Encyclopedia > Talk:White trash
Talk:White trash
I'm afraid that the new, improved version strikes me as an overblown, long-winded, largely irrelevant (to the subject) exercise in politically correct WASP-bashing victimology. -HWR
I utterly disagree. In fact, I'm impressed by your ability to be "overblown, long-winded, [and] largely irrelevant" in only one sentence. What an ugly abuse of the English language: "politically correct WASP-bashing victimology". Try using something other than buzzwords some time if you actually want to make a point. --TheCunctator
Oh, I think you got my point. But perhaps not. Obviously the author is so committed to the "whiteness is privilege" mantra that he cannot see the absurdity of claiming that "white trash" are "non-white". -HWR
I'm fine with someone disagreeing with what has been put forward so far, but what is the alternative to it? It's not like "victimology" (a great word, by the way, like Delillo's "Hitler Studies") doesn't come from somewhere. That is, people really were victimized by upper class people who specifically identified themselves as White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. They explicitly excluded anyone who wasn't that. And they implicitly believed that to be WASP was to be chosen by god. That was as true for the puritans as it was for Henry Ford.
But you are right, HWR. There isn't an easy answer, even if WASP bashing seems like it should be so true. Most abolitionists were WASPS. And even if Henry Ford was a fascist and desperately afriad of all of the "colored" people of the world, be they black or Italian or irish or german, his son and grandson established some of the most progressive and powerful charities in the western world.
So, I say again, what is your alternative? And more generally, how should we deal with these entries that are so clearly not about fact in the sense that we normally imagine in an encyclopedia. 100 years ago, they would have pretended or not been aware that a controversy even existed. I can't count the number of antique encyclopedias I have read which talk of the "five races of man" --the black, the white, the yellow, the red and the brown-- with a complete sense of authority and "factuality". I mean, how do we construct useful, factual entries about important concepts which are, by their very existence, controversial and opinionated? I personally reject the quasi-journalistic minimalist approach of saying only what is absolute fact as being both too dictionary like and generally useless. Rather than dealing with a problem, I feel that such an approach just avoids it. And avoiding these issues, letting them fester, is its own kind of action and therefore judgement. By saying noth we are expressing an opinion and affecting the debate.
But what should we do? --trimalchio
Debate that was in this space has been moved to racism/racial and ethnic slurs
My biggest beef with the article right now is that it refers to a previous Wikipedia article as such, which is not likely to be regarded as having much significance to anyone but Wikipedians. The same point can be made by referring to a "stereotypical" account of white trash, or something like that.
I think it would be great if we could get that Berkeley dissertation writer, or someone similar, to comment on the article now. --LMS
- Change made... though the original entry is preserved (and could use some cleaning up I guess) it is contextualized as a common definition. I have tried to remove any other Meta-Wikipedia commentary from the article. Please point out any more errors if you see them. My writing style can tend toward the stylized, and that is problematic for an encyclopedia article. Thanks, Larry. --trimalchio
Trimalchio, would you be willing to move general discussion that's in this entry to a more general page, such as Racial and ethnic slurs[?] or Racial epithet or something? A lot of the discussion in the entry (which is great) is not specific to the history of "white trash" but is a more general discussion of the nature of ethnic slurs. I'm hesitant to do it myself because I'm not sure what the entry should be called. --TheCunctator
Moved it. Not sure if it would be better in Wikipedia commentary, but racism is where it is at right now. Good idea. Thanks. --trimalchio
I'm not sure that any of the arguments I've seen here are all that valid. First, I've never seen the term white trash used in a "white, but not WASP" way. That said, I do believe that many of the original recipients of the title tended to be of Irish and Scots-Irish descent, and were mostly day laborers on farms or later, in the mines. More recent usage has much less to do with race or economics, however, than with a certain type of behavior. That behavior is not synonymous with Redneck behavior -- the folks on King of the Hill are definitely rednecks, but not white trash. Where I come from (Washington by way of CA and GA), you're considered trash if you don't keep up your home (rented or owned), if your animals are better off than your kids, if you have any motor vehicles parked in the front yard -- especially if they are in parts, but not if they are being actively repaired, if you don't dispose of your empties properly (that is, if you throw them in the bushes or the back of the truck), and if you don't keep yourself up properly. It also might include types of favored dress and behaving in public as if you are in private. It often includes a high level of general ignorance, but I have known very well educated people who acted like "trash." For foodservers, there is a special category -- people who use eating in a restaurant to run the servers ragged, jack up a high bill, and don't tip. These people usually order filet mignon butterflied and cooked extra well. Too much makeup and hickies are often considered a sign of trashiness...so...I guess i'm trying to say that this is just way too subjective a subject for a NPOV JHK
Yeah, the new entry is overblown. Reads a lot like someone who has ever actually met any white trash. Or at least never drank a case or two of Texas Pride with any white trash. I might change it later. Too busy right now. Oh yeah, since cunctator doesn't like hyperbolic prose, here it is in plain english: the new entry sucks.
That's useful commentary. --TheCunctator
I'm trying some bridge building here. I have placed on the entry page an abstract and a specific version of the definition. I have also placed a concrete historical beginning for the term (from the OED) I have moved the contextual article off page for people to review and improve. I personally believe it to be essentially factual (though some points might be moved one way or the other) but I recognize that contextual analysis cannot by definition have an empirical basis, and so therefore may not be capable of becoming fully NPOVd. So, people who are all for the Common Definition should improve that part of the article. People who are for the abstract definition (the Racial Slur abstraction) should work on that. Historical facts can be reported at the bottom, and the contextual analysis can be improved off page. Perhaps for any of these entries (religion, folklore, racism) we should consider creating a subpage for analytical context. On the one hand, such context CANNOT be empirically proven (at least in my opinion) but on the other hand it is essential to any synthetic understanding of the whole meaning and history of a concept that is cultural and therefore ephemeral. I think what we are seeing here is the limitation of the encyclopedia as form. It was created by people who believed that only one, complete statement was necessary to pin down the knowledge of Man. But the very idea of doing that for non-empirical knowledge is prejudicial. All kinds of biases are inherent in that approach. Any single statement about concepts such as these, which are by definition multiply interpreted and subjective, would be essentially biased. I don't see how bias is avoidable, frankly (I know there are ideas about reporting the nature of the debate and all... but even that has biases...)... Anyway, here is my olive branch. --trimalchio
- Very good points. I think the whole issue boils down to a simple definition of white trash: "I know it when I see it". Obviously, this won't hold water outside a church social. Perhaps a good compromise would be to briefly explain the difficulty at the beginning of the article, then provide "high brow" (academic) and "low brow" (colloquial) definitions immediately. The academic definition will need to be heavily wikified to allow non-academic sociologists, anthropologists, whatever some insight into the material, and will need to explain the unavoidable bias in the material. The common definition can be condensed from the existing work. Jimbo nails it pretty good on the Old Talk page. The current page is heading this direction, but not there yet. The previously material (that sucked :) should certainly be kept, somewhere else.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to say this, but White trash/context is (1) very poorly named, and (2) not neutral point of view at all--it reads like an essay (which it might very well be--someone's college essay or a column). That said, it seems to me it makes a lot of important legitimate points that need to be made. I also don't understand why it isn't part of the main article (except that it was an easily-chunkable part that someone didn't want to deal with, which I can totally relate to). --LMS
- I am working on integrating White trash/context into the main page. There's good here, but it won't be easy.
- Yep. Lots of chaff to winnow.
It's interesting to see how this article has been developing. I am not sure the anonymous reviser's version is that much better than the one he or she started with. I wish I could work on it more, but I did want to comment on one thing:
- The term gained wide popularity during the nineteenth and early twentieth century because of the much narrower (compared to modern late twentieth century) definition of "whiteness". During the early years of the Republic, a white person could more accurately be defined as a white land holder, usually of Anglo-Saxon heritage and always protestant. Because of this narrow definition whiteness, a sizeable portion of the country was, in some sense, considered non-white.
- It is incredible. I left it as a possible future example of academic study of white trash, but it seems kind of ridiculuous to me. No one seems to have stepped in to pick up the slack. Now I will be interested in seeing what Larry comes up with.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA97/price/biblio.htm
A good bibliography on the subject, and also an interesting introductory site on the issue.
And John Ibson's WILL THE WORLD BREAK YOUR HEART is a good book exploring the nineteenth century assimilation of Irish immigrants into white america. Also, Irish-Americans and Anglo-American Relations, 1880-1888 by Joe O'Grady explores the complexities of "whiteness" in the 19th century. Here also is the OED on the linguistic history of "whiteness" (attached below):
Note 1726 where Portuguese are at first identified as white, but then that identification is qualified somewhat. These people are "caucasian" but they are only considered white by virtue of the fact that there wren't any "whiter" people there.
Also note 1896 where "poor whites" are "explained" by being descended from Dutch and French immigrants, in effect distinguishing them as an almost distinct racial class from the well-to-do whites.
Clearly, as written the "context" article steps out a bit and too agressivley approaches its target, but I think that the linguistic and scholarly research opens up a lot of questions. The main point is that a clear understanding of "whiteness" was not monolithic either way, and in fact created many more confusions and abuses then clarifications.
Anyway, it is not fact that "white" was used so narrowly by all people in the nineteenth century. But it is fact that the term was a fluid term, and that it at times was used that narrowly. It frequently depended on the situation of the speaker and the people being observed, as with the case of the Portiguese people being white, but only when compared to Blacks, and only in the sitaution that there were none who were "whiter" at the time of observation.
- 13. A white man; a person of a race distinguished by light complexion: see white a. 4.
- 1671 Charante Let. conc. Customs Tafiletta 10 After him raigned his Brother Muley Elwaly, who was a White, his Mother a Spanish Moor.
- 1726 Adv. Capt. R. Boyle (1744) 155 There may be about 20000 Whites (or I should say Portuguese, for they are none of the whitest,) and about treble that Number of Slaves.
- 1819 W. Faux Jrnl. 28 July in Memorable Days in Amer. (1823) 118 The poor white, or white poor, in Maryland,..scarcely ever work.
- 1826 J. F. Cooper Last of Mohicans xiv, Red-skins and whites.
- 1833 in Maryland Hist. Mag. (1918) XIII. 338 The poor whites at the South are not as well off in their physical condition as the slaves, and hardly as respectable.
- 1879 Sir G. Campbell White & Black 163 A large number of very inferior whites, known as `mean whites', `white trash', and so on.
- 1886 J. A. Froude Oceana xviii. 326 When he dies, the Maori and the poor whites in New Zealand will have lost their truest friend.
- 1888 Churchward Blackbirding 7 Having been longer in Samoa than any live white in the place.
- 1896 R. Wallace Farming Industries of Cape Colony 406 The so-called `poor whites' are chiefly the descendants of French protestant refugees, and, in some districts, of early Dutch settlers.
- 1934 A. N. J. Den Hollander in W. T. Couch Culture in South xx. 414 In discriminating southern speech, it was not used to include all white persons who were poor... The `poor-whites' were those who were both poor and conspicuously lacking in the common social virtues and especially fell short of the standard in certain economic qualities.
- 1958 L. van der Post Lost World Kalahari iii. 56 All who worked for my grandfather no matter whether Griqua, Hottentot,..Cape-coloured or poor white, were ultimately held in equal affection.
- 1974 J. le Carré Tinker Tailor i. 9 Jim Prideaux was a poor white of the teaching community.
Whut?
All this talk and it is still a terrible, rank article! The only people left to make fun of are white southerners and beautiful blondes. Since I was born one and am married to the other, I take this kind of personally. We are struggling over nigger in the Huckleberry Finn article, but meantime in the modest Nigger article I don't find any mailing-list "satire" that "You're a nigger if ... ", but here is stuff about chaining your hound in the front yard or the back, drinking cheap beer, bla-bla-bla, ha-ha-ha.
This is one of the most offensive, social-class-prejudiced articles I have seen in the wikipedia, if not the only one. Whatever was taken out must have really been putrid if this is what is left. A few points:
- Huck Finn's Pap was white trash. The term was originally coined in less enlightened times to describe white people that even oppressed and despised black people looked down on.
- People originally put their washing machines on their front porches because they were proud of them. They put their sofas on the front porch because they sit on their front porches and want to be comfortable. Imagine that.
- Poor people spend a higher proportion of their income and attention on their cars than rich people do. So what?
- The people being ridiculed here hate people like the authors of this article, and with good reason. I do too. The country song about "my red neck, my white socks, and my Pabst Blue Ribbon beer" is a clever compression of how some ordinary patriotic American white working class people feel.
- The list of "examples of white trash in media" is ludicrous. Where's the Dukes of Hazzard[?] and the Beverly Hillbillies? How about Billy Carter[?]? Mimi, Karla, the Bundys?
- No one ever called Italians or Portuguese white trash. Should there be articles on guineas, dagos, wops, kikes ... geez, my skin crawls just writing this.
- There's about two paragraphs worth having in here, that would be the last two. The rest is just repulsive, ill-thought-out, junk. Sorry if that offends some birkenstocker, well there it is.
We should all be embarrassed that such an ignorant, prejudiced, smug and hateful article appears in the wikipedia. Ortolan88 12:04 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
PS--(Gee, I can take it out, can't I? Well as soon as I save this, out it goes. Let him who would have it put it back and I'll take it out again. Can't let the Poles and the Germans have all the fun.)
I think we need to separate the term white trash from the group of people the article is supposedly about. Can we say "lower class white people"? Is there any wikipedian prepared to discuss the class divisions within white society, in America or in general?
If not, I'd prefer to limit the article to:
- definition of the term, i.e., it's a put down
- description of the stereotype, i.e., people who use the term white trash have in mind a group of people with certain characteristics
It is probably beyond the scope of the 'pedia at this point to discern to what extent the stereotype actually does apply to any real group of people. Ed Poor 12:47 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
It might be noted that the term white trash has been completely misunderstood here. Part of this is that many Americans tend to base their ideas of class on money. This is not what white trash is about. White trash refers to a way of life -- it could be argued, for example, that the Osbournes veer on white trashy because they let their animals crap all over the house and air their laundry in public -- although in the age of Jerry Springer, they really seem like sensible, only slightly dysfunctional types. Still, the minimum wage janitor who supports a family below the poverty level, but sends his kids to school neat, clean, and prepared to learn would never be considered white trash -- just poor. JHK
We're writing an encyclopedia. Part of NPOV is that we can be neutral about words like "nigger", mention them, discuss how they are used (or not used) and their connotations. We should not be using euphemisms like the "the n-word" ourselves -- Tarquin 13:39 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
I had to power down my system because we had a ferocious storm here, so I missed all the fun, and I'm glad. I'm all calm now, white trash is better, nigger is better, understanding is expanded and bigotry is on the run. And, it's not as hot and humid as it was.
Just before all this happened, I had a cortisone shot in my thumb and the doctor told me to rest it. Then I saw the old white trash article and whammed out a reply and deleted what is now gone, but doing it made my thumb sore and I had to splint it and now I'm typing two-fingered for the first time in 35 years and will be for the rest of the week. Ortolan88 18:13 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
This version is not better but worse. Now it does not even attempt to say what white trash means, only a brief mention of its historical origin. JHK's comment tells me more about the subject than the actual article. (Nigger is better now though.) --rmhermen
- So, make it better. Every article in wiki is open to revision. This one has just had some extraneous and non-contributive elements pruned from it, but it isn't set in stone. If you have something to add, add it, and if it lasts, it will be in the article forever. If not, try again.
- The problem is that while nigger has a concrete meaningful social existence, as the second-most potent word in the English language, and the most potent in terms of its meaning and impact on those who use it and hear it, white trash is just another entertaining and insulting construct, like upper class twit or clueless geek or smarty-pants (my category). It may be more offensive than some of those other categories, but it is't any more meaningful as it stands.
- It may be fun to make fun of people like that, but it doesn't make an encyclopedia article. That was what was wrong with the stuff that was deleted from this article. Jokes about bad taste and low income are not enough. If you, or JHK, or maybe me, can come up with some more information ("that which informs") on white trash, then we should add it.
- Some possible lines of inquiry about the white underclass in America, which is what we are talking about here.
- Do people really self-identify, as in the "red neck, white socks, Pabst Blue Ribbon beer" example above?
- Does this self identification have any political meaning?
- How much of this status is imposed by the dominant culture and economy? To what ends?
- Why have the white underclass and the black underclass never been able to get together in their common interest? That would be an answer to the "To what ends?" question in the previous bullet.
- How has the concept of white trash changed in the past 150 years? Has it really gone from "poor white field hands" to "pellagra-ridden poverty-stricken southerners" to "white people on Jerry Springer"? And, getting back to the black and white question above, just how do the black people on Jerry Springer differ from the white? Would you dare call them black trash? I don't think so, which pretty neatly encapsulates the problem here.
- Ortolan88 08:43 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
Random opinion: I think that the use of the term "white trash" is evidence of racism against non-"white"s. Why is "white trash" a term but "black trash", "Asian trash", etc. just terms I made up? I think that the term "white trash" was invented because its racist authors thought that a "white" person being "trash" was something unexpected, something special to take note of--"white" people are not "trash", or ought not to be. There is no corresponding term "black trash", because to them being "black" and "trash" isn't at all extraordinary--in their minds thats what all "black"s are, "trash". -- SJK
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|