Talk:Boston Brahmin

Pejorative
Is Boston Brahmin a pejorative term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew238 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say almost, but no. The article says they coined the term for themselves, and people naturally have some distain for the born-wealthy.  When I hear the word (and I live near Boston) it may or may not be used to imply contempt.  Sort of like Yankee: it's all the context.  To me, a Yankee is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, a WASP.  I am not of that privileged class being Irish and Italian, so I don't like the term being used inside New England.  However, if a Southerner complains about the Yankees, or you hear the term Yankee Work Ethic in a national setting, then it is either an empowered word or a positive thing.
 * CSZero 20:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest two variations of your question:
 * "Is 'Boston Brahmin' a pejorative?" (used as a noun)
 * "Is 'Boston Brahmin' pejorative?" ('a ... term' is obvious from the context)
 * The next thing you want to do is to make your question more specific. Do you want to know whether the term began as a pejorative? Whether it's sometimes used thus? Hopefully not the latter, as the answer is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Inbreeding
Would it be fair to call these families inbred? Youngamerican 20:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a high degree of consanguinity among them. However,  consanguinity among married couples is not rare...in any small community in the world, whether it be in England or China or Chad, many people will marry someone with whom they share a recent ancestor -- they just don't know it.   The Boston Brahmin are a small community, its just that its a small community defined by shared culture and experience rather than town borders.  Therefore, rather than say whether or not it would be "fair" to call Boston the Brahmin inbred, I'll say that it would be somewhat accurate but certainly not polite. ◄  HouseOfScandal  ► 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Progressive Politics?
The article claims that Bostin Brahmins are traditionally politically progressive. That's simply inaccurate. I'm going to remove it. If you disagree, please explain. --Francisx 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct to disagree. At times the Brahmin will be socially or philosophically progressive or politically, especialy in the case of extraordinary individuals.  But as a class, they are conservative.  Example: During the 1930s, Sylvia Parson Weld visited her grandmother Anna in New York City and happened to mention that she planned to vote for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, earning herself a scathing rebuke. Sylvia then suggested that her grandmother's political guidance was predictable, because she had always supported the Republican Party. "No, I haven't!" the older woman burst out. "Only since McKinley!" Harvard Magazine, "The Welds of Harvard Yard" by associate editor Craig A. Lambert Classic.  ◄  HouseOfScandal  ► 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pratts?
Should the Pratt-Romney clan be included here? They are descended from William Pratt, a prominent colonial soldier. Note Mitt was governor of Massachussetts66.72.215.225 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on additions of others
Seems a few more logical ones might also be missing - Gardiner, Gardner, Minot, Parkman for a few. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grew0101 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly the Minots and Parkmans. And there are other prominent Brahmin families missing as well, like the Coolidges, the Appletons, the Shaws and the Ames's.Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added the Parkman family at least. And if you're interested in the topic, here's a good piece you might enjoy. http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/the_new_brahmins/ MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the Boylstons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.177.233 (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are exactly right. The Boylstons should be included here. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

South Carolina
I have removed reference to South Carolina developing a plantation economy based on that of Virginia. First, it's pretty far afield for an article on Boston families; second, the two cultures developed simultaneously. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I felt like I had to include it because it was there already. Do you mean indepedently? I believe I said culture not economy, but fine. DinDraithou (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Social Register
So the question is: Should Boston Brahmin families be Social Register families? The Social Registers are basically for aspiring aristocracy belonging to the bourgeoisie, who use the device to associate themselves with aristocracy by listing them next to themselves. While not derived from nobility like many of the families of Virginia and Maryland, some Boston "Brahmins" (pretentious name?) do seem to have special status distinct from the typical northeastern pretentious bourgeoisie. Are they conscious of it, or are they really middle class deep down and flattered to be listed with the socialites? DinDraithou (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Boston Brahmins don't refer to themselves as such. Most of them could give a rat's ass whether they're listed in a so-called Social Register. The cognomen is simply one that evolved over time to describe the upper reaches of Boston society. In truth, that society was always a bit ill-at-ease with the concept, as the place sprang from largely middle-class Puritans in England forced to leave for religious beliefs -- and closely connected with folks who ran about England smashing whatever evidence they could find of monuments built by aristocrats to themselves. (Take a look at photos of the havoc they wreaked in English churches, for instance, not to mention banning Christmas and other outward displays of vanity, as they called them.) I don't think the article needs any more elucidation than it already has. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, as far as the aristocracy of Virginia and Maryland, yes, a few did descend from nobility as the ninth sons of ninth sons. A far greater number did not, but were trying to ape their 'betters' in England. Take a look at 'Albion's Seed,' by the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David Fischer. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's true, but over time they intermarried and at least in Maryland's strange case there was some sustained interaction with the nobility across the pond (e.g. the daughters of John Lee Carroll). All I know is that while old families from the Chesapeake colonies and further south tend to look down on what they see in New York and elsewhere, they understand that the First Families of Boston are different and "like them enough" even if they don't know any and have never been to Massachusetts. There was a kind of transformation from Puritans to Founders. The Lloyds of Wye House, who still live on their once colossal plantation (about ten miles south of where I live), were Puritans but they changed quickly. I need to finally read Albion's Seed. DinDraithou (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You will enjoy 'Albion's Seed.' One of the better examinations of colonial America since the works of Perry Miller and Edmund Morgan. As far as Virginia goes, don't get me wrong. There were some planters connected to the highest ranks of English aristocracy. See Nicholas Spencer, who patented the Mount Vernon land grant with the Washingtons. But by and large, despite the occasional English son of nobility – Berkeleys, Wormleys, a few others – more were simply anxious to translate their newfound riches into social status. They built elaborate 'country seats,' they returned their children to England for schooling, they emulated those they aspired to become in England. The cost? A deepening indebtedness to English factors in London, who set the price of commodities that enriched them (read: tobacco). It's a complicated puzzle, and even up to the present day (nearly), a mutual sense of distrust has prevailed between sons of 'distressed Cavaliers' from Virginia and the offspring of middle-class Puritan Bostonians. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Historically Idealogical
What on earth does "historically idealogical" mean? I presume the writer meant "ideological," but the phrase is obscure in any case. Does it mean that members of these families espouse some ideology about history? Or does it mean that they professed a certain ideology at some point in history? If so, it might be better to specify the particular ideology, or historical period (or both). In any event, less obscurantist phrasing would be an improvement -- assuming the phrase is not purely obfuscatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.232.220 (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was just passing by. I think I get what the writer was trying to say. The culture of New England was rooted in religious ideology of puritanism, which became congregationalism, which became unitarianism and lost most of its overtly religious overtones. The elites of boston were less motivated than social climbing pretentions than their equivalents in New York and Philadelphia, or trappings of landed aristocracy in the manner on the antibellum south, and more (relatively) about work for works sake, patronage of harvard, from which they nearly all graduated, causes such as abolitionism, temperenace, prison reform, etc. In other words (again relatively) wanting to improve society. The socially progressive tenor of Massachusetts was in significant part due to the active causes of its 19th century Brahmin elite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.202.3 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Gardner
I hadn't read this page before adding in the Gardners, but the comments are interesting. Types of 'mutual' admiration societies as represented by this group are a human characteristic that is interesting to observe and study.

The saying about 'Cabots talking to God' has many possible interpretations which we can look at further. There's another saying, in Salem, to the effect that if you're not a Peabody, you're nobody. Where was the Peabody representation in 1624 when Gardner and his old planters arrived? Francis Peabody came later and, we might remind everybody, worked hard to establish himself (real labor, by the way).

By the way, I heard a comment from of a descendant of Gardner (direct), and of Peabody, who says, Gardner first, Peabody second. jmswtlk (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Harvard's role
Of course, that this Institution was part of these peoples' world view in which 'money' predominated is obvious. Earlier, Harvard had more of a 'spirit' focus, did it not, albeit with more tribulations than were necessary? One has to ask: how can anyone descend to accumulation of hordes of money and not think about the adage of Christ about its downside?

As an aside, how is it that the political class has ascended (pun, of course) to (or has selected for) a trait such that money passed beneath the nose results in salivation?

Peabody is an example of the proper spirit. Francis (the early guy) worked. Joseph (the ancestor of John Lowell Gardner II) worked his boats while he was adding to his fleet. George Peabody worked and exhibited the true 'yankee' trait of knowing value. He was frugal in several ways.

Now, we see that the best and brightest, which set is not a subset of the monied (as we all know), get into modes that are more self-promotion than not due to the example set by the profligate. Yet, as a proper analysis of the New England experience, which would include the deleterious impact on those already in residence, would show, effort has to be effective in more ways than your self or your family (arguable notion, of course).

Since there are many of this 'class' that did contribute significantly, why not have a section identify these and their technical, or intellectual, accomplishments? Or, expand some type of description by their name? jmswtlk (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

More or less prominent
The statement that First Families of Virginia and Colonial families of Maryland have more prominent roots than the Boston Brahmins seems to not have any basis in fact and is quiet a vague statement that does not seem very relevant to this article. It should at least be moved from the Heading and further down in the article. Markco1 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, what is meant is that those in the southern realms were of the swashbuckling, Cavalier, types. Or, to be more succinct, they were of the current order. And, these were the times of the civil war. Many, in the north, were from the side that didn't continue in power (or were dissenters of sorts).
 * In the south, take Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr (on the Queen Elizabeth's Privy Council), for instance. Who is his counterpart in the northern realm? Many, in MA and other New England states, were of royal descent (RD). But, as mentioned, Edward III of England figures heavily for many. He died in 1377 (200+ years earlier). Could we go through the Boston list and put in who the latest royal might be for each family? An example: Percival Lowell has Edward I of England, on his mother's side. Note, the Boston list pales in size compared to Virginia's. jmswtlk (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, if you talk role of hammer, using West, we could talk about Myles Standish, John Endecott, and Lion Gardiner. The first and the third had RD (as well as their own accomplishments). The second did not. Now, does Gardiner's stature, with Grey and Neville in his tree, somehow match up with West's? jmswtlk (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I read this and it almost like some one said my dad is tall he stands 6'7" and then someone came along and said well my dad's taller he stand 6'7" 1/2. The comment not only does not add to the article but it distracts from it with useless information. I believe that in the body of the article you can speak about First Families of Virginia and Colonial families of Maryland but a comparison of who is better looking, taller or closer to the royal family is silly. BTW my dad is taller than yours ;) Markco1 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Evidently, the offensive phrasing has been removed so the following may be 'moot' (yet not). The other day, as I was reading some old literature about early New England and ran across this letter from Dudley (who ought to have been included above; too, that these documents are being digitized cannot be applauded enough), I thought of this discussion from last year. The letter, more or less, illustrates that there were plenty of non-mean birth who were cognizant of each other over here. That the group at the later time, depicted in this article, was more 'new' monied than 'of the higher order' was being described, in part with the offensive stuff. Yes, looking at the older literature, 'mean' was quite prevalent for describing the more common origins. Thankfully, Washington refused to be 'crowned' after his last term. jmswtlk (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The phrasing being discussed. Reminder: I did not add the paragraph, just tried to clarify it a little. jmswtlk (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Morgans?
Is there a reason that the family of J.P. Morgan doesn't usually get lumped in with the Brahmins? They were descended from 17th century Mass. immigrants and several went to Harvard... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * They were primarily identified with Connecticut and New York. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarbox
I am not entirely convinced that the Tarbox "academic and political family" qualifies as such, and even less convinced that they should be labeled as Boston Brahmin. While editing Wikipedia is open to all, one cannot simply put their own family on a list if their position is not defensible. Should this family be deleted from the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.72.173 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, what do you think the likelyhood is that "Tarbox" was added to the list by someone with the name Tarbox (who ever they are) --Pro.iudicium (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Peirce family?
I was wondering about whether the Peirce family from Newton should be included as Boston Brahmin.

The family includes two Harvard Professors of Mathematics and the founder of American Pragmatism in philosophy. Benjamin Peirce was one of the first internationally known professors from the United States and directed the United States Coast Survey, one of the earliest government funded scientific programs.

The family includes:
 * Harvard Professor Benjamin Osgood Peirce (1854–1914)
 * Harvard Professor Benjamin Peirce
 * Philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce

There is also the Peirce Accounting Company, which was purchased by CTR/IBM and the Peirce Patent Company, apparently still in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivangelist (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What about sociology ?
We should talk about Paul DiMaggio's extremely important work : The Brahmins as an organization-forming class, 1982, Culture media and society ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.199.147.132 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mather Family
Does the inclusion of the "Mather" family seem appropriate here? Rev. Richard Mather (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mather), son: Increase Mather (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Increase_Mather), and grandson: Cotton Mather (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Mather) (Wce21 (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC))

Page needs to be redone/edited
I think a few of these families are not within the definition of Boston Brahmin.

The criteria should be based off of the following:
 * The family was prominent in Boston.
 * The family is of early English colonial descent, roughly pre-1700.
 * Protestant, typically Unitarian or Episcopal
 * Wealthy during the 19th century
 * Referenced as being a Boston Brahmin family (outside of sources sourcing the wikipedia page)
 * Federalist, Whig or Republican traditionally
 * The family is dominant in political and cultural circles in the 19th century

Their Golden Era of prominence is the 19th century, which was the Golden Age of Boston.

Maybe someone can use my checklist above and see which families really qualify, as well as list only the individuals that are the Brahmins, rather than list everyone that is descended from them or are a cousin of the family. I feel like this page is being made by genealogy fans hoping to make their family tree look more impressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcczar (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. For instance, the Delano family may have come originally to Massachusetts, but in no sense could they be considered "Boston Brahmins," as they were almost entirely from New York.  Similarly, within the family groups, there are individuals on the lists who share the last names, but are not members of the family.  For instance, the first owner of the Red Sox had the last name of Adams, but he was not related to John Adams.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B006:9ACD:5177:5682:BC79:4320 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Project to improve page
I'm attempting to improve this page by:
 * 1) Removing families that are not Boston Brahmin families. Some of the families may have been from Massachusetts but they weren't prominent in the Boston area during the Brahmin era (19th century). An example are the Delanos (who were in NY).
 * 2) Make it easier to navigate by creating separate pages for the Brahmin Families, which will list all ancestors and descendants, while leaving only the actual Boston Brahmins under the family names on this page. The links of the family pages will be on this page. Overall, this should make the article shorter and easier to sort through.
 * 3) Adding families that are sourced as Brahmins.
 * 4) At the bottom adding a list of families that are not Brahmin but married into Brahmin families regularly (i.e. arguably Brahmin, but not yet mentioned as one by scholars).

Let me know if you want to help out with any Family Page, similar to the Lowell and Dana family pages, or if you have any other ideas for improving the page. Vcczar (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Tone/Impartiality
I'm concerned that the article does not take a neutral tone. In particular, the line "quietly setting the example of disinterested public service in the manner of their distinguished forebears" is egregrious in pushing a particular description of the group as a whole. There are other places, but that in particular struck me as something which could be better stated as something like "the preeminance of the 'Boston Brahmins' in New England society continues to exercised through disproportionate representation in field X/Y/Z.".

69.48.83.62 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Black Brahmins?
Just a thought.
 * 
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by MopTop (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Boston Brahmin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100831041841/http://www.bostonmagazine.com:80/articles/the_new_brahmins/? to http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/the_new_brahmins/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Verb Tense
This article bizarrely speaks of "Brahmins" as if they still exist, when in fact they don't exist in any but a historical sense.

"The Boston Brahmins are members of Boston's traditional upper class."

"They form an integral part.."

"They are often associated with the Boston Brahmin accent.."

Well, no, they are not actually associated with this accent because it, like the Brahmins, doesn't exist anymore.

The past tense should be used in these sentences.

And what on earth is "traditional Anglo-American customs and clothing"? The whole thing about the Brahmins was that they weren't emblematic of a broader 'American' culture, but rather they were a small, tight-knit and exclusive pseudo-British culture which mimicked English-style speaking, English-style dress, and anything else the English were doing at the time.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay. According to this article they are still around,
 * https://www.bostonmagazine.com/2006/05/15/the-new-brahmins/
 * Although not really. Not to the extent they once were, as monopolists of politics, industry, philanthropy, and high society. Now their fortunes are reduced, their political power practically nonexistent, and their philanthropic activities seem rather limited as well.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Samuel Eliot.jpg

Paine family
I wonder if the Paine family should be included on this list. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Treat_Paine#Family_and_legacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.226.156 (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Religion
Brahmins are so-called in part due to the Transcendental movement's similarity to Hindu concepts, all of which was related to Unitarian Universalist ideology in its expression at places like Concord. There's no tradition of Boston as a bastion of the Episcopal Church, because it was the center of the Congregational or United Church of Christ in America before the UUA took over Harvard in opposition to episcopacy. The Calvinist Cambridge Platform united Presbyterians and Independents as the think-tank of Boston religion but is now only common in Vermont, whereas the Anglican Communion was espoused by the original proprietors of New Hampshire and Maine--before the Puritans settled in place of those absentee landlords.

Anglicanism was the faith of the Dominion garrison imposed by Andros from his NYC base, while an agent of the Duke of York as Roman Catholic King of England. The only State listed with a majority Protestant adherence in 2000 with the ECUSA was Rhode Island (which no longer has a cathedral) and that was from more recent British English families who didn't share the Baptist or Quaker background with their American English hosts or in-laws, but you would have found Anglicanism at Yale and Methodism at Brown some time ago and neither to do with Boston.

Southerners were the Anglicans of yesteryear, where lay vestries predating Laud dominated in Arminian opposition to calls for further Reformation by those from the North. Southern States may have disestablished Anglicanism with the Revolution, but Puritanism was still official in New England until it morphed into Unitarianism and lingered on some time later. You will find all said here to be true, but I will not bother wiki-linking everything. I relate these obvious facts because I'm a native Yankee with deep roots in these folks, so felt like correcting the glaring error about Yankee Protestantism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:F400:B769:7532:6C63:F3DD:7156 (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

George Whitefield Chadwick
Was the Chadwick family, including composer G.W., also included? ELSchissel (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Tags
Hi, I have tagged this page with sources and original research because, as far as I can see, there is no source supporting the notion that these specific families are part of the Boston elite. JBchrch  talk  16:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Older Families of privilege
If Brahmin is to be specifically those of British culture, what term is to be used for those older wealthy Dutch families such as Stuyvesants, Schuylers, van Burens, Vanderbilts etc?Jatrius (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

List of families
It's very unclear what the list is really based on. Or why some go in there and some don't. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)