What is the least "WASP" city in the United States?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Eh, Cubans were always white, more or less. There's some interesting stuff I've read about 19th century cigar factories in Forida which were run by Cubans, with Italian workforces. Americans thought the Cubans were "whiter" than the Italians in terms of racial hierarchy.

Honestly, through most of the time the U.S. has existed, Latinos were treated basically identically to "white ethnics." Yes, there were some nativist spasms (the zoot suit riots, Operation —, etc.) but for the most part Latinos attended schools integrated with Anglo students, always had the right to vote, were never subject to interracial marriage bars, etc. Which stands in contrast to blacks, Asians, and Native Americans, which all had explicit segregationist policies put in place.

Hell, even in the 1950s, Lucille Ball being married to Desi Arnaz was way, way less of an issue than a Jew being married to a gentile.

The idea of Latinos being "brown" really came about in the 1960s. Which is also when they became demographically large enough to be seen as a threat to white America.

It's more accurate to say that white America always understood the distinction between white Cubans and non-white Cubans. Cuba had a distinct white ruling class that (obviously) came from Spain, and was similar in nature to the racial social structure of the former slave territories in the U.S.. The Spanish American War was actually driven by the non-white peasants (former slaves, mostly of African ancestry) rebelling against Spanish colonial rule, and the U.S. government losing patience with the Spanish government's ability to manage it. The U.S. intervened to protect economic interests between (white) Cubans and the U.S. Ironically, Cuba might be a U.S. territory today, or even a state, if Congress hadn't forbade the government from annexing Cuba when they authorized military action. They didn't make the same provision for Puerto Rico or the Philippines, which is why those places became a territories while Cuba didn't.

Latinos became synonymous with brown because Mexican immigrants were more likely to be from indigenous American lineage, unlike immigrants from Cuba.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Every one was white, and protestant, but not Anglo-Saxon, even if we take the broadest interpretation. Marten Van Buren was of 100% Dutch ancestry The Hudson Valley Dutch-speaking elite were completely assimilated into WASP high society by the late 19th century, but Van Buren grew up speaking Dutch at home! He was not a WASP.

If we want to get even more technical James Polk, James Buchannan, and Woodrow Wilson all lacked any English ancestry, being entirely Scottish and/or Scotch-Irish. The first two were born dirt-poor in log cabins, and the latter was from pretty a humble background as well. Though of course, there were far more Presidents than this who grew up poor.

Trump also lacks any known English ancestry.

True, the Dutch "royalty" of early New York were not WASPs, technically, given the non-A-S lineage. Though I would argue that the Scots/Scots-Irish were WASPs by the time of American presidents.

I thought Trump has Scottish ancestry though, no?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I thought Trump has Scottish ancestry though, no?

His mother was Scottish.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also likely bc the nature of Latino immigration changed. More Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Central/Southern Mexicans of indigenous background.

Cuban and Northern Mexican immigrants were pretty "white", for the most part.

I am sure this played something of a role, but I've seen the DNA results from "white" Cubans and old-like New Mexico Hispanios, and they have considerable non-white ancestry (White Cubans are about 10% black, Hispanios around 1/3rd indigenous).

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Latinos became synonymous with brown because Mexican immigrants were more likely to be from indigenous American lineage, unlike immigrants from Cuba.

I think it's also important to note that having some indigenous ancestry never had a stigma in the United States. There was a big bias against Native Americans, but what 19th century America wanted was cultural, not literal genocide, with Native Americans "diluted" into the white population (unlike blacks, where that just couldn't happen). I mean, Charles Curtis, the Vice President under Herbert Hoover, had a 3/4ths Native American mother. He was Meztizo! Frankly, he kinda looked Mexican too...

Originally Posted by pj3000

I thought Trump has Scottish ancestry though, no?

Scottish, but not English. His mother was a Scottish immigrant, his father grew up speaking German. One of the few American presidents with no colonial roots.

[JMKeynes]

[QUOTE=eschaton;9709940]Eh, Cubans were always white, more or less. There's some interesting stuff I've read about 19th century cigar factories in Forida which were run by Cubans, with Italian workforces. Americans thought the Cubans were "whiter" than the Italians in terms of racial hierarchy…. [Quote]

You pull the most absurd sh.t out of your “tuckus,” particularly for someone who’s so sensitive about Jewish issues.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Honestly, through most of the time the U.S. has existed, Latinos were treated basically identically to "white ethnics." Yes, there were some nativist spasms (the zoot suit riots, Operation —, etc.) but for the most part Latinos attended schools integrated with Anglo students, always had the right to vote, were never subject to interracial marriage bars, etc. Which stands in contrast to blacks, Asians, and Native Americans, which all had explicit segregationist policies put in place.

Not entirely true; Latinos (particularly Mexican-Americans) experienced voter intimidation and depending on jurisdiction, were subject to literacy and English language requirement laws. You can say that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 changed that, not just for Latinos, but for African-Americans and Indigenous Americans too.

And in Orange County, CA, there were segregated schools; they separated "Mexicans" from white kids. People tout "Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka" from the 1950s, which is a landmark case of course, but California had "Mendez vs. Westminster," a case from 1947, which desegregated California schools.

Originally Posted by eschaton

The idea of Latinos being "brown" really came about in the 1960s. Which is also when they became demographically large enough to be seen as a threat to white America.

Well again, specifically Mexican-Americans, the whole "Chicano" movement from the 1960s, that's when they started calling themselves "brown," and started becoming vocal about the inequality they were experiencing. A lot of those movements started in Los Angeles, too. I think Lincoln High School in LA was where the very first "Chicano Student Walkouts" occurred, in 1968, protesting the unequal conditions in the LAUSD. Mexican-American kids were actually not allowed to enroll in classes that would lead them to going to college.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by pj3000

that's great, very familiar to me



Yeah, when "the first _______ (insert female, Catholic, Polish, Italian, Jewish, Hispanic, black, etc.) member" is a thing, you can be pretty sure that it's a WASPy place.


And think about how it was a huge deal that JFK was the nation's first Catholic president. Every single president from 1776 to 1961 was a WASP. And then there wasn't another non-WASP until Obama... and Biden is only the 3rd non-WASP out of 46!

WASP: White (Race) Anglo-Saxon (Ethnicity) Protestant (Religion)

Anglo-Saxon: an ethnopolitical group that has its ethnogenesis in the creolization of indigenous Gaelic tribes from multiple waves of continental settlers (successively: Roman, the German tribes from Saxony, Anglia, and Jutland, Vikings from Norway and Denmark, Normans from France and simultaneously, to a smaller degree, the Dutch). In other words, people from England. People who are English AND THEN diasporic status to escape native religious persecution to the colonies of America (now the United States and Canada).

There are other groups that immigrated to the colonies to escape religious persecution, but that does NOT make them WASP. There are other peoples from the British Isles who also immigrated, but their populations had differing histories, contexts, push and pull factors to emigrate/immigrate, and are also not WASP. There are other white immigrant groups—also not WASP. Oh, and lest I forget: just because a group is Protestant doesn’t make them WASP either. And none of this speaks to all the other immigrant groups in America (almost all of us, really).


These presidents were, strictly speaking, predominantly or entirely of non-WASP descent or ancestry:

James Monroe (Scottish)
Andrew Jackson (Scots-Irish)
Martin Van Buren (Dutch)
James Polk (Scots-Irish)
James Buchanan (Scots-Irish)
Rutherford B. Hayes (Scottish, likely also French via Scotland)
Theodore Roosevelt (Dutch)
Woodrow Wilson (Scots-Irish, Scottish)
Herbert Hoover (German Quaker)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Dutch)
Dwight Eisenhower (German-Pennsylvania Dutch)
John F. Kennedy (Irish)
Lyndon Baines Johnson (Texas German, Scots-Irish, Anglo-Irish)
Ronald Reagan (Irish)
Obama (see note at end)
Trump (German, Scottish-Gaelic)


Additionally, these presidents have complicated ancestries that place them less firmly outside WASP political hegemony due to English being a key ingredient:

Andrew Johnson (Irish, Scots-Irish, and English)
Chester Arthur (Scots-Irish, Welsh, and English)
William Howard Taft (Irish, Scots-Irish, and possibly English)
Warren G. Harding (Scots-Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Dutch, and English and incorrectly said to have African-American ancestry as well)
Bill Clinton (Scottish and English)
Joe Biden (Irish, French Huguenot, and English)

These presidents are predominantly WASP in ancestry, but do have important connections to non-WASP immigrant groups:

Ulysses S. Grant (English with Irish)
Grover Cleveland (English with Anglo-Irish and German Quaker)
William McKinley (English with Scots-Irish)
Harry S Truman (English with Scots-Irish, French, and German)
Richard Nixon (English with German Quaker)
George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush (English with German Quaker, Dutch, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish)

And on the basis of income and background alone, James Garfield (although technically a WASP) would have never fit into that milieu.

That’s 30 of the 45.

The other 15 not mentioned are either entirely WASP or the presence of non-WASP members in their ancestry is inconsequential. Our country is immigrant, even at the highest levels.

Fun Fact: Benjamin Harrison is the last President whose ancestry is entirely from England, even more astounding that his entire ancestry is from the colonial period.

On Obama: his father was Luo Kenyan and his mother was primarily English with Irish and African-American as well.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think it's also important to note that having some indigenous ancestry never had a stigma in the United States. There was a big bias against Native Americans, but what 19th century America wanted was cultural, not literal genocide, with Native Americans "diluted" into the white population (unlike blacks, where that just couldn't happen). I mean, Charles Curtis, the Vice President under Herbert Hoover, had a 3/4ths Native American mother. He was Meztizo! Frankly, he kinda looked Mexican too...

In general, the anti-indigenous sentiment was strongest in the places where they competed for resources against white Americans (in other words, they were the largest ethnic group after white Americans). After the Revolution this was mostly in the Frontier territories and the West Coast since the indigenous had been almost driven out of the eastern states by then. The U.S. government had promised indigenous nations much of the Frontier territory to establish their own territories, which the government gradually reneged on to accommodate white settlers. There was also a lot of opposition to having a non-white self-governing territory* in the United States. Andrew Jackson, the first Scots-Irish president, effectively ended this with the Trail of Tears, which pushed most of the indigenous to present day Oklahoma.

(*This was also the issue preventing territories like Hawaii, Alaska, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc., from become states for a long time.)

During the Jim Crow Era, when Virginia was codifying into law who was and wasn't "white" according to the "one-drop" rule, they accidentally excluded a huge portion of the Virginia elite that claimed partial native ancestry. They had to amend the law to add the "Pocahontas exception".

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Scottish, but not English. His mother was a Scottish immigrant, his father grew up speaking German. One of the few American presidents with no colonial roots.

Scottish-Gaelic, to be extremely specific and spoke Gaelic, not English, in her home on the Isle of Lewis.

I only bring this up because Scotland today contains two ethnolinguistic groups:

1. those who either speak Gaelic or English and attest culturally with the remaining vestiges of Celticism;
2. those that speak Scots or English and fall somewhere on a gradient between Celtic and Germanic cultural attestation;

There is also a BIG difference between Scots-Irish and Anglo-Irish, both being the descendants of migrants to what is now Northern Ireland but from very different places and for very different reasons: the former were employed by the latter to help in their destruction of the last outpost of a true Celtic culture by Romance/Romantic and Germanic forces. Everywhere else had either been destroyed, culturally changed, or retreated. Today, only a few hundred years later, Celtic languages are not even the majority language in the few places that are still “culturally” Celtic. And this is a language group and cultural sphere that was, until about 300 years prior to the birth of Jesus, absolutely dominant in mainland Europe vis-a-vis the precursors to the Romantic and Germanic cultural spheres—closing in rapidly from the Mediterranean and North Sea, respectively, and only took about 1500 years to totally destroy a culture group which pre-dated either of the two others by over 500 years.

Note:

1. I generally think of European history as being dominated by the following cultural spheres: Celtic, Romance, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, with Arctic populations (Saami, etc.) and marginal groups (Basque, Jewish diasporas, etc.) somehow maintaining their existence. They of course exist within a constant state of outside forces (Turkic, Arabian, Iranian, etc.) also introducing cultural changes that then spreads across the peninsular continent.

2. I also generally think that language plays an instrumental role in cultural interchange, which is why I have tended to group the above in terms of language. Here’s why: the language you speak has a huge determinative impact on how your brain works and what concepts, especially abstract concepts, you are most easily able to grasp and those which you may have more difficulty with; language gives each of us also a different ‘flavor’ of interpretation of the same words strictly translated from one language to another (due to many factors, such as sounds, cultural context, homophones, etc)—e.g. the way I may read and interpret something in English may differ from how it is interpreted when read in Somoan by a Somoan or Tonga by a Tongan. The further languages differ in their morphologies, syntax, construction, and phonologies, the more likely things are to get ‘lost in translation’ making it more difficult for underlying concepts in the originating language to translate and for the preexisting ‘local flavor’ to take over in creatively interpreting to fill the interpretive gaps that got lost.

I say all of this in reply to those above who argue that religion should play an important role in analyzing European emigrés to the Americas. I agree, but I think that it should only be secondary to larger linguistic-cultural groups. Here’s why:

Let’s take a cultural example of the most highly abstract, religion:

Romance culture was the first European culture that converted en masse to Christianity over a few hundred years, Germanic cultures were slowly Christianized starting slowly after thru a complex mix of immigration, warfare, and conquest by Rome and later Romance cultures (and vice versa), whereas Slavic cultures came after these, evangelized by their monarchs for political reasons (sometimes out of fear their people would be slaughtered by a conquering Christian force, or as a price to protect their kingdoms against even more culturally dissimilar Mongols or Turks). Despite the official religion changing, underlying cultures and languages did not. Celts are still in, albeit at the tail end of, the process of Christianization.

Things got ‘lost in translation,’ of course, and over time Slavs schismed away from Rome and crafted their own unique brand of Christianity. Germanic groups protested at Rome’s door with a nail — and parchment barriers and likewise did the same thing. Ireland remains Rome’s vassal and the creolized (Celtic-heavy) Scotland and England (Germanic-heavy) adopted Protestant varieties that more closely resemble Catholicism than anywhere else. Celtic culture is simply more similar - having a homeland in the Alps - to Romance culture at the root of it than are either Germanic and Slavic, and one has to wonder how much, personal whims and idiosyncrasies of infidel and unfaithful kings aside, their straddling this religious divide has to do with those underlying similarities.

[Docere]

I don't think Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale lost their elections because of anti-Norwegian prejudice.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Say what? Greenwich is the classic establishment U.S. suburb. There's nothing in the Main Line like downtown Greenwich. Lacks educational institutions? Like half the elite prep schools in the U.S.? And Yale?

Also, there's obviously a large Jewish population in all these areas, in both NY and Boston areas (and Philly, for that matter). Traditional favored quarters, even if historically WASPy, almost always have the secular Jewish elites of the present. Rich people live together nowadays.

Greenwich is nouveau rich . It started to be built out in the 1920s when the main line and Brookline were already well established ; at the time it was full of either Italian working class or sparse big mansions but nothing like the civically engaged residents of those Philly and Boston suburbs . This shows the the architecture of the main commercial areas.

And a couple of of prep schools for sons and daughters of grasping Wall Street traders is a bit different from (what used to be ) more serious institutions like swarthmore , haverford , Bryan mawr , and Villanova.

Btw Yale is almost 40 miles from Greenwich

And besides downtown Greenwich there’s really no walkable areas . Bryn mawr to admore / narbeth beats it hands down

[Docere]

Chicago's early mayors were largely of Yankee roots, with the first Irish Catholic mayor being elected in 1893. It looks like "Big Bill" Thompson, in the 1920s, was the last mayor of Yankee roots and the last Republican. A colorful figure, one must say. Known to be the most corrupt mayor in Chicago history. Also very anti-British and pro-German.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Chicago

The Chicago Tribune was also the voice of Midwestern isolationism.

[Quixote]

I think this thread began with the premise that "WASP" = generic American = not "white ethnic."

Now the most WASP places in America are the well-to-do suburbs of the most "white ethnic" cities.

The place that's the most WASP (Utah) is white, Anglo-Saxon (English ancestry), but not Protestant (or Catholic or Orthodox). Because this thread is already all over the place, could it be said that an "English Mormon" who adheres to all of the doctrines of the LDSC is a "white ethnic"? They are, after all, a minority group whose culture forbids consumption of tea and coffee.

[Docere]

1969:

Wasps are not so easily characterized as other ethnic groups. The term itself can be merely descriptive or mildly offensive, depending on the user and the hearer; at any rate, it has become part of the American idiom. In one sense, it is redundant: since all Anglo-Saxons are white, the word could be Asp. Purists like to confine Wasps to descendants of the British Isles; less exacting analysts are willing to throw in Scandinavians, Netherlanders and Germans. At the narrowest, Wasps form a select band of well-heeled, well-descended members of the Eastern Establishment; at the widest, they include Okies and Snopeses, "Holy Rollers" and hillbillies.

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,838862-1,00.html

[TWAK]

Can anybody guess what WIRC is?

The least WASP city, besides one in our territories, would be something close to the border. That's if the whole thing separates Hispanics or not....
If that doesn't count I'd go with NYC? Just too big so it would have some variation. This is major city right? Native Reservations might work but they are (supposed to be) sovereign.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

WASP: White (Race) Anglo-Saxon (Ethnicity) Protestant (Religion)

Anglo-Saxon: an ethnopolitical group that has its ethnogenesis in the creolization of indigenous Gaelic tribes from multiple waves of continental settlers (successively: Roman, the German tribes from Saxony, Anglia, and Jutland, Vikings from Norway and Denmark, Normans from France and simultaneously, to a smaller degree, the Dutch). In other words, people from England. People who are English AND THEN diasporic status to escape native religious persecution to the colonies of America (now the United States and Canada).

There are other groups that immigrated to the colonies to escape religious persecution, but that does NOT make them WASP. There are other peoples from the British Isles who also immigrated, but their populations had differing histories, contexts, push and pull factors to emigrate/immigrate, and are also not WASP. There are other white immigrant groups—also not WASP. Oh, and lest I forget: just because a group is Protestant doesn’t make them WASP either. And none of this speaks to all the other immigrant groups in America (almost all of us, really).


These presidents were, strictly speaking, predominantly or entirely of non-WASP descent or ancestry:

James Monroe (Scottish)
Andrew Jackson (Scots-Irish)
Martin Van Buren (Dutch)
James Polk (Scots-Irish)
James Buchanan (Scots-Irish)
Rutherford B. Hayes (Scottish, likely also French via Scotland)
Theodore Roosevelt (Dutch)
Woodrow Wilson (Scots-Irish, Scottish)
Herbert Hoover (German Quaker)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Dutch)
Dwight Eisenhower (German-Pennsylvania Dutch)
John F. Kennedy (Irish)
Lyndon Baines Johnson (Texas German, Scots-Irish, Anglo-Irish)
Ronald Reagan (Irish)
Obama (see note at end)
Trump (German, Scottish-Gaelic)


Additionally, these presidents have complicated ancestries that place them less firmly outside WASP political hegemony due to English being a key ingredient:

Andrew Johnson (Irish, Scots-Irish, and English)
Chester Arthur (Scots-Irish, Welsh, and English)
William Howard Taft (Irish, Scots-Irish, and possibly English)
Warren G. Harding (Scots-Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Dutch, and English and incorrectly said to have African-American ancestry as well)
Bill Clinton (Scottish and English)
Joe Biden (Irish, French Huguenot, and English)

These presidents are predominantly WASP in ancestry, but do have important connections to non-WASP immigrant groups:

Ulysses S. Grant (English with Irish)
Grover Cleveland (English with Anglo-Irish and German Quaker)
William McKinley (English with Scots-Irish)
Harry S Truman (English with Scots-Irish, French, and German)
Richard Nixon (English with German Quaker)
George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush (English with German Quaker, Dutch, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish)

And on the basis of income and background alone, James Garfield (although technically a WASP) would have never fit into that milieu.

That’s 30 of the 45.

The other 15 not mentioned are either entirely WASP or the presence of non-WASP members in their ancestry is inconsequential. Our country is immigrant, even at the highest levels.

Fun Fact: Benjamin Harrison is the last President whose ancestry is entirely from England, even more astounding that his entire ancestry is from the colonial period.

On Obama: his father was Luo Kenyan and his mother was primarily English with Irish and African-American as well.

So when are we going to have our first Italian president? DeSantis if he runs?

[Quixote]

So it seems we've reached a consensus that:

• WASP =/= "generic American of mixed British Isles, Germanic, and French ancestry"

• WASP is not about ethnicity but more a certain cultural, geographic-based subset of American society steeped in elitist traditions — like a country club membership

• WASP culture can be appropriated, but no devout Catholic or Jew could ever be considered a WASP — meaning religion is still a barrier

[Quixote]

I also don't agree that "white ethnic" automatically excludes people of British Isles or Germanic descent, especially if we now agree that ethnicity doesn't matter. Technically, everyone is "ethnic," especially in the U.S. where you often hear people say things like, "Oh, I'm a quarter Swedish, half French, an eighth Italian, and an eighth (whatever)," or "My great-grandfather on my mom's side came to America from Poland." These types of conversations are not common among Brazilians, most of whom are multiracial; they just think of themselves as Brazilian.

Since most white Americans are mutts, I don't see why people like — and Betsy Devos (both 100% Dutch) aren't "white ethnic." Because their Dutch heritage is fully intact, they actually look European. My British colleague from Yorkshire (I think) is definitely "ethnic" because what American doesn't fancy an English accent? And so on and so forth. Most of the Irish, Italians, and Poles in New York, Boston, Philly, and Chicago are everyday Americans. I do think that Boston's Portuguese population is an outlier, as is a large segment of the NYC Jewish population (not just the Orthodox/Hasidic).

[montréaliste]

This has been a dizzyingly long rollercoaster ride of a thread. I noted that there were few definite answers given, as people can’t agree on what constitutes a WASP to begin with.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I remember hearing the term WASP growing up in Chicagoland, but it was always applied to people, not areas.

The Wilmette I grew up in was maybe 20% Jewish and maybe 30% Catholic, so there was no notion of any pervasive, overwhelming protestantism that would've made the term applicable to where I grew up.

When people use the word WASP as a proxy for any mostly white upscale area of old money with healthy doses of Catholics and Jews mixed in with mainline protestants, it just doesn't make a ton of sense to me, but maybe people in the northeast don't get as hung up on the "P" in WASP as I do.

Same here. The “ruling class” of St. Louis has long been a sort of tetrarchy between german catholic beer barons and literal WASPy industrialists of NE descent (the Burroughs, the Eliots, etc) but the wealthy german catholics won out as the figureheads and prolifically reproduced so when you get elbowed by an entourage in a bar in downtown Clayton they probably have a last name of catholic German extraction (not just talking about the Buschs). This extends out into the countryside - my farm is ringed by a Ivy league educated Orthwein who wears a pith helmet and builds replica southern German farmhouses.

“WASP” if used at all probably just refers to a geriatric uptightedness more than anything.