The term originally characterized farmers that had a red neck, caused by sunburn from long hours working in the fields. A citation from 1893 provides a definition as “poorer inhabitants of the rural districts … men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin stained red and burnt by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks”.[12] Hats were usually worn and they protected that wearer’s head from the sun, but also provided psychological protection by shading the face from close scrutiny.[13] The back of the neck however was more exposed to the sun and allowed closer scrutiny about the person’s background in the same way callused working hands could not be easily covered.
By 1900, “rednecks” was in common use to designate the political factions inside the Democratic Party comprising poor white farmers in the South.[14] The same group was also often called the “wool hat boys” (for they opposed the rich men, who wore expensive silk hats). A newspaper notice in Mississippi in August 1891 called on rednecks to rally at the polls at the upcoming primary election:[15]
Modern farming isn’t really comparable to folks working the land 100+ years ago. My point is that farmers 100 years ago weren’t stupid, they would have protected themselves when necessary and would have earned an impressive base tan.
I don’t think it’s a particularly far fetched idea to imagine that people spending their days outside before the invention of sunscreen would develop more sunburns than the general population regardless, even if only once or twice a year on unexpectedly long or sunny days…
It doesn’t seem far fetched which is what makes this urban myth appealing. But this red neck theory makes loads of assumptions, like these farmers didn’t know how to protect themselves from the sun, these farmers were groomed in a way to reveal their necks, etc. In reality, they would have had solid base tans, worn hats, and probably kept their neck and ears covered with hair.