturally and linguistically little different from their English counterparts south of the border. " um not quite, Galloway was still speaking Gaelic. Also Scots were a lot poorer in comparison w Englis w less rigts, it was an effect on Scot culture, one major reason for many more Scots going to Ulster. Also Irish people have significant infusions of Norse and Norman ancestry. "Lowland Scots are a mixture of Celt, Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Norman. " culturally possibly but genetically overwelmingly native pre celts.

"You may wish to read up on the plantation of Ulster as this is completely inarticulate!!!!!! " ummm I believe you mean inaccurate, like your suggestion "Most of the English (and Scots) were wiped out in the 1640s Irish rebellion." You ignore more settlement by Englis post civil war. "the majority of the Ulster Scots heading to the new world were only in Ulster for a few generations' absolutely correct, many only 1 generation some being calle s-i not even anyone born in ulster [revolutianary general stark for instance] most of america's s-i little connection to events of te 17t century.

'Modern day Ulster Scots (living in Ulster) have 95% Scots ethnicity and the other 5% is actually more German and French huguenot than English. ' now you're being riiculous you are also ignoring a signifigant percentage of native Irish, ol englis ancestry. sorry my keyboar is going —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.207.98 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

also i will mention early settlers were from te borer area but later settlers cae from various parts of scotlan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.207.98 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Scotch vs. Scots

There are few occaisions when the word "scotch" is used. It can be used to describe scotch whiskey. It should never be used to refer to people. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch as of Oct 07, 2006: "From the early 19th century Scots or Scottish increasingly became the preferred usages among educated Scottish people, Scotch being regarded as an anglicised affectation. In modern usage in Scotland, "Scotch" is never used, other than as described in the following paragraph for a short list of articles; it has patronising and faintly offensive connotations ...".

I don't understand why on earth the spelling "Scots-Irish" is being used in this article when the article itself states that "Scots-Irish in America have used the spelling Scotch-Irish almost exclusively since the 18th century...."? Why is an article about an American topic apparently written from a UK perspective? I am of Scotch-Irish descent and I have NEVER seen the spelling "Scots" used in this context before coming to Wikipedia, and have not seen any evidence that it has become widespread in the USA. In my opinion Wikipedia's sensitivity towards the supposed offensiveness of the word "Scotch" to the Scottish people has gone a bit too far, especially in trying to "correct" the historical usage of the term "Scotch" outside of Scotland itself. At what point do we give a group--in this case, Scotch Irish Americans--permission to determine what to call themselves? If it is to be truly NPOV, Wikipedia has no business telling them how to spell their own name. MrDarwin 14:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article should be "Scotch-Irish", with a short note explaining that UK usage is "Scots-Irish". "Scotch-Irish" is how we, the people of this culture, refer to ourselves. My mother's family (born and bred in the mountains of North and South Carolina) is both well-educated and well-aware of their roots and history; they have always referred to themselves as "Scotch-Irish". I never thought anything of the term until I met my wife, whose mother's Canadian family is of Highland Scots origin. I was very surprised when she criticized me for using the term "Scotch-Irish" instead of "Scots-Irish".

I have a lot of respect for Scotland, Scots, and Scottish culture, but I resent people telling me that I shouldn't use the term "Scotch-Irish", a term which has been used by my family since the 18th century to describe themselves, simply because it doesn't abide by the rules recently established in a land they left hundreds of years ago.Esbullin 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And this Canadian of ScotCH-Irish decent agrees as well. CanadianMist 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree -- the correct term is "Scotch-", not Scots-", Irish. We've been Scotch-Irish for many years. Don't change it on us.--Eastcote (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus - I'm going to move back to Scotch-Irish American now. --JWB (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And just to seal the deal, I note that on the website of the Ulster-Scots Agency, headquartered in Belfast, they translate their name into Ullans as "Tha Boord o Ulster-SCOTCH!". So there is an example of "Scotch" referring to the people in the Scotch-Irish "mother tongue". Eastcote (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled by all these people who are righteously "insulted" by the use of the term "Scotch". I think it has already been established that "Scotch"-Irish has been in use since the 1700s, and "Scots"-Irish has only been around since about 1970. Most Americans of Scotch-Irish descent probably were not even familiar with the concept until the past 30 years or so. I know my own grandparents knew nothing of it, and as far as they were concerned they were simply "American". So how could anyone be so "offended" by the term "Scotch"? No one has been "proud" of being "Scotch" or "Scots" Irish until recently, simply because they were no such thing -- they were Americans plain and simple. The term "Scotch" was use by scholars to describe these people, and not by the people themselves -- but they didn't describe themselves as "Scots", either. The Scotch-Irish were just one root of the people who populated America. There are no purely "Scotch-Irish" living today. The people of the Appalachian Mountains, where the Scotch-Irish dominated settlement, are not purely Scotch-Irish. There were many Germans, English and Welsh who settled in those mountains, and anyone from the mountains today is most likely a composite of all those ethnic groups. So -- if I were a betting man, I'd bet that those who are deeply "insulted" by the term "Scotch" are probably those born after 1970, when people began to look for a non-American origin for these people. I recommend that before we go changing the term from "Scotch", the traditional term, to "Scots", the new term, in this article, I'd bring it up in discussion first..... Eastcote (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Scottish people who currently live in Scotland that find the use of the term "Scotch" rather than Scottish or Scots offensive. Which I think is the perspective of the first person to comment in this section. Since it seems this is a term used mostly in the USA to describe where families originate from, and it seems it was a term invented by the people themselves as a self-description (to distinguish themselves from later Southern, Irish-Catholic immigrants), it seems it would be revisionist and innaccurate to retrospectively apply 21st century feelings to the ideas of these 18th century people. - PaulHammond (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

However 'Scotch' is the term used by native speakers of Scots in Ulster to describe their language and their cultural affiliations. I wouldn't change the term but perhaps there is scope for a link to a page called 'Scotch' which would outline the changes in usage and how it has lead to a mismatch between usage in Scotland and Ireland/America. EoinBach (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So, it seems that just because someone, a few hundred year, didn't get it right and because it is commonly mis-used, that we now have to accept it? Surely, on eof the points of educationa nd history is to correct a mistake? Just because wikipedia is American-English centric, the rest of the world has to accept the American definition?

I've just done a check.. even your own universities are using Scots-Irish. And as for "simply because it doesn't abide by the rules recently established in a land they left hundreds of years ago", it's not recently as noted. It was a few hundred years ago and that land is England which, funnily enough, is where English comes from. Why do the rest of us have to put up with America ruining a perfectly good language? Siobhanellis (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The powers-that-be at WP, especially the American Jim Wales, bend over backwards to accomodate other varieties of English than American, andhave instituted the policy of WP:ENGVAR to support other varieties on articles related to their nations or cultures. All they ask is that other varieties show the same respect towards the American variety in return on American related articles. If you can prove from published reliable sources that "Scots-Irish American", not simply "Scotch-Irish", is the accepted term now in the US, then by all means submit that proof. If it's truly is the common American usage, then it should be the article's title. - BilCat (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Regional or national pronunciations, dialects, usages, and accents are not "mistakes". What variety of English is "standard English"? Is it London English, Glasgow English, Belfast English, Ottawa English, Melbourne English, or Chattanooga English? There is room for all. Eastcote (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My father had heard from his ancestors and family who came from East Tennessee to Iowa in the 19th century before the Civil War that his paternal line was Scotch-Irish. He repeated this to me as a term he had heard but did not understand. As I have looked into our family's genealogy, who the Scotch-Irish are has become clear. I find that I have this ethnic group on both sides of my family tree, since information on ancestors from my mother's side also designates a line of the family as Scotch-Irish (pronounced so).

While contributing to a WP article on one of these ancestors I entered the term Scotch-Irish into the text only to have it edited to "Scots-Irish." I changed it back, and it was similarly edited again. Finally, I have changed it to Scotch-Irish again and made it link to the "Scotch-Irish American" article.

In researching certain aspects of the article about my ancestor, I found that in the late 19th century there was a society called The Scotch Irish Society of America which held congresses with some regularity and published sizable books about their proceedings and membership. These, my encounters with the term "Scotch-Irish," --besides the evidence in this talk page and the article it references-- are convincing to me that Scotch-Irish is the term used in America to designate this ethnic group.

Advocates of Scots-Irish might argue that the usage has changed; what is Scottish should now be designated Scots.... Whereas we might want to allow the change because some people, especially the Scots themselves, feel strongly about the matter, I believe it would be anachronistic to adopt the newer term. The evidence shows clearly that "Scotch-Irish" is the term by which these people identified themselves and by which they were identified in 18th- and 19th-century America. We should not change the term that designates them as an ethnic group for a term that only specifies their provenance. Dvdmoore (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following editorial comments added by User:Scaffietadpole:

"Scotch-Irish" is offensive to Scots as Scotch is a drink, Scots are a still proud nation. Only the English and Americans insist on using the term "Scotch", Scots people would never refer to themselves in this way."

We are not advocating the use of the word "Scotch" to refer to people who live in or are from Scotland today. The term used in this article is "Scotch-Irish American", not Scots or Scots-Irish, and "Scotch-Irish American" is what these people have historically called themsevles, and is the term in use today in the US for this people group. I'm am sorry that people who now live in Scotland find offense in the term "Scotch" as used in "Scotch-Irish American". However, as an American of partial "Scotch-Irish American" decent (also Scottish, Irish, and German), I find it offensive for someone from Scotland to trying to tell me what I can or cannot call myself. User:Scaffietadpole, what if Americans decided that "Scots" was offensive to us for whatever reason, and that only the term "Scottish" should be used for people from Scotland. Would you change just to please us?? I sincerely doubt you would even care what we think, just as you don't care now! - BilCat (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge with "Scottish American"

How exactly are Ulster Scots an ethnic group? They are directly decended from the Scottish. They have the same names, culture, language, religion. They are simply Scottish people living in Ireland. They cannot generally be told apart. I for example have a Scottish surname in my family history, but can I tell weather I'm Scottish or "Scotch-Irish"? No. They both have the same names, linage and they're both Protestant. What I propose, is that we have "Scotch-Irish Americans" redirect to Scottish Americans and a have a large section devoted to the Ulster Scots who migrated to North America. Please consider and discuss. Thanks! sbrianhicks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

Just as African American is one, or Indo-Fijian. If a group that share a heritage stay in a new place long enough they tend to develop a new, distinct culture, related to that of their forebearers but still distinct. What you suggest already exists in part as Category:American people of Scots-Irish descent is a subcat of Category:American people of Scottish descent, but Scottish people and Ulster-Scottish people are (documented as being) two distinct ethnic groups. Mayumashu (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mayu - would you not consider the Scots-Irish Irish, as that is their origin, not Scotland? Ancestors of these people may have been predominantly Scottish, but they can only be Scots-Irish by their association with Ireland, not Scotland. In addition, many Scots-Irish have northern English roots, not Scottish, as discussed in the article. Shoreranger (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the facts; Scots-Irish aren't Irish and they aren't Scottish. They are an ethnic group in their own rights, and there are plenty of sources to back this up. There will be no merge. Abductive (reasoning) 12:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Scots-Irish" considered themselves Irish enough to identify themselves as Irish when they first came to America and set up Irish fraternal organnizations. Are the Vikings descendents in Dublin,Waterford and Wexford Scandinavian-irish?

kobashiloveme —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

well many are also of Iris ancestry plus te term been in misuse in america for centuries to simply meamn a protestant of [any] Iris ancestry. also religion in ni is now your nationality/ancestry te 'native' Iris mentione in te article being massacre on ratlin islan were in fact mconals of scot ancestry but becauuse tey were catolics were not consiere 'scots Iris'. sorry my keyboar is broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.207.98 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

This section has a number of judgmental comments about sources: "best place to start" "out of touch with scholarly literature after 1940" etc. Hardly WP:NPOV. Clean up? --Albany45 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think so too. I think analytical/critical comments on specific sources could be useful, but they should be the opinions of scholars rather than Wikipedians. The Scottish Historical Review [1] is an academic journal that has reviews of books on Scottish history, it might be a good place to find good comments on a few specific books.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Clean away. Eastcote (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

scotch-irish are scottish and irish mix

scotch-irish people are descended from scottish families who moved into northern ireland and intermarried with irish families in fact most scotch-irish names are both scottish and irish they are of no english descent what so ever in fact research indicates this as truth so in conclusion i opt that we change it to scottish and irish families rather then english and scottish families —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.7.1 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your unsourced edits, which had been made at an earlier date and were also at that time reverted. Origin of the Scotch-Irish is well documented. Eastcote (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

they do have irish ancestry

they do have irish ancestry i know they do because its well documented in family oral history in addition to dna and historical evidence shows that they have irish ancestry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.7.1 (talk)

It's not about your particular family. This is an article about the Scots-Irish as a whole. No doubt some individuals had Irish, English, or some other intermarriage as well as Scottish, but if you are claiming that for the group, you need to provide a reliable source. --Albany45 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

well its not just in my family if anything they have more scottish for sure becuz the scottish were there forefathers but they hav small traces of english and irish as most are descended from lowland scots who migrated to northern ireland and mixed with irish and english ancestry i have found many reliable results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.93.105 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Allison-Antrim Museum

                                    Greencastle, PA

Who were the Scot-Irish? Rev 10-26-2001, 11-11-2003, 10-12-2010

The Scot-Irish settled Greencastle-Antrim, as well as the rest of the Cumberland Valley. Who were the Scot-Irish? They were protestant Presbyterian, Lowland Scots. The Scot-Irish were not Irish and were not Catholics. The term Scot-Irish is strictly an American nomenclature. In England and Ireland the same people are called Ulster Scots, which is much less confusing. i was wrong turns out they are purely scottish here is your prove