Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • What Did Americans Sound Like In The Late 18th And Early 19th Centuries, And When Did The Recognizable “general American” Accent Come Into Being? Did Americans Sound British In The 1700’s And 1800’s? If Not, What Did Americans Sound Like?

    Mis-stated question. Instead: When did american accents begin to develop? From the very beginning.

    The american east coast was formed by four different groups of immigrants from different areas of Britain who already spoke with different accents. (To us they would all sound much more gaelic than british do today.) These groups spread in horizontal bands across the united states, and the cultural horizontal ‘bands’ in the country reflect the westward expansion of those early settlers, and how they carried their languages with them.

    The intentional ‘middle atlantic’ accent was something you learned, just like received pronunciation in the UK until the underclass revolution of the 1960’s, the marxists, postmodernists, attempted to undermine all western aristocratic values.

    Universities attempted to quash dialects for the competitive marketability of their students, and radio, then television assisted in the homogenization of the ‘Indiana’ pronunciation throughout most of the country exclusive of the lower classes. Most of this dramatic homogenization has come about since 1980.

    Our accents may not sound as distinct to others as do those of different regions of the UK, particularly in the underclasses. But in the states, your vocabulary, body language, and pronunciation are your primary forms of status signaling, and we can tell, most of the time, at least which region if not which state or city each of us is from.

    The most interesting property of american pronunciation is probably the least discussed, and least well known, which is that the majority of white americans are of germanic rather than anglo extraction. And so the american speech pattern inherited german monotonality rather than british and gaelic tonal accents.

    So Americans speak the vocabulary and grammar of the english language with rather dry german pronunciation so to speak. If you hear English in the Gaelic or the Old English, it’s more melodic. There is a tempo to it. It’s more expressive.

    When I teach people from melodic backgrounds how to speak english (particularly Indians), I tell them to practice: speak like a robot-voice in the same tone, deep in your chest, with continuous air, and beat your chest every syllable at a constant rate – and while it sounds silly, this technique will teach you the proper pace of english speech.

    If you look at this map, you’ll see the westward migration of the dialects as we spread westward.

    ( PS: As an aside, the actor who Portrays John Adams was chosen, as is common in Hollywood representation of the Founders, as a means of insulting the great man. He had more in common with a Field Marshal than he did that wimpy little fellow. Founders were tough, hardened, empirical people. On a scale we cannot imagine today, because no one like them exists today. )

    https://www.quora.com/What-did-Americans-sound-like-in-the-late-18th-and-early-19th-centuries-and-when-did-the-recognizable-General-American-accent-come-into-being-Did-Americans-sound-British-in-the-1700’s-and-1800’s-If-not-what-did-Americans-sound-like

  • What Did Americans Sound Like In The Late 18th And Early 19th Centuries, And When Did The Recognizable “general American” Accent Come Into Being? Did Americans Sound British In The 1700’s And 1800’s? If Not, What Did Americans Sound Like?

    Mis-stated question. Instead: When did american accents begin to develop? From the very beginning.

    The american east coast was formed by four different groups of immigrants from different areas of Britain who already spoke with different accents. (To us they would all sound much more gaelic than british do today.) These groups spread in horizontal bands across the united states, and the cultural horizontal ‘bands’ in the country reflect the westward expansion of those early settlers, and how they carried their languages with them.

    The intentional ‘middle atlantic’ accent was something you learned, just like received pronunciation in the UK until the underclass revolution of the 1960’s, the marxists, postmodernists, attempted to undermine all western aristocratic values.

    Universities attempted to quash dialects for the competitive marketability of their students, and radio, then television assisted in the homogenization of the ‘Indiana’ pronunciation throughout most of the country exclusive of the lower classes. Most of this dramatic homogenization has come about since 1980.

    Our accents may not sound as distinct to others as do those of different regions of the UK, particularly in the underclasses. But in the states, your vocabulary, body language, and pronunciation are your primary forms of status signaling, and we can tell, most of the time, at least which region if not which state or city each of us is from.

    The most interesting property of american pronunciation is probably the least discussed, and least well known, which is that the majority of white americans are of germanic rather than anglo extraction. And so the american speech pattern inherited german monotonality rather than british and gaelic tonal accents.

    So Americans speak the vocabulary and grammar of the english language with rather dry german pronunciation so to speak. If you hear English in the Gaelic or the Old English, it’s more melodic. There is a tempo to it. It’s more expressive.

    When I teach people from melodic backgrounds how to speak english (particularly Indians), I tell them to practice: speak like a robot-voice in the same tone, deep in your chest, with continuous air, and beat your chest every syllable at a constant rate – and while it sounds silly, this technique will teach you the proper pace of english speech.

    If you look at this map, you’ll see the westward migration of the dialects as we spread westward.

    ( PS: As an aside, the actor who Portrays John Adams was chosen, as is common in Hollywood representation of the Founders, as a means of insulting the great man. He had more in common with a Field Marshal than he did that wimpy little fellow. Founders were tough, hardened, empirical people. On a scale we cannot imagine today, because no one like them exists today. )

    https://www.quora.com/What-did-Americans-sound-like-in-the-late-18th-and-early-19th-centuries-and-when-did-the-recognizable-General-American-accent-come-into-being-Did-Americans-sound-British-in-the-1700’s-and-1800’s-If-not-what-did-Americans-sound-like

  • 5) Generally speaking, a literature makes excuses for a strategy. Using Real, Id

    5) Generally speaking, a literature makes excuses for a strategy. Using Real, Ideal, or Supernatural models). With China/West=Real.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 14:08:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855060649466114048

    Reply addressees: @whereforefriend

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855032809697800192


    IN REPLY TO:

    @whereforefriend

    @curtdoolittle You discuss modes in which ethnic groups have operated. Russians thru literature. et cetera. Would the Celtic mode be bardic?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855032809697800192

  • 2) We have too little knowledge of celtic oral tradition to do more than guess.

    2) We have too little knowledge of celtic oral tradition to do more than guess. but it apperas to have been a kinder gentler germanic.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 14:04:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855059606988615682

    Reply addressees: @whereforefriend

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855032809697800192


    IN REPLY TO:

    @whereforefriend

    @curtdoolittle You discuss modes in which ethnic groups have operated. Russians thru literature. et cetera. Would the Celtic mode be bardic?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855032809697800192

  • 1) Celtic Civlization relied upon oral tradition, before it was destroyed (like

    1) Celtic Civlization relied upon oral tradition, before it was destroyed (like carthage) by the Romans, allowing germanic expansion.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 14:03:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855059393083297792

    Reply addressees: @whereforefriend

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855032809697800192


    IN REPLY TO:

    @whereforefriend

    @curtdoolittle You discuss modes in which ethnic groups have operated. Russians thru literature. et cetera. Would the Celtic mode be bardic?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855032809697800192

  • Our Renewal

    Please take a moment during this day of renewal, rebirth, and resurrection, to contemplate our civilization’s restoration, renewal, rebirth, and resurrection as one family, one people, who, for thousands of years, all alone, in small numbers, and little wealth, have struggled, by the virtue of our character, and our traditions, to drag humanity, imperfectly, sometimes badly, but continuously, out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, and tyranny, one generation at a time.

  • Our Renewal

    Please take a moment during this day of renewal, rebirth, and resurrection, to contemplate our civilization’s restoration, renewal, rebirth, and resurrection as one family, one people, who, for thousands of years, all alone, in small numbers, and little wealth, have struggled, by the virtue of our character, and our traditions, to drag humanity, imperfectly, sometimes badly, but continuously, out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, and tyranny, one generation at a time.

  • The Steppe Way of War is Superior

    The steppe way of war practiced by our earliest ancestors, and practiced by muslims today, is superior to the interregnum method of war, relying upon a concentration of forces. That means: RAIDS. Conduct of many small raids costs little but creates great uncertainty and costs the host thousansd of times as much in defense. In our past, we could retreat via horse, retreat to our forests, and the muslims could retreat to the deserts, or today retreat into slums and favelas. The value of armies is looting. The value of raiders is in imposing costs. One can, as has ISIS, graduate from raiding to looting, to decimating. But this destroys capital, and ensures your eventual defeat if you attempt to hold an economy and profit from it.

  • The Steppe Way of War is Superior

    The steppe way of war practiced by our earliest ancestors, and practiced by muslims today, is superior to the interregnum method of war, relying upon a concentration of forces. That means: RAIDS. Conduct of many small raids costs little but creates great uncertainty and costs the host thousansd of times as much in defense. In our past, we could retreat via horse, retreat to our forests, and the muslims could retreat to the deserts, or today retreat into slums and favelas. The value of armies is looting. The value of raiders is in imposing costs. One can, as has ISIS, graduate from raiding to looting, to decimating. But this destroys capital, and ensures your eventual defeat if you attempt to hold an economy and profit from it.

  • The Origins of Ratio-Deceptionism – And the Roman Counter via Stoicism and Law

    THE ORIGINS OF RATIO-DECEPTIONISM – AND ROMAN COUNTER VIA LAW Both the Jews and the Greeks discovered Ratio-Deceptionism. The greeks were treated the same way we treat the Jews today (as skillful liars). But the Romans, from whom we inherit our laws, and our government, actively ridiculed the greeks, used them as we use jews today, and prohibited them from office, and instead adopted the stoicism and empirical law. The greeks proliferated ‘ways of thinking’ – advocating markets for preferences, the jews doubled-down on one way of thinking – advocating an authoritarian way of thinking. But the Romans, conquering both sets of ‘liars’ did the opposite: there exist ways of not-acting and ways of not-speaking, and ways of not-arguing, that you may not demonstrate – but you may think and choose otherwise however you please. It was their failure to crush religious lies that was their falling. In other words, roman social science, like the social science I advocate, was via negativa: law. Why? aristocracy vs peasantry. We have, with the scientific enlightenment, continued this tradition to the present – and in the current era, to our detriment. The technique is quite simple: Rationalism is easily used to deceive, so when the information is insufficient to decide by rational means, we must gain more information by the empirical (existential). if that information is insufficient to decide by empirical means, we must gain more information by the operational (causal). If that information is insufficient to decide by causal means, then we must gain more information by the full accounting of consequences. If we possess categorical, internal-rational, external empirical, causal operational, fully accounted consequence, then the only means of decidability is PREFERENCE (trade). Cheers