Talk:White Anglo-Saxon Protestant/Archive 1

Offensive or not this article needs work
This artical should do a better job of presenting the rise and decline of the WASP ascendancy.

This artical should be devided into two main sections. One with the epitaph and one with the scholarly usage. The vast majority of the emphasas should still be plased uppon the scholarly usage as this is a dictionary.

This article focus almost entirely on the academic use of the word, which due to the decline of WASP power, has been widely abandoned, except when dealing with the history of wealth in the north-east. The majority of uses of this word, even in academic circles, has very little to due with the original definition. Most often the word is used to display disgust with old religious institutions, those who where born with wealth, or even those who gained wealth of there own. In the last case the intended meaning is in lines with the perception that a persons success was due to the privileges obtained by a skin color. Often this usage of the word WASP portrays WASPs as having little ethics loose morals, and to be religious in name only. This article should have more focus on the second meaning if only to present a greater distinction between the epitaph and the scholarly usage.

Caucasian is Offensive
Please refrain from using the term "Caucasian" as a blanket term to describe whites, many whites, in fact MOST whites, aren't descended from people in living in the Caucasus mountains, and not all true Caucasians are actually white. It is ignorant and offensive and shows either a lack of knowledge of, or clear disregard for its origins and implications. I'm certain nobody would like it were I to refer to blacks as Negroids or Asians as Mongoloids. Look up the origin of the term, you'll see the full racist implications contained within it. In fact, there's probably plenty of information on Johann Blumenbach on Wikipedia, I bet.

User:GuelphGryphon98 (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely ; it is an extremely offensive, extremely racist term. It's equivalent to an infamous word for another group which I refuse to type. &, no, I'm not white myself. 76.209.229.165 (talk)

( Same person, different computer terminal. )  I meant to add that I'm American Indian. I think

that wikipedia should have a clandestine, completely surreptitious list of forbidden  racial epithets ( including intentional misspellings ) which would be be temporarily blocked by robot or

automatic process till a review had occurred to see if they were being used in a racial sense or

in an innocent non-racial sense ( eg, in this case, a real reference to a certain range of mountains in Russia, Georgia,  Azerbaijan, &, I think, Armenia ). Anyway, I am shocked when I

encounter that term at wikipedia, & I try to speak up against it. That's all I have to say on this subject matter. Thank You. 76.209.58.21 ([[User

talk:76.209.58.21|talk]])

Caucasian to mean the white race was coined by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach in the 1790s after receiving a Georgian woman's skull in 1793. It has been used in that manner since then and a cursory search in Google books show it was still used that way at least until 2007. Nitpyck (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bigotry
I consider the term WASP to be derogatory. Also by common usage it is raciest. I have often herd the term used by non English or French European (American citizens) as a raciest term when encountering an unknown English or French person (American citizens). In fact the term has such strong negative cognitions that I have never herd the term used any other way but as an insult. As such people should not be labeled WASPS in this article. The article should only assert the stereotypes associated with said group. As a reference I recommend that any contributor look up the page for any other insulting epitaph and use it as a guide. As to this pages assertion that WASPS are republicans I would note that many people in the liberal establishment are considered sutch. If I knew how I would tag this page as biased.69.213.70.93 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two definitions here. There is the historical one that is still used in some academic context that defines WASP as old money families. Then there is the insult- what you'd hear in a normal conversation. The insult has nothing to do with Anglo Saxons or Protestants. WASP, if used as an insult or slur, is applied to any "preppy" White person, be they Cahtolic or Agnostic or Irish-American. Also, French aren't Anglo-Saxon but that doesn't matter anyways. Regards,  Signature brendel  22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest "WASP" hasn't been a severely biased term against a group of people, unlike any muttering of the "Nigger" was to African-Americans in their experience in the USA. The Politically correct language police has forced many of us not to use "Jew", "Old", "Poor", "Fat", "Handicapped", "Gay", "Girl", "Foreigner" and other not-so-offensive words when used in jest and never against a person because of their race, class, gender, etc. I don't see a need to abandon "WASP" in this article when used in an academic, examplatory form. Same goes to the Nigger article on the historical definition of the word and the sociocultural consequences of such a powerful word defaming African-Americans. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In America, we have a prized tradition for anyone regardless of birth, family or class can advance their way upward to the social ladder out of good values and hard work, but America isn't perfect and the historical leaders of the system are the WASP elites whom inherited their ancestors' successes since the beginning of North America, so they passed that on to their children and descendants. Any parent wishes to do the same to pass on accumulated wealth and property to their child or grand-children (if any), regardless of ones' race and class, but how unfair is it to redistribute wealth to serve only a few minute class of people among their ethnicity? This is what has haunted the USA for a long time, about whites and Protestants unfairly had a better advantages in education, the work world and federal level politics than non-whites (esp. African-Americans in the Southeast) and white "ethnics" in which it taken until 1960 for a president of Irish Catholic descent been elected. + 71.102.11.193 (talk)



I know my opinion on this is contrary to most people posting comments here, but I do not think that WASP has a strictly negative or insulting connotation. If you look it up in any American dictionary, it just says that it means a person who is Protstant and of British descent. Some dictionaries say it also mean a person of northwestern European descent who is Protestant. The last definition would include 55% of Americans today! The phrase is often used in books on U.S. history, sociology, and American culture. When used in everyday conversation (which isn't very often) it frequently has a neutral meaning by its user, as if he were saying something about Polish Catholics or German Jews.

The Wikipedia article suggests that WASP almost always is used in an insulting way, and that is just patently inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

W.A.S.P, NPOV
Question: what's with the NPOV note on the page? It says to look at the talk page for details, but I only see factual discussion here.

The facutal discussions and disputes below may serve as the basis for the NPOV sign. An NPOV doesn't mean that the editor are going "at each other," it only means that there may be some POV in the article, which may or may not have been discussed here. As for the heading consider that perhaps most US persidents weren't actually WASP- they were White men. Kennedy, Eishenhower, Reagan, Hoover, Roosevelt, for example, weren't WASP. Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) I think it is established and well cited that WASPS becomes a broader usage for White people who are culturally Anglo-American and Protestant. That is the reason, say, Kennedy's presidency was a milestone in ethnic boundaries falling.


 * Well, the American mainstream isn't even that Anglo-it contains many traits from Irish and German as well as other continental European and other cultural components. WASP culture may actually be defined as somewhat deviant from the mainstream (Just like elitist and working class culture is deviant from the middle class mainstream). True, today many people just use (or misuse) the term to describe the mainstream; thus, causing a lot of confusion.  Signature brendel  19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The presidents mentioned to not been of English descent, didn't come from New York or New England, Philly or Prince George county, never attended a Mainline protestant church and even had a foreign-born parent had joined the club: they are referred to as "WASP"s in terms of class, culture and being from the Northeast states. In America, anyone can be successful if they work hard and put their minds to it...but in the first four centuries, to be part of an elite was indeed restrictive and based on discriminatory practices of what "group" this dreamer or schemer came from. John F. Kennedy, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are examples of breaking barriers or old-founded prejudices that continually kept out Blacks, women and ethnic groups in America from acheiving their dreams on their own merits. What about George W. Bush? Bill Clinton? Al(bert) Gore? They were either born or raised in the Southeast states, formerly an "off limits" to membership to the club "WASP", except the Bushes are from the New England states, Bill married Hillary and Al Gore's father in a labor union was involved in the Truman/Roosevelt wing of the Democratic party.+ 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

WASP Redundant?
I think perhaps it should be pointed out in the article that WASP is tautological, since Anglo-Saxons are always "white". Also that the usage of WASP is often erroneous, since it should not, strictly speaking, be applied to people of predominantly Celtic Protestant backgrounds. Grant65 (Talk) 12:41, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

- Couldn't someone be 'Anglo-Saxon' and black if they were of mixed heritage?

- Actually, this isn't a tautology, since "White" and "Anglo-Saxon" are two adjectives of the same noun, not a whole statement. "Redundant" would be more accurate.


 * "Whiteness" as a symbol, a given fact of social (i.e., visible, public) being, is conceptually distinct from "Anglo-Saxon", which refers to group identity. Analytically, there is no redundancy.

The assumption here is that "Anglo-Saxonness" is default whiteness, not needing to be marked. It's probably true that rarely if ever has anyone met a non-white Anglo-Saxon; and that other "white" group/ethnic categories are not so marked.

I think, though, that the "stubbornness" of the usage is meaningful in itself; "Anglo-Saxonness" 'means' not only "whiteness", but represents the apex of whatever is meant by that category, the measure against which other kinds of whiteness are defined. If this reading speaks to some truth about cultural understandings, then a corollary is that this default "whiteness" also speaks to a perception of default power.

The meanings related to skin colour, "race", ethnic group, culture, and power converge in the idea of the Wasp, which is attested to by the fact that particular ethnic geneologies matter so little in the public mind. The salient points seem to be skin colour and perceived power. [wynn, 21/07/05]

WASP culture and Southern Baptists
I would suggest that the latter part of the article is correct and that Southern Baptist theology is not "mainline" enough to be WASP. This would seem to mean that the first part of the article needs to be rectified to reflect this. Also, it is erroneous to say that Southern Baptists are a majority or becoming a majority in the South. While they are certainly the largest single denominination in the South, they would better be described as a "plurality" religion as a majority means "50%+" and there would be very few areas where this would be the case, just as I would suggest that outside perhaps one or two counties in Massachusetts that there would be nowhere in New England with a Catholic "majority", although it would cetainly be the largest single denomination in many areas. Also, while Celts are by definition not "Anglo-Saxon", one of the tendencies of acronyms and initialisms is that they often, perhaps usually, drift from their initial meaning over time, and this one is little different.


 * I changed "Southern Baptist" to "Evangelical," which is more accurate.


 * In the last three decades, Southern Baptists were in the forefront of American politics: more socially/culturally conservative, demanded more free enterprise economic policies and wanted to bring an end to "BIG government". They almost became the new elite in the United States with the support of Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, the Bushes and economic geniuses of Sam Walton, televangelists preaching in the good ol' Southern fundamentalist style, and finally convincing the downtrodden poor Southern rural whites of an "Armageddon"-like "atheist-socialist-progressive elite" dictatorship was being established against the people. Not only southern Baptists, but Evangelicals and more ultra-conservative religious groups have blurred the lines of the separation of "church and state" to morally protect or save the USA from a decline as a superpower contains very patriotic and controversial themes or statements (i.e. about gay people, Black people, feminists, illegal aliens, globalization, etc.) are the causes of moral decline: to appeal to the Angry white male and the radical right has earned them power in the nation's capital. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S. only?
Is the term common outside the U.S.? I have never heard anyone use it in Canada&mdash;which doesn't mean that it's not used, of course&mdash;and I imagine the distinction that it makes is irrelevant in most of the UK; what about Australia, New Zealand, and perhaps South Africa? Do similar or equivalent terms exist in other countries and languages? &mdash;E. Underwood 06:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

130.179.240.46 18:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Myrna Adds: The term is used in Canada. Regarding the comment about the inclusion of white being redundant in WASP: I was raised in Canada with a WASP culture by my distaff grandparents who were born in England and Scotland (thus may have Anglo-Saxon ancestors)and were Anglican and Presbyterian. I note the Anglo-Saxon heritage and culture are no less mine because my father was not a WASP (in colour, genes and religion). The term is imprecise at best, but possibly has utiltiy as shorthand for those who wielded power in the early days of colonialism (excluding, of course, the French Catholics, who were also white, but not Anglo-Saxon! ;-).)

Copied from User talk:Grant65 Thanks for your addition on use outside the U.S. I have a question that you might know the answer to: In Australia, is the meaning more similar to the historic or the current meaning of "WASP"? That is, does it indicate a certain upper class descended from early settlers? (Since Australia is entirely peopled with criminals :), I imagine that it does not, but I may be wrong.) Or does it indicate any Protestant of European descent, or perhaps any Protestant whose ancestors came from the British Isles? Respond on Talk:WASP, if you would. Thanks. &mdash;E. Underwood 16:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * *LOL* @ Princess Bride reference. To take that as my starting point, the convict element (including one of my gt-gt-gt-grandfathers) was well and truly swamped by the ~2% of the total population of Britain and Ireland which emigrated during the 1850s, as a consequence of depression in Europe and the Australian goldrushes. This wave of settlers included people of all classes, including some "second sons of the aristocracy" (etc.), who would previously have seen the country as a penal colony and/or vast sheep range. The protestant-catholic divide was significant and lasted until the 1960s at least -- e.g. my father can remember as a child "attending" catholic weddings by standing outside the church! But here's the twist: the religious divide has now faded to the point of insignificance and my feeling is the term WASP is used here in a ethnic/racial sense, almost synonymous with the Anglo-Celtic Australian ethnic category, i.e. regardless of religion, although I haven't verified this through any kind of (informal) survey and I could well be wrong.Grant65 (Talk) 05:18, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * The term has been commonly used in Canada, so the article should not be USA-centric. Spylab 13:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon fundamentalists
The usage of the term is remniscient of Thomas Hardy and Norman Yoke. It has given some identity to Anglo-Saxon fundamentalists, who view Danish and Norman cultural contributions in England with a certain disdain to this very day and seek to keep history written in their prerogative. This had really taken flight during times of Anglo-American nationalism, so much so that only Southern English stereotypes were recognised by the odd foreign person as "English". To this moment right now, there are still noted spotlights on Anglo-Saxon opinionated histories of England and America that do little to comfort the vast amount of other people living there. As other human races and social minorities recieve compensation benefits for their percieved lack of equal status amongst the rest, Danish and Norman people in the modern era have gotten none of this because of ancient prejudices. They are still considered "barbarian oppressors" in the vein of Pan Celtic hatred for the Anglo-Saxons themselves. because the relevance and factuality of this perceived cultural conflict between Anglo-Saxons and other Norsemen are not at all apparent. The term was originally used for a specific social group within the United States, to distinguish that group from other Europeans of different national and religious backgrounds. The history of medieval England did not intrude. If the grievances of Danes and Normans against the Anglo-Saxon fundamentalists have any currency or relevance whatsoever, they should be discussed in the article on the Anglo-Saxons, perhaps in the section on modern use of the name. They do not belong in the introduction to this article. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 05:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought it looked familiar. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 07:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Republican Party?
An anonymous user avers that


 *  They were and are still generally cited as being affiliated with the Republican Party (United States) 

Perhaps s/he would care to provide a source for that. If the identification is indeed general, that should be a simple matter. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 18:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jokes
What does a little WASP girl want to be when she grows up? The very best person I possibly can be.
 * Unless I'm missing the point here, this is a dig at other racial groups no? If these jokes are meant to illustrate racism within this group, it should say so. (ricjl 14:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC))


 * I don't think the joke is meant to be a dig at other racial groups. I think it's meant to highlight the stereotype that WASPs are bland.  Maybe I'm missing something.  --Temtem 21:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes it is definitely a joke about blandness.


 * WASPs are portrayed as the biggest kind of snobs, exclusiveness, racism and moralism. WASPs are viewed as total hypocrites who want to morally influence people by either being conservative moralists and/or liberal activists to make themselves look proper or educated. WASPs once demanded immigrants from Europe in the 19th/early 20th century to "Americanize" or become "patriotic" by stop being ethnically distinct, but today they encourage "multiculturalism" and "diversity" instead to preserve ethnic distinctions. But in the early 20th century, WASPs were promoting racial eugenics in order to "save the white ARYAN race" from African-Americans, the underclass of any race and even anyone who they suspect are Jewish. For example, they wanted Native Americans to become "Civilized" by being Christians, speaking English, wear clothes, eat with silverware and even abandon every tribal custom. However, Native Americans were treated like the "lessers" by the elite and warned white women to stay away from "Red men" who may be genetically inferior or other pseudo-scientific claims. Today, the WASP made it morally wrong or simply gauche for people to talk about race in intellectual or scientific ways, they are in charge of the "P-C police" to ensure racial equality (the hyphenated American trend) and class equality (quasi-liberal socialism) when they aren't promoting it at all, the continuous use of racial categories or quotas in affirmative action policies (how about them descendants of Native Americans they once dispised or demanded to be "like us or they're not us?") and the increased difficulty for middle-class Americans to advance and watch their incomes fall or loose value in the past 30 years. WASPs are in fact in charge of the government, economy, academia, pop culture and social morality. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Black Anglo Saxon Protestant
A more interesting take might be "Black Anglo Saxon Protestant" coined by radical Civil Rights leaders to refer to Black conservatives. It regained currency recently as blacks on the left described black conservative Christian leaders, (anti-immigration "new Nativists", supporters official English, pro-gun, pro death penalty, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, etc.) I thought it was interesting b/c 94 % of Blacks are Protestant, they've been here building the country since pre-colonial times, they tend towards social conservatism, and this is the ironic part- I read that the average black person is a third white, descending from rapes or relations with whites in the South since colonial times. You could probably double the size of the DAR and SAR! What would Strom Thurmond do? LOL

A new battle of elite (WASP?) vs. average joe (majority)
California is now the most politically divided state in the union: the coastal counties are the "blue state", the people are viewed as "WASP" or preppie, home to upper-income urbanites strongly for most liberal policies (i.e. gay marriage, eco-consciousness, no immigration controls, etc.) versus the "red state" inland, valleys and deserts where lower-middle class suburbanites and small town people are viewed as "redneck", farmland conservatives for the most part. There's been alot of talk about the neo-con/ultra-lib "OC-ies" of very affluent Orange county and the economic liberal/social conservative "OKies" of high poverty-rate Kern county, the word "OC" is a trendy initial for the county and "OK" stood for the dust-bowl refugees from Oklahoma came to Central valley in the depression-era 1930's may well preserved their sociocultural distinctions. It mirrors of the old WASP vs. ethnic, northern vs. southern, and rural midwest/west vs. urban northeast/east divides of the 19th and 20th centuries, in addition to the O.C. is "diverse" but the wealthiest beach towns and hillside home tracts are homogeneous (or racial minorities have been "whitewashed") compared to Kern County's Hispanic majority (or plurality with more Blacks, Asians & Middle Eastern groups by percentile) with a strong Okie-Texan sociocultural fabric who actually sympathizes with Latinos or Mexican-Americans, note many "OKies" are Native American (often Cherokee) whom been viewed as "not white" before. It may be possible for the state of California under a Republican governor associated with the Hollywood Left and the "very blue" San Francisco/Los Angeles-dominated state legislature (the districts with the highest populations) is in a battle against the two-thirds of the state landscape are "deep red". + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

WASP ascendancy
There should be a discussion about the decline of the WASP ascendancy during the middle part of the 20th century. The elite universities, such as Harvard Princeton etc., made a concerted effort to shift the admissions criteria from privilege/legacy to merit based. Authors such as David Brooks (in Bobos in Paradise) and Joseph Epstein (in Snobbery) have written about how this opened the doors to the previously elite professions. By the 60's and 70's, the young generation of WASPs on the whole were not interested in carrying on the traditions (the good and the bad) of the WASP culture. Really the "WASP Ascendancy" does not really exist anymore outside of small pockets.

look at every president we've ever had, continuing till this day....WASP... WASPs are who built this country and made it great, when we "do not exist anymore" the country is going to fall apart


 * Actually a lot of Presidents were not WASP (as is the vast majority of the population); Hoover, FDR, Eisdenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush.  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah FDR- Delano Roosevelt, WASP, was called such by critics like Al Smith, father's name may have been "Dutch", but as this article states this does not preclude WASP label, George Walker Bush? New England Establishment, related to Boston Brahmin Walker family, married into the Ellis clan, father and son went to Yale...can agree Ike, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton non-WASP though... - signed by an anon IP


 * We all know in the past 100 days of Barak Obama's presidency to had broken a barrier for African-Americans and minorities, it was once hailed an impossibility for a black man to be president of the United States. But in the topic we're discussing on WASP and elitist priviliege, that was broken about 50 years ago. John F. Kennedy's electoral victory in the 1960 presidential election can be hailed to broken one barrier of privilege, success and opportunity for Roman Catholics at the time. Yet we hadn't had a Jewish president, nor a female president and who knows an openly gay president? In California, we may well have a Latino governor, or an Asian-American governor, or like in the 1980's, George Deukmejian of Armenian descent whose grandparents encountered discrimination and defamation by the local whites/nativists in California during the early 20th century. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

wasp
Either it's a subspecies of hornets, or a heavy metal band from the 1980's, the article says what it is: White Anglo Saxon protestants, or nowadays with a new meaning "Wealthy, American, Suburban, Professionals" because most of the upper-class white American population aren't limited to Northeast states-born, Protestant-Christians and Anglo-British descent. In the year 2009, many non-white minorities refer to WASPs as Americanized people because they passed as white, Caucasian or European alike of that of "the founding fathers' image". WASP is sometimes viewed as a hostile, elitist and politically-charged term filled with negative portrayals of "people made it for conforming to the rules" and "exaggerated" ethnic stereotypes to create a racial disturbance. Despite workplace discrimination is illegal, bigotry/prejudice is wrong and displaying stereotypes of any ethnic/racial group is "taboo" in these P-C times, there's still the concept of privilege among members of the elite or establishment for being born and raised in the club known as the "WASP". + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The British Empire: Undead?
As long as the WASPS hold their tight grip on American politics and the economy, the sun will never set on the British Empire, oh no my friend, the British never died with Asian and African independence, ironic as it is, the descendants of their first rebels in the North American colonies will continue to nurture the spirit of Pax Britannia infinitum.

What are you, in the Black Panthers?


 * black panthers? i guess this would make this dude public enemy number one, eh?


 * Don't get the REDS involved or Communists involved in this article to politically alter the article on "class struggle" and "elite rule". I'm sure the Red-state conservatives may agree with what the far-left, anti-American and non-capitalist fringe (Radical Islam?) say. The far-right has been allied with the WASPs or WHITES, because the elite always want to preserve their power, privileges and influence over other people in any given society, be it monarchs and dictators, and even in a democratic system such as the USA. This article is an example of how human nature is and how the establishment that rules the USA stands for, the historical significance of WASP membership and how the rules change or bend for those not of WASP birth were able to become "one of them". + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Term with an edge? Hardly
Sorry, Rjensen, but if that sentence isn't POV, I don't know what is. The term is perfectly benign. It can be used pejoratively, as the article notes, but does that make it borderline ethnic slur? I think not. Thesaunterer 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Benign: nonsense. try a google search on WASP DEROGATORY. It's not whether you or I consider it derogatory, its what the accepted practice is. Dictionaries tell us that:

Look at New Shorter OED: Wasp /wQsp/ n.2 Chiefly N. Amer. Freq. derog. Encarta Dictionary says: "an offensive term for a Caucasian who has a Protestant Anglo-Saxon background and is viewed as belonging to the dominant and most powerful level of society (informal insult) Merriam Webster: says "sometimes disparaging : an American of Northern European and especially British ancestry and of Protestant background; especially : a member of the dominant and the most privileged class of people in the U.S. - Wasp·dom  /-d&m/ noun, sometimes disparaging - Wasp·ish /'wäs-pish, 'wos-/ adjective, sometimes disparaging - Wasp·ish·ness noun, sometimes disparaging - Waspy /-pE/ adjective, sometimes disparaging Rjensen 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * More dictionaries:


 * Random House Webster's Unabridged WASP (wosp), Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive. 1. a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. 2. a member of the privileged, established white upper middle class in the U.S.
 * THE NEW YORK TIMES MANUAL OF STYLE AND USAGE WASP is usually disparaging, Rjensen 01:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've found dictionary entries that make no reference to the term being used disparagingly. Nevertheless, I don't really see a problem with your current edit. My concern came when the term was evaluated relative to another term, which reeks of value judgment. Thesaunterer 18:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * good-- I think we're agreed. Rjensen 19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal

 * The attitudes on race, ethnicity and class priviliege does change over time. Since when the wealthiest ethnic group are Scottish-American? That the oldest settlements in the USA are founded by Spanish-American and French-Canadian settlers in the 16th to 18th centuries? And the largest ethnic ancestral source are German-American? What about the "one-sixteenther" who show up in St. Patrick's day parades, or as the Irish communities don't take offense but sure will ridicule them? For an European to come into America (or Canada) where his skin color, appearance and familiarity with Western culture are seen as "passes" to become an Anglo, Protestant or White American, it's possible that anyone of Italian, Polish, Jewish, Dutch and Swedish background to "change places" if they have "white faces". The major divide in America was against Black people and that African-Americans who are definitely Americans if born/raised here and held US citizenship were wrongly treated for their skin color. The WASPs, on the other hand, are said to be moneyed, and in this country for those without money in a capitalist system will eventually suffer or live apart from those in power or in charge of the capitalist system. What determines ones' ability to go into a college/university? MONEY. To live in a certain neighborhood where home prices are within ones' reach? MONEY. And what makes them buy or purchase certain items they need or live on (i.e. fancy imports, designer-name labels, and discount store-brands?) You guessed it. MONEY. The WASPs are often determined by money, class identity and membership of an exclusive society, but they always admitted others who they know will "look" like they are Anglo-American or "white" when it comes to the historical caste racism associated with White privilege. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro error

 * In the introduction it states that the term WASP is used in "English-speaking countries which were settled, in part, by similar groups [as the US]." This statement is however quite false as the settlement of the US differs greatly from that of other former British colonies. According to immigration statistics dating back to the year 1800, the United States was mostly settled by Germans, Irish and English. While the English also settled Australia, the Germans and Irish did not. The fact that only 12% of immigrants to the US were actually English (compared w/ over half being either Irish or German) one cannot accurately state that the US was settled by the same poeple as other English speaking countries. Also, I am not an expert on the issue of how term WASP is used but whom exactly does it apply to in this day and age? While I do not mean to critize your article, somebody should outline exactly who the term applies to these days, as it is stated that modern usage differs from the term's denotation. Regards,  Signature brendel  21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that it's too important, but some of your statements are inaccurate or misleading. For example, there was heavy Irish immigration to Australia. A large proportion of Australians today are of Irish ancestry. Also, concerning your statement about how the English were a smaller immigrant group than the Irish and Germans during the 19th century - keep in mind that the US goverment has only been keep country of origin immigration stats since 1820. You have to keep in mind that the English constituted most of the immigrants during the 17th century, and a larte part of the immigrants during the the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Early History
The article makes a point of sugesting that not all WASPs are WASPs because some WASPs are Celtic. Clearly this is confusing etnicity for nationality. Many of the "Celtic" people of the Protestant ascendancy are in fact of Anglo-Saxon desent. Look it up. Most Southerners consider themselves Anglo-Saxon, but in fact their ancestors came by way of Ireland, as either the English nobility/Yeos or the Ulster Scots, so in fact they are right, they're Anglo-Saxon, but their ancestor's "nation" may have been Ireland or England, or both. Lowland Scots can be failry categorized as Anglo-Saxons, and so can many Welshmen. The Scottish Presbyterian was as hated in the eyes of the Irish and other Catholic immigrants in America, as he was to the Highlander in Scotland.

"The Scott was as hated in the eyes..." I am sure you didn't mean that. Scotts have been, for good or bad part of the American elite from the outset of the nation (as have Welsh- including Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln both being children of Welsh immigrants). But I get your point about the "Englishness" that some in the South take for granted without understanding that they often come from people with a complex pattern of immigration (which may cause them to rethink some of their views of others).


 * Yes, but the term WASP is a social construct. Consider the Astor family, which may have some Saxon and Angle heritage but isn't Anglo Saxon even though they may be refered to as such.  Signature brendel  Now under review! 08:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Brendel is correct; many people misuse the term Anglo-Saxon, and not just in the term WASP. (Just as Caucasian [originally someone from the Caucasus] has been so often used incorrectly in place of Caucasoid, that the incorrect usage has become the norm.] The point remains that many people referred to as A-S are not technically A-S, something which is verifiable by reference to family history, even though we can't test for "anglo-saxon genes". The Du Pont family (Huguenot) and Cabot family (Channel Islands) are great examples. Grant65 | Talk 12:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

NYC Usage
The term WASP is commonly used in New York City by Puerto-Ricans, African-Americans, and working class white Catholics to refer to Jewish people. 75.3.11.87 04:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Without a source, such may not be included. Michael 04:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Its funny how on this forum whenever the question of race, culture, politics and history arise, everyone pussyfoots around the primary definition of the term as it was originally defined or intended. I think the idea of the term is a group of people, socially and biologically identifiable, sharing more or less a common culture, heritage and origin and social status, of Anglo-saxon origin, Prince Harry and Prince William are a good example, as they are the among the typical "preppy white kids from rich families" group. The concept is not too much different than African Americans, except that they fully acknowledge and embrace their race, and recognize that it is inseperably bound to their culture, history and social status among themselves. White people (people of European origin or whatever other politically correct euphemism you want to insert here) more or less deny, reject, denounce and try to forget those concepts, because it would not be "politically correct" or are not within the sanctioned scope of ideas in mainstream thought today. They might also be interpreted as "racist" and are therefore avoided as much as possible. --Nazrac 23:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Describing William & Harry as WASPS is probably, as you say, an accurate usage of the term in the US. However, it looks very strange from the UK where there is a common perception that the royal family have spent most of the last thousand years trying to avoid mixing their blood with that of the anglo-saxon commoners. Of course, the princes' mother must have introduced some anglo-saxon DNA, as did the Queen Mother. It is certainly misleading to use the term anglo-saxon to describe a particular race. The people from Britain have many origins: Anglo-Saxon, Norman, Viking, Celtic, Hugenot, etc. Bluewave 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Anglo-Saxons, Hugenots, and Normans are ancient European peoples who have been mixing for thousands of years. All Europeans share more or less the same "ethnic" ancestry (A Germanic Romantic and often even Slavic mish-mash). No European is 100% Saxon or 100% Norman. It is natural to be interested in one's ancestry but one cannot exactely pin-point the location of one's ancestors in the year 900.  Signature brendel  04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is very much true. Although I'm of English, Irish and Welsh recent ancestry, my more distant ancestry comes from all over Europe (especially the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scotland and Portugal. In fact, all Europeans (and anyone with any European ancestry) are almost certainly descended from 80% of all Europeans who lived before 1400 CE. XPhile2868 (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * According to DNA haplotype tests and discoveries in recent years, the English and other British "home nation" ethnic groups (i.e. Irish, Welsh, Scots, Cornish, Manx and Norn) are closely identifiable with Iberians (or the peoples of Spain and Portugal, esp. the Basque) and the "Balkan refuge" in southeast Europe, whether they are or aren't the forefathers of Indo-European speaking peoples. The British has a strong genetic link to Africans of Morocco with contacts with "black" Sub-saharan Africans, the Sami peoples of Finland connected to "yellow" East Asians (i.e. Mongolians) and even American Indians from the western hemisphere have turned up in test samples from across Great Britain. The issue of race, class, inheritance, nationality and ethnic group are being challenged in Europe, where ethnic nationalism and anti-immigrant feelings tries to undermine the process of an "European Union", but go to any border land communities in Europe and you'll find people who identify with more than one nationality, like the Flemish-speaking minority of northern France and French-speaking Walloons in Belgium where Flemish is more commonly spoken...have lived in an area where the political or national boundaries are interchanged, and doesn't follow the historical ethno-cultural lines. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Race
I have removed this line: If the W is taken to indicate White, WASP is redundant, since Anglo-Saxons can only be white. But one could be White and Protestant, without being Anglo-Saxon, e.g. Welsh, Scots, Lebanese.

This supposes English people to be Anglo-Saxons which is anachronistic. It is further confused by suggesting a break between Scot/Welsh and Anglo-Saxon. None of it really makes sense. The use of Anglo-Saxon as an ethnic term seems to be quite popular in the United States yet this should not confuse true definitions. Anglo-Saxons was the collective name given to tribesmen who invaded, settled and spread their culture over much of Britain from the 6th century onwards, and the Anglo-Saxon period ended with the dawn of Norman rule. So as to the line removed, nobody alive today is an 'Anglo-Saxon' unless I presume they are from those regions in Europe of Angeln and Saxony. Enzedbrit 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * True! Furthermore, the regions of Angeln and Saxony are not actually in England but in Germany.  Signature brendel  Now under review! 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not true. They would be Angles or Saxons, not Anglo-Saxons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.163.133 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Article should be called WASP not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
One of the major themes of the article is that WASP is used loosely in relation to the words "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant." The article really isn't about White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (as the article notes). The term WASP is the issue here.


 * Yes it should, perhaps I'll start a move proposal once I find the time.  Signature brendel  Now under review! 08:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Change the article name to WASP! This article seems to be about an American sociological term, and not about protestants of decidedly Anglo-Saxon/English descent. 70.49.163.133 19:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The article uses the term "Britain" and "England" interchangably. "...who settled in Britain between the 5th century and the Norman Conquest. According to some sources, Anglo-Saxon ancestry is not even dominant in England." Clearly they are not the same thing. 82.26.179.25 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bush family?
the article says Bush Family is WASP. But WASP is Anglo-Saxon. Bush family is Scot-Irish descent. so isn't that contradictory?


 * Technically yes. The Bush family is not Anglo-Saxon, yet they are New England blue-blood old money. It is important to rember that the term WASP is usually not applied in coherence with its actual meaning. Rather, it has become a social label applied to Whites from old money families. Other families such as the Astor family may also be refered to as WASP, even though they are not Anglo-Saxon. Regards,  Signature brendel  Now under review! 08:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bush family are English and were Episcopalian and are distantly related to some of those in the English royal family.

Yes, I think that they are partly descended from Ulster-scots, but directly descended from an immigrant from Sommerset, England; which explains a lot, because all people from that part of the world are thicker than two short planks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdelyelis (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wealth?
Perhaps this is idiosyncratically Australian, but I was under the impression that the W could stand for Wealthy, as in Wealthy Anglo Saxon Protestant — esp. re: the discussion above Leon 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is mentioned in the article. It doesn't seem to be a common interpretation, and may be a backronym. Grant65 | Talk 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

--~Insert non-formatted text here

Racism?
The statement: "The term has largely negative connotations" was repeatetly removed by another user and put back in by Grant65. Just to be clear that statement comes from a commonly sold college sociology textbook published by Pearson. It's textbook a quote! The term does have largely negative connotations and is often used to refer to the White power elite (C. Wright Mills, The power elite; 1959). Almost no Americans are more than 50% Anglo-so the term isn't taken literal to begin with. This statement is not, under any cisrcumstance, racist pov and I thank Grant65 for putting the statement back in the quote where it belongs. Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 17:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WASPs V.S. White Protestants
I removed the following OR paragraph:

"Despite the assertions of the quote above, WASPs, or White Protestants continue to be the largest single ethnic/religious bloc in the United States, representing almost half of Americans.    Of the 77% of Americans who classify themselves as White, 56% are Protestant, 25% Catholic, 14% Non religious, and less than two percent are ethnically or religiously Jewish, with the remaining spread between other faiths.  In terms of national origin most Americans trace their heritage (in order) to German, British (not including Irish), Hispanic, African, and Irish forebearers. WASPs then continue to have a great demographic imprint but there is a popular assertion that WASPs have declined rather than grew in their political and cultural influence."

There is one main problem with this paragraph: OR. Yes it does have source telling us how many Americans are White, how many are Protestant and what the top ancestries are. It does not, however, have a source telling us that WASPs constitute a "large bloc" of the America's population. This paragraph is the result of a Wikipedia user using statistics to back up his/her own idea. In other words, this user made a hypothesis (WASPs are a large demographic) and then used statistics to back up that claim. This may be fit for a research paper, but not Wikipedia.  Signature brendel  19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC) PS. Not all Prostestant Whites are labeled as WASP, then it would be WP... then again how the label is applied depends on who is using it... that's why we need to stick to our sources.
 * Well put Brendel. The article is quite clear that not all Protestnat whites are WASPs, in either the technical or normative senses. Grant | Talk 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Not all Prostestant Whites are labeled as WASP..." That doesn't work with the premise of the article. I think the article already went into great pains to establish that WASP was not strictly speaking of English but of white Protestants. It does not require anyone to extrapolate or make some extra step beyond the sources if "white Protestants" are shown to be the largest group. The extra information may not have been necessary but it doesn't say anything new or beyond the sources. If anything, it simply confirms the obvious, that there isn't a Waspistan in Eastern Europe or Italy full of (white) Protestants but, as pointed out in the article, consists of people from Germany, England, Scotland, Wales, Holland and Scandanavia. At the root of this discussion, I believe are other issues so let me just make this clear. If I was just speaking of personal conjecture I would question the accuracy of the Census, and I would point out that being a "majority" population does not justify a whole bunch of societal crimes historically (or inequality currently) caused by some of this group. I think people are confusing indignation with acceptance of the "facts" that we labor under. Questioning some of those "facts" Brendel, might indeed make a good paper (and give us something to cite should they be shown false). Until then, relating facts because they are relevant here is what the article should do, no? -JP

I think it was established that White Protestants is one of the usages in popular context and done so by citation. The comment said a fact and gave a citation. No one went outside of that. This looks like you fellows have an issue with WASP's themselves. You may have some very valid points but that is not what the article is about is it?

Ditto- JP


 * Yes, in vernecular usage, the term WASP may be used to describe all Whites who are not seen as belonging to a minority group. Yet, the term does not actually refer to all White protestants- the term is just commmonly misused. A Wikipedia user must not gather statistics on persons he or she personally considers to be WASPs- that is OR. Furthermore the paragraph's authors seemed as though he or she was trying to make some sort of point- something a WP editor is not allowed to do. BTW: We are talking about a vaguely defined social concept here, there are no "facts." That is why it so important to just go with what sources tell us.  Signature brendel  19:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Persons he or she personally considers to be WASP" Didn't the article do that already in its very outset (by whoever authored that.) "There are no facts" (about social concepts). Mmmm. I'll let that stand on its own. As for making any "point", you are making it very clear that you have an axe to grind on the issue, and an axe it is. I happen to agree with you, including the more "inflamatory" (pointed?) remarks that you made and took down. I just don't see why it would be necessary to skew or hide anything. Just say, "see slavery, Native American genocide, etc., etc. for some of the contributions to culture" in the discussion page and be done with it. You aren't going to write a group out of existence on wikipedia, and I don't think any (historic or current) social problems are addressed by doing so even if it was possible. I am also not willing to diminish a group in anyway because of some of their individual or collective actions. That's how we got the slavery and genocide problem in the first place. That being my final input, I wanted to say that I appreciate your writing. -JP


 * I do not have personal agenda. Stating all white protestants to be WASP is OR. Traditionally that is not what the term WASP means and unless a citation can be provided to show all protestant Whites to be WASP the paragraph in question had to be deleted.  Signature brendel  07:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Error
The following sentence lists Christopher Dodd as a Republican -

The old style Rockefeller Republicans wing of the party favored by WASPs weakened, as most recent successful Republican politicians in the Northeast have been Catholics, such as George Pataki and Chris Dodd.

I think not. :)

Lutherans?
Are Lutherans really WASPS? Aren't Lutherans in North America largely of German or Scandinavian background? I'd have thought WASPS, in the traditional sense, would almost entirely consist of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Congregationalists, and that Methodists would probably be too lower class, and Lutherans too Germanic, to qualify. john k 06:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we are talking about a social concept whose definition is wholly subjective. The usage of the term WASP is sometimes extended to include persons of German and Scandinavian ancesty and, therefore, also Lutherans. The AS is not neccessarily taken to be literal. In a "traditional sense" your above assumption would be correct but the definition of "WASP" changes depending on context as does the inclusion of certain demographics (see the sociology textbook quote in the intro). Regards,  Signature brendel  06:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously it's complicated. But if we're going by baseline religions, it seems to me we should restrict to the three I mention, plus maybe Dutch Reformed.  Otherwise it just becomes a list of non-Black protestant denominations in the US, doesn't it?  john k 07:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't restrict the list ourselves, that would be OR. True, not all white protestants are called WASP (though some (mis)use it as a synonym for any mainstream white person w/ higher status), but as of now our sources indicate that some Lutherans and Methodists are commonly labeled as WASP. Again in the traditional sense I would say even Dutch Reformed probably wouldn't be included, but our article does need to reflect the ambigous manner in which this term is used. We could add a statement that traditionally only Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Congregationalists were labeled as WASP and the term's usage has since become more ambigous and inclusive. Regards,  Signature brendel  16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems okay. I wasn't trying to  "restrict the list ourselves," but I'm not sure what sources are indicating  this.  At present, the article appears to say that Baptists are commonly associated with  being WASPs, which seems wrong to me - if any major white  protestant religious group is not considered to be WASPs, it would have to be Baptists, along with non-denominational Evangelicals, Restorationists, Pentecostals, and the like.  Surely one at least has to be a member of a "main-line" protestant church to be a WASP. john k 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the recent growth of other Protestant and non-Protestant churches in American politics? Richard M. Nixon was born to a Quaker family in Southern California, his parents objected to the ideas of war (they are Pacifists) and political involvement. Nixon abandoned his parental faith for political office and was president during the Vietnam war, but wanted to decrease American military involvement to give more responsiblity for South Vietnam. It is unclear about Nixon's religious beliefs in his younger years, but during the 1960s & 70s, WASPs spoke about the decline of Episcopalian church influence in the US government that was build on the foundation of the separation of church and state. Therefore anyone of any religion, denomination and sect (be it Catholics, Mormons, Jews be it Orthodox or Reform or other, Muslims be it Sunnite or Shi'ite or other, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, agnostics, atheists, etc.) can participate in political office as long they don't put in too much religious emphasis on the government, the laws and not favor one religion over another. Lutherans are characterized as social conservative or more likely to oppose abortion (for example), but have strong political liberal views like their discorn for anti-abortion laws. A largely Lutheran state like Minnesota, for example, shows up "blue" on most political election maps but appearedly more conservative than N.Y. state is. Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists are said to be more on the right-wing when it comes to politics, with southern churches the most conservative and all three began as progressive/avant-garde versions of Protestant Christianity to challenge the older established churches. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Usage in Israel
The part about the usage of WASP in Israel as in White Ashkenazi Sabra with Protexia had been deleted by someone. I put it back in. I see that it needs citation, but I don't know how to do this. I have a link though http://israelbehindthenews.com/Archives/Aug-15-07.htm Quote "In other words, people of Sderot and similar towns identified Moshe Feiglin as an Israeli WASP - a White Ashkenazi Sabra with Protexia. (In Israeli terminology, one who has "pull" with the establishment is said to have protexia.)" It would be nice if someone put this link in the article. Thanks --84.191.169.90 (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Society in Focus" :

Western Europe?
Correct me if I'm wrong but Italy, Spain, Portugal etc are in western Europe and yet individuals hailing from there are not regarded as White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, mostly because they are overwhelmingly Catholics.

North-western European would be a more accurate geographical description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.145.162 (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WESP
white english-speaking protestant, would be more accurate (thought not very common; heared/seen it just twice) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.234.26 (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I had always thought WASP stood for "White Affluent Single People". Doesn't matter what their religious affiliation is. That seems closer to the word "preppy" and to the description of the population at the Ivy Leagues until the past couple decades. Angry bee (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Anglo preferable to WASP

 * The term WASP has always been clearly misleading as it's a term that was invented for a rather stupid reason, mainly to label a group of people who live in the northeastern part of the United States, who happen to be white, practise the Protestant religion, have ancestors who were English Puritans that settled in New England back in the early 17th century, and because of their presumed wealth and privilege, hold an allegedly advantageous position in America. This term implies that all people in America who happen to be white, have English ancestry and attend a Protestant church are thereby themselves WASPs and thus members of this exclusive powerful, old-moneyed class. Of course, the clever sociologists who invented the term clearly overlooked some white Southerners who fit part of the original definition of WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant), even if they hold blue-collar jobs or happen to live below the poverty line. WASP would also apply to the California-born descendants of Oklahoma dust-bowl refugees, who would have laughed bitterly at being referred to as privileged while being forced to leave their small farms. The fact that there are many powerful, wealthy American families who are not WASPs is sublimely ignored. I recall being teased for my oppressor/WASP origins (even though I'm 3/4 Irish and 1/8 French) by a girl whose grandparents came from Eastern Europe; however the WASPy USA didn't prevent this girl's parents from having the opportunity to amass enough wealth to hire and exploit illegal aliens to work as household servants for minimum wages. And there I was, the oppressive, priveleged WASP whose dad worked at a petrol (gas) station! The Hispanic term Anglo is far better and more accurate as a description of white people who are not Spanish in origin.--jeanne (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a California-born descendant of a Dust-bowl refugee (my maternal grandfather, also a Native American of Cherokee/Osage descent from Oklahoma) and a father born-and-raised in France, therefore I'm just white/European with an American Indian (therefore, non-white/Caucasoid) background. This is like I can be treated white by many, but not by all of American society, be it the US government, state public services and census officials (should I tell them by marking the race/ethnicity and ancestral boxes on the next census forms?). In California, the "okies" sure had adapted to their new homes, but managed to preserve some of their socio-cultural traits inherited from their grandparents or ancestry from the Southern or Midwestern states, and the majority of "okies" like myself are in the lower-middle class strata being viewed "lesser" from the upper-income elite. And then comes the fact many "okies" have American Indian, African and Hispanic descent to have dealt with socioeconomic problems affecting racial minorities in the US, despite California should be a "color-blind/racially diverse/tolerant" state not to be discriminatory like the Jim-crow era Deep South, including Oklahoma and Texas has to even my own grandfather because his mother was full-blood/father half-blood American Indian. The WASPs seem to wanna preserve their exclusiveness, but they are lenient on a certain few who fit their idea of a businessman, and in many cases in the world of big business: "when money walks, bull-crap talks", anyone can be a WASP kinda like to join a private country club. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

link 3 in notes
link 3 in talk ...connects to a chat page .. which is not allowed ..as far as I know on wikipedia. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

aren't the English Anglo-Saxon?
This section doesn't make sense.

"Therefore, the term WASP is sometimes applied to individuals who are technically non-Anglo-Saxons, including people with:


 * Dutch descent, such as the Vanderbilt and Roosevelt families
 * German descent, such as the Rockefeller, Heinz, Astor families.[5]
 * French descent, such as the Du Pont family.
 * Scottish descent, such as the Carnegie and Getty families.
 * Swiss descent, such as the Buckley family.
 * Scots-Irish descent, such as the Mellon family.
 * Welsh descent, such as the Morgan family.
 * English descent such as the Hearst and Ford families.
 * Scandinavian descent such as the Hilton family."

Aren't the English Anglo-Saxon? What about the Scots and Welsh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The English have primarily paternal Anglo-Saxon DNA, however most of their maternal DNA is Celtic like the Welsh and Scots. There is also Norman paternal as well as maternal DNA among the English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the English are not Anglo-Saxon, then what named (other than as a virtual genotype) ethnic group, centrally is? Lycurgus (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said the English weren't Anglo-Saxon. I pointed out that their maternal DNA was mainly Celtic. Their paternal DNA is overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon and Danish. The Norman DNA which is found primarily among those descended from the old aristocracy is both paternal and maternal; however, I have discovered that many of the medieval Anglo-Norman families, due to extensive intermarriage among themselves, had maternal DNA going back to Aoife of Leinster who was Irish. If one checks the ancestry of the Boleyn family, of which Queen consort Anne Boleyn was the most famous member, one discovers that the paternal line is Anglo-Saxon, but the direct maternal line (which was the more aristocratic) is French, from Brittany to be precise.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by this. When you say that "their paternal DNA is overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon...", what do you mean exactly by Anglo-Saxon DNA? Has somebody actually dug up the remains of some Anglo-Saxons from the pre-Norman period and taken DNA samples? If not, I can't see how we can talk about Anglo-Saxon DNA in any meaningful way. Likewise, has someone actually located the remains of Aoife of Leinster and taken a DNA sample? If not, how can anyone claim that their maternal DNA goes back to her? Do you have any citations for any of this, please? Bluewave (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The genealogy of the Anglo-Norman nobility is well documented; thus it wasn't difficult tracing mtDNA back to Aoife of Leinster, who was obviously Irish. People with Y- chromosome Anglo-Saxon or Danish DNA would have markers showing that their haplogroups were compatible with those of north Germans. DNA testing is more precise than using conventional blood groups as ancestral pointers, because only one, namely group B actually pinpoints to a central or western Asian genetic heritage. I am not an expert on genetics, however, so why not read some of the articles at Wikipedia on the genetic history of the British Isles as they could explain this better than me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] I think this is misleading on several points:
 * Mitochondrial DNA is only passed through the maternal line. For anyone to claim to have mitochondrial DNA that goes back to Aoife of Leinster, they would have to prove a documented female-only line (ie mother's mother's mother etc) right back to Aoife. Whilst there are certainly families around today who can trace some sort of genealogy back to that period, I would be surprised if anyone could produce a direct maternal line. Even if you take the present British royal family (for whom genealogy is quite important, as it is their only real qualification for the job), the Queen's maternal line has not yet been traced back much further than the eighteenth century. (I remember reading a research paper on the subject in "The Genealogist" magazine about 6 of 7 years ago and could probably dig out the reference.)
 * The Wikipedia article on the Genetic history of the British Isles doesn't really support the idea that there is such a thing as "Anglo-Saxon DNA". In fact it says that "The research cannot distinguish between Danish (the presumed source of Danish-Viking settlers to East and Northern England), North German (Schleswig-Holstein, modern era) and Frisian (Anglo-Saxon) Y chromosomes."
 * The same Wikipedia article states that "Stephen Oppenheimer has recently argued that neither Anglo-Saxons nor Celts may have had much impact on the genetics of the inhabitants of the British Isles, and that British ancestry can mostly be traced back to ancient peoples similar to the modern-day Basques instead." It also quotes "By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory …"

All-in-all, I can't see how the Genetic history of the British Isles supports the assertion that the English are primarily of Anglo-Saxon origin, or even that their paternal DNA is primarily Anglo-Saxon. Bluewave (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anglo-saxonics in the term represents the all germanic peoples..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.0.185 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppenhiemer's theory is just one theory. I agree with Jeanne, we English are most certainly paternally Saxon at least.--English Bobby (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the term "Anglo-Saxon" as used here means "100% descended from the Angle and Saxon tribesmen who invaded England after the fall of the Roman Empire." It means, I should think, "English, lowland Scottish, and Anglo-Irish," or something similar. It has nothing to do with the Angles and Saxons. john k (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Irish
As an ethnic background, the Irish have been specifically excluded from being described as WASPs. Additionally the Kennedy family is certainly not Protestant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack9293 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is not entirely accurate. In the U.S. and Canada, Protestants of Irish descent are considered WASPS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WASP according to Baltzell
In Google books, The Protestant establishment: aristocracy & caste in America By Edward Digby Baltzell page 74 has the statement:...WASP establishment in Philadelphia was composed of families whose ancestors included Spanish, Portuguese, German and Polish Jews; Irish French and Italian Catholics; as well as Protestants from all these nations and dominated by those from the British Isles. Now clearly Baltzell, who popularized the term WASP, did not adhere to the definition in the article. If I can locate a copy of the book, I'll add what he meant by WASP; but if I can't someone who can should make this addition to the article. Nitpyck (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the article covers Baltzell's point regarding Philadelphia: Although "Anglo-Saxon" generally refers to those of English descent, people descended from elsewhere in western and northern Europe are often included. Rjensen (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well adding: Apparently Jews and Catholics are considered Protestants and all Europeans are Anglo-Saxons in Baltzell's formulation of WASP. would seem to be more accurate. Without the book in hand to see if he actually gives a formal definition and the context of the WASP establishment was composed of Jews, Catholics, and Protestants statement, I can't tell what he meant and if it differs widely from the WP definition. I will get a copy of Digby's book within the next couple of weeks. Nitpyck (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall what he said was that people of Catholic or Jewish ancestry whose parents converted to Protestantism (and were upper class) could be part of the WASP group in Philadelphia. Rjensen (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Money...is the objective of WASP membership, since the British had a history of acquiring immigrants from other countries and assimilating them to become English, British or "Anglo-Saxon" over generations of time lived in the UK. The openness of American society, which is capitalist, to anyone born of lower- or middle-class birth, whom enter the world of business has made it their way to the upper-income strata. But the new member of the WASP elite adapted a new culture, learned another language and at times, converts to a religion among the WASPs (a special case goes to Jewish persons became Protestant Christians) is an example of becoming integrated within a group circle of associates. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Finally Read the book. E. Digby Baltzell doesn't clearly define WASP but he often used 'old-stock Protestants' as a synonym, and by implication only includes the elite members of this group. So any Protestant European colonial could be, but was not necessarily, a WASP. Presidents Roosevelt (Dutch), Eisenhower (German), Lincoln (English), and Jackson (Irish) were WASP. But Abraham Lincoln's father was not a WASP and his son was one. Adding this info IMO doesn't change anything in the article. Nitpyck (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Teddy Roosevelt clearly said he was NOT a WASP (see his letters to Finley Peter Dunne). Abe was descended from New England Yankees from Hingham Mass. Rjensen (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2010


 * Term WASP did not exist before 1954, Teddy died in 1919, so unless those letters come from the beyond the grave he did not say he was not a WASP.

Digby made it clear that as he understood the term you did not have to be descended from English stock or from Protestant stock to become a WASP and not all descendants of English colonists met his definition of WASP. So Abe's son (private school, Ivy college, ran Pullman company) yes; Abe's father (poor dirt farmer) no. Nitpyck (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Teddy was a white Protestant of the upper class but he said he was not "Anglo-Saxon," which was the usual terminology before the WASP term came into use.Rjensen (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes- you did not have to be Anglo-Saxon (English) to be accepted into the 500 or its equivalent power elite, that is one of the confusing parts of the term WASP. But I think article clearly shows the difference. I assume WASP was chosen because it is a catchy acronym and not because it was fully accurate (I have found no reliable source for this). Nitpyck (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon
"Anglo Saxon" from 1800 onward is a language term; it meant English language--it refers to the language now called Old English--& that did not include Celtic or Welsh. The OED says " In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the term Anglo-Saxon..was the commonest name for the language; but..it has gradually been replaced in the last hundred years by the more scientific term Old English." Rjensen (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerns with Tone and citations
Having stumbled upon this page, I was quite concerned with the general tone of the article as it pertains to a quasi-ethnic group. I understand that the majority of sources used for the article are sociologists rather than historians, but that is not a relevant excuse for presenting conjecture in the form of encyclopedic facts. A few examples of my objection taken from the Culture section:
 * The WASP elite dominated much of politics and the economy, as well as the high culture, well into the 20th century.
 * Here we have a clear situation where we are presenting the interpretation of one (or many) sociologist as historic record. While it is possible that this is indeed true, we have already defined the term as sociological in its origins, and it is misleading to allow Anthony Smith or anyone else to transpose his theory into a history. The proper wording for these statements would be along the lines of In defining the of the WASPS throughout the 20th Century, Athony Smith argues that they were a dominant force throughout the period..


 * WASP leisure included upscale activities such as foreign travel, equestrianism, and yachting — expensive pursuits that need both leisure time and affluence to pursue, and which sociologists such as Thorstein Veblen (The Theory of the Leisure Class) have pointed to as a marker of social standing.[19][better source needed]
 * This is a better effort at achieving encyclopedic format, but the same problem remains. The first half of the sentence presents an opinion about a group of people as though it were fact, and the sentence structure then tries to justify it by citing an opinion by Thorstein Veblen works are hardly indicative of a consensus among historians (or even sociologists).

In summary, my concern is that many parts of this article are nothing more than a conglomeration of position papers. It is great to have a myriad of ideas on the subject, but we cannot allow them to take a tone of authority equal to historical records. They are interpretations of history and must be presented as such. Mrathel (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

[Untitled]
but in adiffrent way to fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.53.146 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The term Hispanic needs clarification.
What Hispanic definition is this? The USA definition of Hispanic? If it's the USA definition then Hispanics can be WASP by definition. Hispanic is simply a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. By saying Hispanics can't be WASP using the USA definition would be contradictory. Since there are Scottish, Welsh and English descendants in South America, i.e., Alexander Watson Hutton, the famous Brown family of Argentina, etc. Secret killer (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There is something very strange about this entire article. First of all, Anglo-Saxon is not merely a linguistic term, as the article alleges. In fact, it is principally an ethnic term for those whose oral and literary histories trace their origins either in truth or by myth to the Germanic invaders of England in the sixth century AD. Throughout history the idea of WASP or the group of people to which it refers did not include the Welsh or Irish. In fact, in a very real sense, these groups were strictly prohibited from being considered WASPs even up until twenty, thirty years ago. Anglo-Saxon as a term explicitly connoted not a British origin but a German one. That is what the term Anglo-Saxon means, very specifically. It has always been meant to distinguish the English and in certain cases when allowed, the Scottish, from the rest of the British Isles. In America, the term is used quite loosely sometimes to include Germans and the Dutch and sometimes other nordic groups. It eventually began to include the Welsh and the Irish, but these were actually the last members. The protestants from Germany and from the Netherlands and from northern France and throughout Europe really were absorbed into the WASP mainstream well before the Irish. Deep divisions between Catholics and Protestants remained well into the 20th century. I just think the article is plainly inaccurate and even bordering on revisionistic. The Welsh and Irish were never and often still are not conflated with WASPs, whereas you might be able to conflate certain continental whites with WASPs if they were protestants and held high cultural standing and sufficient education. To include the Irish in the category of WASP and to exclude these groups, particularly the well-received and well assimilated Dutch and Germans, is to in my view reveal a deep misunderstanding about history and the self identification of ethnic groups. Have you no knowledge of the deep cultural wars that went on in the middle of the 19th century in America over these matters? It was only through the process of assimilation, particularly at the height of both world wars, that Germans in America began to assimilate rapidly and became indistinguishable from WASPs, changing their names to English sounding ones, for instance Brun became Brown, Jensen became Johnson etc. and their culture changed to conform to American ideals. But this was only the case because they were allowed to. The Irish often were not. The Welsh often were not. This article has somehow managed to label WASPs Celts, while WASPs by their very name are obviously not Celts, that is in the eyes of anyone except those who don't know what they're talking about in the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.94.134 (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the very article is fundamentally misleading
There is something very strange about this entire article. First of all, Anglo-Saxon is not merely a linguistic term, as the article alleges. In fact, it is principally an ethnic term for those whose oral and literary histories trace their origins either in truth or by myth to the Germanic invaders of England in the sixth century AD. Throughout history the idea of WASP or the group of people to which it refers did not include the Welsh or Irish. In fact, in a very real sense, these groups were strictly prohibited from being considered WASPs even up until twenty, thirty years ago. Anglo-Saxon as a term explicitly connoted not a British origin but a German one. That is what the term Anglo-Saxon means, very specifically. It has always been meant to distinguish the English and in certain cases when allowed, the Scottish, from the rest of the British Isles. In America, the term is used quite loosely sometimes to include Germans and the Dutch and sometimes other nordic groups. It eventually began to include the Welsh and the Irish, but these were actually the last members. The protestants from Germany and from the Netherlands and from northern France and throughout Europe really were absorbed into the WASP mainstream well before the Irish. Deep divisions between Catholics and Protestants remained well into the 20th century. I just think the article is plainly inaccurate and even bordering on revisionistic. The Welsh and Irish were never and often still are not conflated with WASPs, whereas you might be able to conflate certain continental whites with WASPs if they were protestants and held high cultural standing and sufficient education. To include the Irish in the category of WASP and to exclude these groups, particularly the well-received and well assimilated Dutch and Germans, is to in my view reveal a deep misunderstanding about history and the self identification of ethnic groups. Have you no knowledge of the deep cultural wars that went on in the middle of the 19th century in America over these matters? It was only through the process of assimilation, particularly at the height of both world wars, that Germans in America began to assimilate rapidly and became indistinguishable from WASPs, changing their names to English sounding ones, for instance Brun became Brown, Jensen became Johnson etc. and their culture changed to conform to American ideals. But this was only the case because they were allowed to. The Irish often were not. The Welsh often were not. This article has somehow managed to label WASPs Celts, while WASPs by their very name are obviously not Celts, that is in the eyes of anyone except those who don't know what they're talking about in the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.94.134 (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you agree with the scientific basis behind the term "WASP", it still is a term commonly used both accurately and inaccurately to describe a very real culture in the United States.--Drdak (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad definition
One editor insists on inserting this definition, which is incorrect, misleading, and not based on any RS: As the name entails members of this group are said to be from a middle- or upper-class white, English or British ("Anglo-Saxon"), and Protestant Christian background with roots in the colonial period. 1) names don't entail; 2) it's not exactly a group (it's an epithet); 3) "are said to be" is bad encyclopedia language; 4) "from a middle-class" is totally false (upper only); 5) "English or British" is redundant (just British will do); 6) "Protestant Christian" is redundant and misleading for the term "Protestant" means not-Catholic and not-Jewish; 7) "roots in the colonial period" is false (mixing it up with "Yankee"). Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's from the Oxford English Dictionary, and I'd think they'd know. I don't have it at hand now, I'll check it when I get back to school, but the definition is something very close to: members of the white Protestant middle and upper classes descended from the early British settlers of the United States. So "middle- or upper-class" is entirely accurate, as is the claim of decent from the colonial period. The other edits are merely style errors, but the older intro had its own, worse problems with style, especially in the introductory sentence.--Cúchullain t/ c  22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, a one sentence definition giving the British usage will not do the job for an American word. As I tried to show, it's missing the key elements that make it important in an American political, social and cultural context. The word has been analyzed in depth from numerous RS, all cited. A key element for example is the theme of a power elite that is closed to Catholcs and Jews and Blacks--but is open to outher North Europeans. Other dictionaries do a better job: Collins: "considered the most dominant, privileged, and influential in American society"; Am Heritage: " member of what many consider to be the most privileged and influential group in American society"; ENCARTA: " viewed as belonging to the dominant and most powerful level of society (informal insult)"; '"Websters New World: "A white, usu. Protestant member of the American upper social class." Webster's 3rd'': "especially  : a member of the dominant and most privileged class of people in the United States" Rjensen (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The OED is the premier English dictionary. It does not reflect only British usage, and it doesn't really disagree with those other dictionaries. As you can plainly see, I didn't remove the line about the Wasps' supposed power and privilege; I have no idea why you thought I did. What I did was rewrite the mangled introductory line, remove the uncited speculation about the "author"s' distaste for Wasp power, and remove the unneeded discussion of the term "Anglo-Saxon". I added some clarifying information - including links, which were absent before - from a completely reliable source. Hopefully the new version is more suitable to you.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We do not automatically defer to any one dictionary -- they all have their weaknesses. In this case, the very brief definition in OED  is much shorter and less complete than those of other major dictionaries, and much thinner than the specialized dictionaries and usage books that have been cited. for example, the OED does not explain that the reference is primarily to political and social power, as supposedly held by the specified group.Rjensen (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The OED is not nearly as deficient as you make it out to be, and the definition isn't notably different than what appears in the other sources. The consistent characteristics attributed to Wasps throughout are the white and Protestant background and the notion of their roots with the group that supposedly established the country. The privilege and power is associated; the notion that it is a "closed" group isn't even really true, since the article applies the term to any white Protestant.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The one-line definition in OED in this case is weaker than its rivals. But in any case the Wikipedia article is based on a MUCH larger base of scholarly studies than the short definitions you get in a dictionary. The "closed" part means that no one without the right ethnic background can get in no matter how rich they may be (no blacks, Jews, Asians etc). I recommend people look at the many footnotes, articles and books that have been used to develop the Wiki article. Rjensen (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as I just explained, I wasn't looking at only the OED definition when I made my last edit, and I didn't even cite it, as you seem to have such a problem with it. I fail to see how "closed group of high status white Americans of British descent with a Protestant background who supposedly wield disporportionate financial and social power" is an improvement over what was there, though I at least fixed your spelling and citation errors.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Contemporary meaning for Anglo-Saxon as used in WASP. According to both the Columbia Encyclopedia, and the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of modern-day people who are called Anglo-Saxon includes the peoples of the British Isles and their descendants throughout the world. I don't have these sources in front of me, but the Columbia Encyclopedia simply says "any of the modern peoples of the British Isles." The Oxford Dictionary is as specific as to say "English in its wider or ethnological sense, in order to avoid the modern distinction between 'English' and 'Scottish.'" It then goes on to explicitly include people of English, Scottish and Irish birth or descent. Also, in both Canada and the U.S., a Protestant of Irish ancestry can be considered a WASP. Moreover, WASP is frequently used to denote any high-status person of northwestern European descent, and quite obviously, the entire British Isles are part of northwestern Europe, so how can you preclude the British Isles as part of the definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.71.178 (talk • contribs)
 * Regardless of what the Columbia Encyclopedia says, the Irish are not Anglo-Saxons, they Celtic.

Another thought: many definitions of both WASP and Anglo-Saxon include Americans of colonial descent. As you may know, the American colonial population contained a very large proportion of people of British Isles descent OTHER than the English, like Welsh, Irish and Scottish. So any of their descendants today who are Protestant, would, by definition, be "WASPs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.71.178 (talk • contribs)


 * Clearly, others do not feel that your change is necessary. "British" is quite sufficient here, "British Isles" isn't any better, in that Wasps can be of other Northern European descent as well. Please stop edit warring.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to say, "please stop edit warring." Who is to say that I am "edit warring" and you are not? In your response above, you simply say your version is better, without addressing any of my comments or points with any specificity. To say "'British' is quite sufficient here, 'British Isles' isn't any better," is not an argument; you're just saying "I'm right, and let's do it my way." So, as far as I'm concerned, you are the one who is edit warring! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.71.178 (talk • contribs)
 * You've been reverted by four different editors. That is usually a good sign that others aren't agreeing with your changes. I've explained why, as have others in their edit summaries.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

anglo-saxon cultural
in the context of the term WASP, anglo-saxon indicates culture, not actual descent. it really isn't a technical term. the term developed based on old stereotypes and trends, and is basically a term for New England aristocrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.155.53 (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's it. And, being a WASP myself, I suspect that most of us would not want to endure the earlier cultural elements that we think fondly about (endless sermons and tree felling!) on a daily basis.86.42.213.153 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The term applies to a lot of Southern aristocracy as well. This article is about the culture, it does not imply that every WASP does every one of these things.--Drdak (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Welsh and Scots are not Anglo-Saxon.
In fact most Scots, and Scots-Irish, despite being protestant were treated with the same degree of racism that the Irish were treated with. They came up against nativist forces in the 18th and 19th centuries, especially during the Highland Clearances.

The Gaelic language was made illegal to teach in the early 20th century, wiping out Gaelic-English Polyglots in Cumberland County, NC. This fact is accepted, undisputed, and generally ignored in these discussions. I'm assuming that since "British Descent" is used in the article, that the original editor conflated the three groups.

If no one has any objections, I'll remove the Scottish and Welsh Americans tags from the article. Since I'm sure this page isn't checked much, I'll wait a bit before acting. Ollie Garkey (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of white, protestant English aren't Anglo-Saxon (genetically) either. Bluewave (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * genetics has nothing to do with it, nor does conflict inside britain. It's an American term referring to a grou INSIDE the US. Specifically WASP refers to a closed CULTURAL group in the US, which historically included (Protestant) Irish, Scots and Welsh if they spoke English and belonged to the upper/upper middle class. Rjensen (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

plus Irish and Scottish and Welsh are more closer related to each other and are all descended from Celts while English are more Anglo-Saxon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.7.1 (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin Van Buren
The intro states that all but US presidents except Obama and Kennedy could be considered Anglo-Saxon. I would add that Martin Van Buren certainly was not Anglo-Saxon; he was of Dutch ancestry, and spoke English as a second language after Dutch. For that matter, the Roosevelts were also of Dutch stock. Drummerdg (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a White Anglo-Saxon Catholic?
Because I am one. 99.141.72.211 (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW: Before you try to undo this comment again, understand that this is an attempt to improve the article for fostering discussions. Also it is not wrong to post information for the purpose of discussion.

99.141.72.211 (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What are you suggesting be changed about the article? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 07:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How about a mention that there are such things as White Anglo-Saxon Catholics. If you do a simple Google Search you will find many references to such. 99.141.72.211 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the most famous Catholic WASP is Sen John Forbes Kerry--scion of the old Yankee Forbes family. Rjensen (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * William F Buckley Jr, Newt Gingrich, Bob Hope, Gregory Peck, Mel Gibson and Gary Cooper are all examples of WASCs btw. There are many others but the list is too long. 99.141.72.211 (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Scots-Irish origin
Scottish, okay. Irish? Really? Not to offend anyone, but despite the article sourced for this claim, anyone familiar with Irish immigration in American History knows that Irish-Americans are far from WASPs. If anything, they're at the other end of the spectrum.

You don't know what Scotch Irish is, do you? 71.179.186.233 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

THE ORIGINS OF THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES ANGLO SAXON
THESE ORIGINS ARE QUITE ASTONISHING ACCORDING TO RECENT GENETIC STUDIES. THEY MAY HAVE TO CHANGE THE TERM TO HISPANIC IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SEE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQHX_MwhN80

jOHN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.202.64 (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Intro Comments
What does citation 1 say? The reason I ask is because in the introduction, the statement "The group supposedly wields disproportionate financial and social power." sounds awkward to me. At first it didn't, but further down in the intro the statement "While WASP power in the United States was unchallenged throughout the 19th century and the early 20th century ..." appears. Can we come up with a better way to word one or both statements? The first statement says supposedly, the second statement says the above power went unchallenged. Read together, they don't seem to fit. Later in the article the statement "The original WASP establishment created and dominated the social structure of the United States and its significant institutions when the country's social structure took shape ..." also appears and again, it sounds awkward to me and seems to violate NPOV. There's no citation, so I can't really suggest that it read 'According to ...' at the moment, but that would be more appropriate. I know it may seem like nit picking, but as a Jew, I know if the shoe were on the other foot I'd be a bit irritated. Maybe I'm wrong, but I figured I'd bring it up. 65.0.140.105 (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * anon makes some good points. The problem is that the term came into use about 1960, at which time Catholics and Jews were entering elite status and the old WASP model was weakening fast. Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (I'm the above anon/IP) It's a bit confusing to me. As well, under 'Culture attributed to WASPs', it states that: "WASPs are still considered prominent at prep schools (expensive private high schools, primarily in the Northeast), Ivy League universities, and prestigious liberal arts colleges, such as the Little Ivies or Seven Sisters." I don't doubt that for one second, but WASPs (if I define them as white Protestants) still have a much larger population than other groups, so it would figure that they'd be more prominent. I'd have to look it up, but cultural/ethnic Jews have what might be considered disproportionate acceptance at many of these (University) schools as well. Not sure about the prep schools. Certainly this was not true back when my grandparents were going to college, but I think it's true now. It fits with what I was saying previously about some of the statements sounding awkward. Again, though, let me say I'm not disputing anything other than the way some of the statements in the article are worded. I think it's a well-written article overall; it's just that a few statements here and there seem either biased (probably unintentionally) or contradict each other. I'm of the opinion that they just need to be worded differently for flow, consistency, and clarity. 65.0.152.37 (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Term
In the quote from Andrew Hacker (ref 6) it seems like he is defining WASP to be Wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestant rather than White A-S P. Surely Anglo-Saxon (defined within this article as originating from England pre-1066) also means white and so having both is tautological. Perhaps WASP has always meant Wealthy A-S P; as I'm sure there are numerous non-wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestants who are definitely not WASPs. Or perhaps I have misunderstood. Whileworth (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was Baltzell who explictly said "white" and his work popularized the term. In the late 19th century "Anglo Saxon" meant the English speaking world (see footnote 31) -- ie Britain and USA (the French still use it that way). Rjensen (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining; you've cleared up my misunderstanding. Whileworth (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Tone
The introduction seems to indicate that the term "WASP" is somehow similar to other racial epithets or used primarily as an insult. This disagrees very strongly with my own experience (as a WASP); the term is commonly used to refer white Americans of primarily English (or British) descent. I even recall Phil Hartman refers to himself and his wife in character as "both WASPs" on Saturday Night Live many years ago, with no pause, rimshot, or laugh. I placed a citation needed tag on the final sentence of the introduction in the hopes that I am simply woefully misinformed, but I think this needs some better investigation and a rewrite. siafu (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Random House Unabridged Dictionary (1998) says the term is "Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive". Merriam Webster Collegiate (2010) says it is "Sometimes Disparaging."  The hostile tone can be seen in an alternative dictionary for the 1960s and 1970s:  "The WASP culture has been the most aggressive, powerful, and arrogant society in the world for the last thousand years, so it is natural that it should receive a certain amount of warranted criticism." [John Bassett McCleary, The hippie dictionary: a cultural encyclopedia (and phraseicon) of the 1960s and 1970s (2004) p. 555] Rjensen (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason the term WASP is an insulting epithet is that all Anglo-Saxons are white, so tossing in the skin colour is racist. Think of YCB (Yellow Chinese Buddhist) or BIH (Brown Indian Hindu), as analogies. In ordinary speech, Anglo-Saxon NEVER refers to Germans or Danes living in those countries, even though the Angles and Saxons in England can trace their ancient roots there. To the English-speaking world outside the British Isles, anyone with roots in the British Isles can be referred to as a WASP, including Irish, Scots and Welsh. In Canada, in recent times, WASP is used as an epithet interchangeably with "cracker", to mean any white anglophone, including non-Protestants and white Canadian anglophones with non-British ancestry. Also, while it may have been true a century ago that WASP referred exclusively to wealthy people, today that has nothing to do with it. A homeless person wouldn't be called a WASP, but any white anglophone with a job might be described that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.129.96 (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WASPs both White and Wealthy...
Hacker (cite #8 in the article) says on p1011 "To their Waspishness should be added the tendency to be located on the Eastern seaboard or around San Francisco, to be prep school and Ivy League educated, and to be possessed of inherited wealth." From this it appears that wealth is a secondary W to White, adding to the cloud of meanings, as found in Times Litt Supp: Mary Beard; Jewish Press.com; Educational Foundations: Diverse Histories, Diverse Perspectives, Grace Huerta, 2007.

There are also plenty of flaky sources like the Urban Dictionary and worse.

I think this is enough to show that W can mean both White and Wealthy, as indeed the article already says, so it should go in the lead also. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * the Hacker quote is not the origin. he only says he is repeating " cocktail party jargon of the sociologist." The term only gained general currency with Baltzell in 1964 who said White. C. Wright Mills used "Anglo Saxon" as did many others, but he did not use any variation of WASP in his Power Elite book (Giore Vidal is simply wrong--he's was never a scholar.). Huerta in a half sentence on the matter does not try to explain WASP (she does not use the abbreviation WASP and does not capitalize Wealthy); ditto Lori Marcus in her half-sentence. All the dictionaries call it "White, Anglo Saxon Protestant" and there are no examples I have seen of "Wealthy Anglo Saxon Protestant" with a capital W. Rjensen (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed you had this conversation back in June with Whileworth, my apologies. We are agreed, I think, that W primarily means White, and that wealthy is secondary (and may reasonably not have a capital letter). However the other W does occur (Urban Dict. already mentioned): Gray Brechin, Antipode, July 1996 and many dodgy sources. Deserves a mention somewhere, if only to stop the rest of us bothering you with it every few months! My apologies again Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * let me thank Chiswick for tracking down the only capital W-Wealthy Wasp reference I have seen. However the author Brechin clearly suggests he is coining a variation and is not reporting actual usage (he says: "The conventional White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) acronym is, of course, redundant. Wealth, even more than color, indicates worth, particularly as it becomes hereditary, and those ASPs lacking this gene frequently fell into the category of "white trash." ....nearly all the leaders of the American eugenics movement were of Scottish descent, further suggesting the Calvinist doctrine of the elect."). Furthermore Brechin is too careless: he says "New York's Wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite...the Morgans, Fricks, Dodges, Vanderbilts, Roosevelts, and Harrimans." However Frick was Pennsylvania Dutch from a poor family; the Vanderbilts and Roosevelts were Dutch, not Anglo-Saxons.  For that matter "Scottish descent" is not Anglo-Saxon either. The Urban Dictionary gets WASP right = "white anglo-saxon protestant. this usually refers to affluent people in the new england area, but also whites of "old money" in other areas throughout the country." Rjensen (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmm, I'm sure you're right academically, there's no doubt that the usage is a bit rough around the edges. What I feel the article should say is simply that attached to the White is a connotation of wealth, and there is no doubt that WASP did for a while carry that meaning too - in fact, we could say wealth/power/privilege was pretty central to the envy in which WASPs were held, couldn't we? Since we have sources for that footnote, I suggest we just use them somewhere in the article. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the 2nd sentence of the article says: "The term implies the group as wielding disproportionate social and financial power." In my opinion the usage is not about money--the new rich do not count-- but unfair amounts of power based on old family/school ties.  The power then generates $$ but it's not the cash that's central.Rjensen (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Assuming that's all true, it's still the case that wealthy and white do happen both to begin with a W, and folks do happen to associate both words with WASP, as demonstrated (not so much by rare usages of uppercase Wealthy, but by the many cases of the use of "wealthy" either in the W position or nearby). That's the fact that should briefly be noted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To say "Scottish descent" is not Anglo-Saxon either" opens a whole can of worms, & is questionable. Early Anglo-Saxon England ran up to the other side of the estuary from Edinburgh, essentially including all the Scottish Lowlands up to the Firth of Forth. Some Scots and English people like to think all Scots are "Celts" but that's a very dubious proposition. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Standard definition
Since the term was introduced in the 1950s it has always referred to a small elite, not to the tens of millions of english et ancestry. See text at fn 9: "They are 'WASPs'—in the cocktail party jargon of the sociologists. That is, they are wealthy, they are Anglo-Saxon in origin, and they are Protestants (and disproportionately Episcopalian). To their Waspishness should be added the tendency to be located on the eastern seaboard or around San Francisco, to be prep school and Ivy League educated, and to be possessed of inherited wealth." Rjensen (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I still don't see a mention of 'a small group'. And what do you mean by a small group? America is a democracy, as I know, and there is/was no monarchic government in the United States and what small group are you talking about?
 * WASP is used to refer to the English and now also other Germanic people in the United States who have been the dominant cultural group since the country's creation.
 * Here are some quotes to prove my point:

Race and Ethnic Relations: American and Global Perspectives, Martin Marger, 2008

Foundations of Nursing: Caring for the Whole Person - Page 205 -- Ե րևանցի talk  21:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the definition should not be restricted to a small group, though when used as a stereotype it very often is. It tends to be used in the context of upper class/wealthy social groups, where the numbers are by nature relatively small. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * small = rich people who go to fancy schools like St Paul's and Yale. It is supposedly a powerful group that shapes/ controls key elements of society/economy and values. On the other hand "anglo saxon" was used much more widely to include practically all English-speaking people of European descent. Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * small = rich people who go to fancy schools like St Paul's and Yale I understand the concept of small, but I still don't understand how WASP is connected with those fancy schools. I don't think an average American of English Protestant or German Lutheran heritage who didn't go to the Ivy league schools was/is not part of the WASP group. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant is not a social status, but an ethno-religious and linguistic group that included the dominant English-speaking Northern European ancestries, whether rich or poor. They formed the "Anglo-Saxon" America to which newcomers assimilate. Of course, the rich WASP, obviously, had the most power, but that doesn't mean that the uneducated WASP didn't influence the country's "Anglo-Saxonism". -- Ե րևանցի talk  00:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dictionaries clarify the meaning: 1) "an upper- or middle-class American white Protestant, considered to be a member of the most powerful group in society." [From Oxford Dictionaries]; 2) "an American of Northern European and especially British ancestry and of Protestant background; especially : a member of the dominant and the most privileged class of people in the United States." [ From Merriam-Webster Dictionary]; 3) "A white, usually Protestant member of the American upper social class." [from The Free Dictionary]; 4) "this usually refers to affluent people in the new england area, but also whites of "old money" in other areas through." from ''Urban Dictionary] Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be better off just not bothering with a reference to Urban Dictionary. siafu (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Catholics do not have any power in the USA
Catholics do not have any power in the USA. Irish people who are catholic may have power but they are genetically the same as the WASPs since the WASPs are ethnically celtic and it is not because they are catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.135.235 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)