So you think
this is racist against Scots-Irish? Because I don't see how judging the behaviors of various cultural, ethnic and ancestral groups based on their origins is okay unless it's applied to black people.
Now, see, I've actually read
Albion's Seed, and a certain amount of subsequent commentary on it, so there's a real temptation to go off and a tangent with this one, but I'll constrain myself to saying: no, and that's a terrible analogy on like five different levels, the most important of which is, Fischer is writing as a scholar, and you're not.
If you'd read Fischer's book, and I'm going to go out on the very wildest of limbs and assume that you haven't, you'd understand that Fischer is not in the business of drawing moral judgements, or prescribing remedies. He's a historian, his business is to describe and explain. When he discuses the family structures of the Backcountry, he simply describes them as best he can based on the available evidence, and tries to explain their longer-term impact on the shape of American culture. His task is to present the assumptions, values and aspirations of this culture honestly, even when he clearly departs from those values. He doesn't draw your grotesquely patronising conclusion that their culture was "bad" and needed to be "improved". He treats his subject as humans beings worth understanding, not as problems to be solved. To the extent he fails to do so, that is bad scholarship to which he should be held to account, whereas for you, these sorts of condescending moral lessons are the whole point, the very premise of the exercise.
If you want to defend yourself by drawing a comparison to scholarship, you're going to have to start holding yourself to scholarly standards. If that seems like a big ask for an internet forum, well, don't draw the comparison in the first place.
Wait, I've just noticed this. Does bowlcut not realise that "Gold" is an Americanisation of Joe Gold's original family name, "Goldglejt"?
Christ, but Nazis are stupid.
