Talk:WASP
|
|
What if someone wants to make a page for a radio station with call letters WASP??
- Then we would do a disambiguation, so that people could pick which kind of "WASP" they were looking for. jengod 02:16, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
How could "WASP" be construed to be antisemitic? It's clearly about "Anglo-Saxons", that's people of English heritage and has nothing to do with Jews.
z.
- the article explains it. Badanedwa 01:28, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
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)
- 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.
| Contents |
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 Cahtolic "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.
U.S. only?
Is the term common outside the U.S.? I have never heard anyone use it in Canada—which doesn't mean that it's not used, of course—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? —E. Underwood 06:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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. —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)
Anglo-Saxon fundamentalists
Removed the following:
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. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I thought it looked familiar. —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. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)