Talk:Scotch-Irish Americans

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)

Validity of the term 'Scotch-Irish'

The term is widely used in respected academic studies, without any apparent 'insult'. See this Google Scholar search and Google Books search. Hope this puts an end to the misguided edit war. RashersTierney (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Further, when looking at the corpus of books written in English the term Scotch Irish is far more prevalent. Please see this comparison. The one argument that I would make is that there should not be a hyphen because the comparison shows that the version without the hyphen is the prevalent term. In that case, the common name policy applies. Suggest moving article to Scotch Irish American.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

More: When looking at the British English works, it seems apparent that the term was once popular and holds as much usage as the Scots Irish variant. Comparison in British English.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Scotch Irish is the more commonly used term, but I think it a little premature to delete the portion concerning its primary use in America, based on a Google search. It seems to be in far more common use in America. Leyburn states it is "unknown" in Ireland. I have seen other refs that indicate almost strictly American usage. I will dig them out. Eastcote (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of text and edit warring

Removal of the following unreferenced speculation has been reverted twice. It needs to go.

Other occupants of the White House said to have some family ties with Ulster include presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, James Monroe, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Could those reverting its removal give their reasoning here?--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Just about every President (JFK would be an exception) would probably have "some" Scotch-Irish ancestry because that ethnic strain was present in such large numbers from such an early point in the country's history, and has become so thoroughly absorbed into the American mainstream. The Scotch-Irish did not constitute a distinct group after their first very few years in America, if even then. 70.233.134.48 (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Scottish, Irish, and Scotch-Irish Ancestry

Giving American census figures for those who identified "Scotch-Irish" ancestry is a given. Giving the figure for those who identified "Irish" or "Scottish" ancestry in the census is iffy. It could be misleading, because some who identify "Irish" might be of Scotch-Irish ancestry, and some might not be. Some who identify "Scottish" might be of Scotch-Irish ancestry, and some might not be. If giving the numbers for "Irish" it makes sense to give the numbers for "Scottish". It is not irrelevant, although in both cases it could be misleading. What are we trying to say with giving these numbers?

Perhaps the best way is to give only those numbers who identify as "Scotch-Irish" and leave it at that. The problem is that Americans of Scotch-Irish descent don't really know which way to turn to develop a "foreign" ethnic identity. Most don't care to, and identify as just plain "American", sticking to homegrown country music and NASCAR. But some are seeking some "old country" roots. There are those who emphasize "Irish" and listen to Irish music, celebrate St. Pat's Day and wear green and all that. Then there are others who emphasize "Scottish" and wear tartan, play bagpipes, watch "Brave Heart", and hold "Highland Games". See here [1], and [2]

Back in the 1700s, they physically came to America from the land that is Ireland. But culturally they were from north Britain, primarily the Scottish Lowlands, and to this day their cousins in Ireland identify as Ulster "Scots". Are we to say in America they were Irish, but in Ireland they were Scots? Eastcote (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Scotch-Irish" is a subset of "Irish." "Scottish" is not. When talking about census responses, those who choose to self-identify as "Scotch-Irish" could just as easily self-identify as simply "Irish", as they are included in the broader group. The converse is not true - those who self-identify as "Irish" cannot all honestly self-identify as "Scotch-Irish", as the larger set cannot fit into the smaller sub-set. Similarly, all those who self-identify as "Scottish" cannot self-identify as "Irish" - they are not subsets of the same whole. It is misleading to include census numbers on Scottish responses as they are not all included in the category of "Irish", but including census numbers of "Scotch Irish" with "Irish" is not misleading because it is a subset of the latter.

On seperate note - anecdotally I have not found that anyone who dresses in tartans or participates in Highland Games to consider themselves "Scotch-Irish", but simply "Scottish." I have encountered people who celebrate their "Ulster Scots" heritage, which - I was under the impression - was settled on this discussion board and elsewhere to definitively be accepted as included people who are NOT originally Scottish, since the Plantation of Ulster was comprised of settlers from all over the island of Britain, and that the term "Scotch Irish" recognized a strong Scottish influence over the Plantation culture that resulted, and is a convenient term to use, but not to the exlusion of the other contributing communities from Britain that also comprised the Plantation Settelers. Shoreranger (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a complex task, sorting out who the Scotch-Irish were, and who the Ulster Scots are. It is not as simple as saying they are a subset of "Irish". You say they are Irish, others say they are Scots. Being of Scotch-Irish ancestry myself, I could just as easily pick "Scottish" as "Irish" if I wanted to shop around for an ancestry. Many of my people came from Scotland, via Ireland. Am I to say my ancestry is Irish or Scottish? Settling in Ireland didn't make them Irish, just as settling in America a couple generations later didn't make them Cherokee. They were Scotch-Irish, a whole different fish.

An interesting parallel are the Afrikaans people of southern Africa. The primary settlers at the Cape of Good Hope in the 1600s were Dutch, but they were joined by French Huguenots, German Palatines, and even a few Scots. They were referred to as "Cape Dutch" up through the early 20th century, even though many were not Dutch in origin. Similarly, the Ulster Plantation was settled in the 1600s by primarily Scots, but with English, Flemish, French Huguenot, and German Palatines joining them, and the shorthand is Ulster Scot/Scotch-Irish though many were not of Scottish origin. In both situations, what bonded these groups together was their common Calvinism: Presbyterianism in the case of Ulster, the Dutch Reformed Church in the case of the Cape. Regardless of national origin, they became one people. Certainly, the Cape Dutch called themselves "Africans", and the Ulster Scots called themselves "Irish", but this was not because either group became the same as the people they found already living there. The identification with both Africa and with Ireland was an identification based on geography, rather than ethnic affinity. (And as I mentioned above, the same holds true for us calling ourselves "Americans". That doesn't mean we have become the same as the Iroquois or the Sioux).

But, more to the point, to me it makes more sense to leave off both the Irish and Scottish census numbers. As you say, it is misleading -- in both cases. Eastcote (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we might need to seek a third, non-partisan, opinon on this. Shoreranger (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The default pictures (upepr right hand corner)

Hi everyone! I had a quick suggestion but didn't feel comfortable editing the page without having an immediate solution. Ulysses S. Grant is not Scots-Irish. In fact, he's not Scot nor Irish. His earliest kown ancestor was from SW England (Matthew Grant born 1601) and his DNA signature suggests Anglo-Saxon roots. I know this for fact as I am related to him and my DNA as well as 4 other people who share the same ancestry as U.S. and I have had there DNA tested. However I don't have a suggestion for a replacement picture, hence my note and no edit. gigrant74gigrant74 (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Grant is Scotch-Irish through his mother's side, the Simpsons. DNA isn't really a reliable indicator of "ethnic" ancestry. In any region of England, you can find people, in differing proportions, of so-called "Celtic", Roman", "Anglo-Saxon", or whatever DNA, but they are still ethnically English and their ancestors have been so for hundreds of years. Common history, language, religion, etc., are more important in determining ethnicity. However, I think your point is valid about ensuring folks in the picture box are really what we are saying they are. George Patton is a good example. Although Patton can be either a Scotch-Irish or Scottish name, I'm not sure his ancestors came through Ulster. The bio I read on him said they were direct from Scotland. Anyone have anything more concrete on Patton's ancestry? Eastcote (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

that is a good point regarding the mother (i read that part again after my message). on his father's side though i'm 100% sure his ancestors never saw scotland. the surname pattan could also be belgian. i've seen it spelled pattyn before. i know nothing about his family though. moore is a common scots-irish name in america. almost all of them came from the ulster plantation in the early 1700's. they bred like rabbits as soon as they got here. what about patrick mcenroe?? gigrant74 (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit of 13 April by 24.11.88.78.

I reverted these unexplained edits. Although they seem in good faith, they put forward what appears to be a misreading of original sources. A couple of sources are cited by 24.11.88.78 for the early use of the term "Scotch-Irish" in Britain. However, see the essay What's in a Name? by Michael Montgomery of the University of South Carolina concerning these early cases at the Ulster-Scots Language Society website. Both instances refer to "Gaelic-speaking Highlanders and Islanders from western Scotland" and not to the English-speaking Ulster Scots who later came to be called "Scotch-Irish" in America. Eastcote (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Eastcote, I'm happy I read the talk page first before taking any editing action. (That really should be built into the system requirements for doing any edits, I think!). I refer specifically to the choice of "Scotch-Irish" instead of "Scots-Irish", in the context of usage in the U.S.A. Being a Jewish woman raised in New Mexico, I would not otherwise quibble about this. I do so because my dear, now-deceased spouse was born, raised, lived with me, and is buried in southern Florida, and was Scots-Irish. (No, neither he nor his family were of the Jewish faith!)

I understand why there is a case to be made for Scotch-Irish in this article. It covers the term's history in Great Britain, following as it evolved through time to present-day United States. However, my husband's family always self-described as "Scots-Irish". There was a definite pejorative connotation to "Scotch-Irish", because of the likeness to Scotch liquor. They found it derogatory to have their ancestry explicitly linked with alcohol consumption. Let's make an analogy, I don't know if will help. There's an old, not very nice Yiddish saying, "shika ve a goy", which means "drunk as a white Christian of European ancestry". Using a phrase like "Scotch-Irish" perpetuates that kind of thinking. I know it would have hurt my husband to ever hear that.

There are some other distasteful parts of the article, but not all are inconsistent with my personal experiences. I am now referring to the section that describes the Scots-Irish of 20th and 21st century America as lazy, illiterate, gun-loving, anti-intellectual, fecund (as that prior comment on the talk page said so nastily, "breeding like rabbits"), anti-big government hill billies. It doesn't seem appropriate, but I realize that I am biased by love. I don't want to raise a ruckus over this article. However, if anyone in the future, yourself included, wish to reconsider the matter of naming, "Scots-Irish American" versus "Scotch-Irish American", I am available for assistance.

Final item; I noticed that in one section, the etymology of the term is attributed to HRH Elizabeth I, with a date and source (though no inline reference or other citation URL). Later, that same etymology is described as a "false myth", with flags of "peacock term", "citation needed" etc. The inconsistency needs to be rectified, one way or another, as there shouldn't be conflict within the very same article. I will change it if you want, or you can of course. Please tell me your preference. I'll tread lightly if I make any edits here.

Oops! Sorry, nearly forgot! Would you consider removing a few of the more derogatory wikilinks listed under "See also"? I'm not sure which ones, but we don't need ALL of them. Collectively, they convey a rather grim impression: Redneck, hillbilly, Hatfield-McCoy, whisky, etc. Thank you for considering this! --FeralOink (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)