Talk:White trash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White trash article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article White trash, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives: Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Clarification: this term IS racist

I just wanted to clarify the fact that this term is racist. If you call a black person "black trash", there would be no doubt that it was racist. The same standard has to apply for White trash and it will.

"White trash" fits the definition of racism: "Discriminatory behaviour or remarks towards other races" - white trash is a such remark.

And other then this, white trash does not only apply to European-descendant whites. It applies to every person thats white (light-skinned) and is culturally, socially or economically poor. This includes arabs too. 85.82.195.131 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous, I think you may misunderstand what "neutral" means on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:V. We should be trying to characterize published arguments, not arguing the issue ourselves, as you seem to be doing above. --Allen 03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
My edits dont contain original research. My justification contains argumentation, but so does yours. Classifying a term "racist" is not original research - I did not define racism or create the term. 85.82.195.131 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. My edits on talk pages contain all sorts of argumentation, but hopefully my additions to articles don't contain unsourced argumentation, at least not beyond the most trivial and uncontroversial. While I agree that "white trash" is a racist term, it seems that others do not. Perhaps there is consensus among experts that "white trash" is racist; if we had sources we could say so. --Allen 20:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so I admit that again, I lost the battle against the racial double standard. It annoys me, but I acknowledge that I have no power over this. The fact that non-whites also use "white trash" should be enough. Black trash, the black version, would be on a level similar to the N-word. I just wish racial equality and justice could prevail, but thats not the will of the people apparently. 85.82.195.131 15:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this racist???

21 Jan 2007: the current version of this page has been edited to read 'since all white people are racists....' - is there any way of perhaps banning further postings from this IP address? --

If "white trash" is considered a racist slur, would calling an Asian "yellow trash" or a Black "Black Trash" be a slur also? I've had public school teachers who used the term openly and loudly in class to refer to less-than-educated-and-well-behaved people in their class. Nobody considered it racist. And many people I know use "white trash" to refer to other Caucasians they consider their inferiors in terms of education, class, or profession. It has nothing to do with race. It's a deragatory term, yes, but not racist.

Oh, and the "Jerry Springer" analogy is extremely accurate, especially within the Chicago area. It's a general stereotype that not only does "white trash" appear on this show, but that its audience is also white trash.

re: i definitely see a big chunk of that racist, and removed it. it would have been acceptable if it was "racist" in an academic manner. however, it sounds alot more like just plain slander against white people in general. things like "because non-whites are generally more aware of racial issues" especially. they aren't even presented as theories or possibilities, but plainly as fact.

Re: The term "white trash" is not in the least a derogatory term that refers to the white race. It does not refer to the race in its entirety, but to a subset of it. It is a derogatory term it is true, but it is typically directed towards a subset of whites: working class uneducated whites. The term “white trash” is akin to “redneck” it connotes a subset of white that is typically, poor, uneducated and because of this irrational in their behavior.
Public school teachers are racist often enough, as well as imperfect in other ways, and just because no one notices something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If it had nothing to do with race, why would race be included in the term? Why would the term itself, and its users, bring up race if they weren't saying something about it? Hyacinth 05:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to how you think that "white trash" is not derogatory? It is a term that specificly identifies the race of the person and that the person is garbage. Just because a race adopts a term and uses it for their own use does not stop that term from being derogatory when used by others. Think about the N-word as used by African Americans. They use the term but that does not make it less racist or more acceptable when other people use the term. Also the fact that it has widespread use also does not limit the fact that it is derogatory. In the past many racial slurs were commonly used that does not make them less offensive. 194.46.246.184 10:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Racial epitaph"? Sounds ominous, a reference to the incarnation of the demise of the white race? Or did you mean "epithet"? What's the "N-word"? Would that be the racial epithet that dare not speak its name? Unlike "white trash" of course.

194.46.246.184 10:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing this from reading a 'racial' slur to read an 'ethnic slur'. Race is a sub class of ethnicity, and since 'white' refers to race, and not any other ethnic factor, it is clearly a racial slur. A black cannot be "white trash", nor can an asian be "white trash, regardless of their national, tribal, religious, or linguistic ethnic factors.

The difference is the difference between saying polar bears are white versus polar bears are an unspecified color.User Anonyplus

70.230.245.189 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)White Trash are just like Black Trash, Yellow Trash, Red Trash and Brown Trash. Only paler.

[edit] Picture

Perhaps I'm being over-cautious, but I'm somewhat leery of the picture of 3 people being called "white trash". That might be a personal attack on real people. Besides, I don't see what's "white trash"y about them, except for the fact that they're white and poor. If poor qualifies as "trash", then a lot of people are (unfairly) being thrown into that category. Mike Church 21:18, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Imho you are right after all this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and i do not find the picture helpful at all.In particular white trash isn't really recognized by those visuals, but a combination of looks, speech, action and social surroundings of a person.

The picture shouldn't identify another group or organization (such as a University.) I know it's temping to be able to say "look up 'white trash' on the wikipedia and you'll find a picture of our collegiate rivals." I don't think that a picture is needed. -Red

  • The purpose of the photograph is not to bash another school, but the member of the photograph displays many of the characteristics from the article. If you wish to photoshop out the logo feel free. AStudent 02:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course... www.spartantailgate.com, is just a coincidence. The argument that the picture displays MANY of the characteristics from the article is incorrect.Red and Guilty 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)(signed after the fact-sorry)

Hahaha. If I took my digital camera to a Spartan tailgate, I could provide a lifetime supply of white trash photos.

This view is a somewhat laughable and an oversimplification of what Hollywood's view of white trash is. People who are unfairly pegged as "white trash" suffer no less the consequences that the minority groups who are condemned for being non-white suffer.

We are talking more classism and less racism. The same so-called white race who sees me as a white piece of trash has the same amount of respect for my white heritage as their racist ass has for a person of color. The classim has more to do with bank accounts than skin colors.

So, we have this definition of classistic/racial slur and a photo next to it with the lines "White trash and the law after a Molly Hatchet concert". Fair enough. So how about inserting some other photos with similar lines next to them into other entries on racial slurs ("Police forces arresting some broke niggers in front of a liquor store", "Rich Kikes buying their way out of NYPD custody"?) After all, everybody has the right to be insulted on Wikipedia.

Might not be a bad idea to use a well know representative of the white trash social class as a picture. Perhaps a self-described white trash individual. Or we could just put a picture of Kevin Federline. Davelapo555 17:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New version bad

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
I doubt Henry Ford hated the Irish, seeing how his parents were Irish Immigrants.

[edit] See Talk:Racism Archive

Debate that was in this space has been moved to racism/racial and ethnic slurs

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

[edit] Self reference

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

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.

The above strikes me just incredible. Very probably, it should be radically revised or, possibly, removed. Is there some sort of evidence from historical linguistics that the word "white" really was used in such a completely narrow sense? I think the point the author is trying to make is that only WASP landholders were regarded as full citizens of the early Republic (which, again, is quite arguable, but a lot more plausible). That in itself certainly would not mean that those people are the only ones to whom the word "white" was applied. Can we have some evidence, please? --Larry Sanger

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.

poor whites = `poor white folks' (see white a. 4); also sing. and fig.

    • 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:

  1. definition of the term, i.e., it's a put down
  2. 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

[edit] User:Colinpcarr

User:Colinpcarr has added a lot of nonsense that isn't even complete sentences. I'm reverting. RickK 04:27, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Rickk - you can revert because it was nonsense but those were complete sentences.  :-)

Proclivity toward Extreme Urban Camping. Shift from historical kinship and marriage toward a vast array of family types, including less prohibitive exogamic and class endogamic rules. are complete sentences? RickK 04:53, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Except that fragment :-)


I've noted that Colinpcarr is responsible for all of the "White trash in the 21st century" section, none of which makes any sense to me. It appears to be talking about some kind of obscure "white trash" aesthetic or philosophy (??), but it's too poorly written for me to make any sense of it. Colinpcarr: if you really want to write about this, I would recommend that you make a new article entitled something like "White trash (aesthetic)", and that you make it clear what in the world you're talking about. The main article is about the pejorative term to describe people, As it is, Colinpcarr's contributions are just baffling, so I've cut them entirely. Here they are:

Cultural aesthetics of White Trash communities in the 21st century.
The word 'White Trash' has very little content of its own. It is a sign; a pointer in reference to other concepts, like the word 'South.' The White Trash ethos resists unified, all-encompassing, and universally valid explanations. It replaces these with a respect for difference and a celebration of the rustic and particular at the expense of property value. White Trash likewise entails a rejection of the emphasis on rational discovery through the scientific method, or even common sense. At its foundation, then, the White Trash outlook is anti-rational.
Northern White Trash: Preservation of communal identities in the White Trash Diaspora. Current migration movements and the role of a nation’s Diaspora.
Southern White Trash:
Jerry Springer and White Trash Renaissance: Art and co-opting of culture.

--Shibboleth 03:04, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Satire?

Someone put back the "21st Century" section, I've removed it again. When I initially read it, I took it to be a subtle satirical joke aimed at Semiotics and the Deconstruction theories of Jacques Derrida. On re-reading it, I began to face the horrifying possibility that the author was serious, and simply incapable of writing clear English. Either way, it doesn't deserve to be there.

I also tried to unify the content of the last two versions, as each had worthwhile material that the other lacked. Oh, and I made a few small grammar and punctuation edits. Metamatic 02:40, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text

"WHITE TRASH" AS ANTI-BLACK RACISM AND RELATIVE OFFENSIVENESS

No one I've ever spoken with who is familiar with the term "white trash" considers it anti-black racism. The notion is downright silly. I think this should be deleted. "White trash," was a term that referred to a group of white people based on their socioeconomic status and certain cultural affectations, as opposed to just plain "trash," which, back in the day was used commonly in the context of morality. The term was actually "POOR white trash." They were poor white folks -- and they were considered "trash" -- for any number of reasons. Historically, there was often a mutual antagonism between PWT and slaves -- an antagonism that served those who weilded power over both groups: the voters, landed gentry, the slaveholders. PWT needed the work for pay that black folks were forced to do for free. The very house slaves who used the term most often thought themselves better than PWT -- and, indeed, were often better off, materially. PWT resented the fact that these "inferiors" looked down on them and were better dressed, sometimes better fed. PWT often were employed by slaveholders to do their dirty work for hire when it came to tracking down runaways (they had -- or trained -- the coondogs and needed to make a few bucks). Many overseers were particularly brutal because they were NOT landed gentry/aristocracy; they were PWT for hire. There was no love loss between the two groups.

Black folks originated the term "poor white trash"! It was clearly not about anti-black racism. This ridiculous notion stems from people's ignorance and annoying compulsions to be overly PC in matters of race/ethnicity. I'm getting rid of it! If someone disagrees strongly enough, they can put it back. But for now, it's outta here.

So, moved:

Some people argue that "white trash" is racist, not because it includes the word "white", but because it implies that trashiness is the normal state for black people and thus when a white person is trashy it must be specified that the person is white.

Now, about this business of what's most offensive -- my inclination is to delete this info also, because it's just plain inaccurate. I've heard on numerous occasions folks with "poor white trash" roots refer to themselves and their families as "white trash." Hell, I even have a "White Trash Cookbook," and have seen numerous in-print examples of self-referential use. I don't know who the author speaks to, but it's common.

  • Well, I do object strongly to the removal of that sentence, so as you suggest, I have put it back. Please note that the sentence doesn't argue that the origin of the term was anti-black racism, which would as you say be historically incorrect. It argues that "white trash" is — that is, is today, words can drift any distance from their historical origin, as linguists know — racist, in the sense of expressing anti-black racism. The proud self-referential use of "white trash" that you mention wouldn't have any problem with fitting into this angle on the word. C 'mon, it's an encyclopedia, it needs to include this well-reasoned interpretation of what use of the word implies today, as well as give its history, and of course give other interpretations. Taking it out has just left an obvious hole in the article, IMO. --Bishonen 15:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, if I were to choose a single term as being most offensive, it would be "trailer trash." Certain "white-trash" cultural characteristics used to be implicit in the term "trailer trash," but growing numbers of people who are not from white-trash backgrounds also live in mobile homes. And they -- as well as their hard-luck, "white-trash" neighbors -- take great umbrage at the term. But "white trash" increasingly speaks to cultural affectations (note the dropping of "poor" from the original term), more than socio-economic status -- the pastimes, the dress, the food, etc. -- and is used self-referentially with ease and humor. -- deeceevoice, June 27, 2004

I don't mind your deletion particularly, deeceevoice, but I'll just mention that according to Wikipedia NPOV policy, the convention is to neutrally express all points of view which are commonly held and the arguments which defenders of those positions use, regardless of whether or not they're right or wrong. I think some "PC" people would indeed believe that "white trash" connotes racism against non-whites.
You've raised interesting points about the history of the term "white trash". I think they should be added to the article. You could say something like "Some people believe the term denotes racism against blacks, but historically it originated from black people themselves ..." and go on to include in the article what you wrote here in a more encyclopedic tone. Also, feel free to rewrite (don't just delete) the offensiveness stuff if you think it's inaccurate. --Shibboleth 08:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shibboleth, I'm a little pressed for time, but it's my intention to return in couple of weeks to do just that. Removal of the passage was just a temporary measure. Peace. -- deeceevoice 14:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, apparently you just came back and removed the sentence again. This is my first time ever editing anything on Wikipedia, but I'm outraged: I am in fact one of those "'PC' people" who does indeed believe that the term reeks of racism against non-whites. To me, it's just obvious: why is the race mentioned here at all? Why does it just happen to refer to the dominant race in the U.S., but is never used with any other race? Could it be that "black trash" is considered redundant? That's the clear implication to me.

So I'm re-adding the sentence.

-Alan

was it not stated that the term originated with the slaves? why would they be racist against themselves? Novium 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Springer

I think the link to The Jerry Springer Show I added was unfairly deleted. As it is, this article hardly says anything about what it is to be white trash. I wanted to build it up a little, and The Jerry Springer Show is the first thing that comes to mind when most people hear the words white trash. I'm going to add the link again, hopefully someone will want to write about the definition of white trash instead of just the so-called controversy surrounding the term. -- CPS 03:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "White Trash" The Beverage

Found this recipe on the world wide web:

  • 1 shot Vodka
  • Ginger ale (add to taste)
  • 1 Lime wedge
  • Pour over ice

Warning: "Do not drink and drive", Do not drink while pregnant and Do not drink if high risk for breast cancer. Drink responsibly. Paradigmbuff 03:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate definition.

The explanation for what "White trash" means is extremely problematic: "White trash (extended: poor white trash) is a racial epithet usually used to describe certain low income caucasians who exhibit crude manners or low moral standards." These are classist stereotypes of poor whites, and they shouldn't be used to define the term. --Pinko1977 02:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I have modified the definition to read as follows: White trash (extended: poor white trash) is a racial epithet usually used to describe certain low income caucasians, especially characterized by crude manners or abnormally low moral standards.
Here are my feelings:
  1. It's definetly a racial epithet
  2. It's usually applied to low income whites (and when it's not, it's intend to imply that one's behavior mimics this stereotype)
  3. It's most commonly cited as a response to someone's rude behavior or immoral thoughts or actions
If anyone disagrees with one of these points, lets discuss! Robbyslaughter 02:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I think this, like chav are more classist than racist. They seem to mean all poor whites and *seem* to be mainly used by the lower middle class. Secretlondon 19:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It'd be outstanding if someone who is white trash could write a counterpoint, as this whole article is written by people who look down on said other folks. Dean 16:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racist?

I question the reference that "White Trash believe that caucasians "discovered" America and caucasians are "Supreme race", I don't know that these attributes are generally applied to poor rural whites in the USA, certainly some are racist, but the notion of "Supremer Race" is more consistent with European socialist circa 1939...

(European Socialists circa 1939 were too busy being killed by the the Socialist-despising Nazis )who were no more Socialist than W Bush's Welfare policies, despite their misuse of the epithet in their full title!) Its like confusing Irish Republicanism with the Republican Party or anti-Monarchists in the UK (all are Republicans of a sort, but the sorts can be in contrast to each other...or am I patronising you ? If so sorry but you're deliberately libeling millions of Europeans who died in the name of human rights, while the U.S. government profited from fascists like Hitler and his persecution of Socialists)82.41.4.66 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Wrong Information among the White Race.

  • The term "White Trash" is widely used among the White Race, as a White person who procreates outside their race. Hence, there has been no other VALID reason for using the term "White Trash."

This Encyclopedia has MANY indiscretions.

    • No, it's not, and that argument has no logical consistency, even internally. Also, I wasn't aware an encyclopdia can have "indiscretions;" are you referring to a nightly tryst with Britannica? - Jersyko talk 20:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] "Reverse racism"

The article seems to use "reverse racism" to mean "racism against whites" or something similar, while the linked article defines it as "discriminatory policies or acts that benefit a historically sociopolitically nondominant group (typically minorities), rather than the historically sociopolitically dominant group."

[edit] Deconstructing white

As this article at least mentions, the definition of "white" has changed over the past 30 years, let alone three centuries. The very existence of the term "white trash" indicates the at-best amorphous nature of "race" but fails to emphasize adequately the classism that nearly always informs the creation of racial distinctions. Also, the article fails to raise the dialectic term "WASP" to contrast to "white trash". However, I am greatful this article exists as a springboard. So-called official racial definitions--the likes of which were common-place in the 30's and beyond with "octaroon", "quarteroon", and "mulato"--seek to obscure the socio-economic forces at work. Are not white-trash the same rednecks who competed with african-americans for field work in the south? This very competition creates the economic tension which gives rise to the creation of race labels.

[edit] White trash in fiction and film

Icemountain removed a bunch of references as unsourced, but all of them do list the books or films, so they are sourced.--JWB 19:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

They exist as works, but what source says they are about "White Trash" specifically? I mean, find one review of S.E. Hinton's book that says it's about White Trash. The book is about teens. Whoever put those links up indivdually "thinks" they are about White Trash, but that's just one person's opinion and thus original research. Icemountain 01:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Googling hinton outsiders white trash gives lots of reference to the use of the term "white trash" in the book.--JWB 01:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
OK Icemountain 22:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The Outsiders by S.E Hinton is generally confined to the 1950s culture of Greasers, a teen culture. Some of the white trash examples are fairly outdated, and generally its comparing lower class to upper class rather then white trash. - Boochan 14:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy Metal?

White Trash are portrayed as listening to heavy metal? Never heard of this.. Maybe Country Music? Boochan 12:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Why is "white trash" stated outright in the article to be an "ethnic slur" and a "racial etitaph" in the very first line, whereas "nigger" (on its wikipedia page) is merely described as a "extremely controversial term"? Only after reading two whole paragraphs in the wikipedia article for nigger" (in the 15th line), would the reader find that nigger is even "considered to be" a racial epithet.

Also, note the exact phrasing: "white trash is an ethnic slur and an racial etitaph, whereas nigger is only considered to be an racial epitaph. This is no small difference!

11/4/05

White trash as I see them are people of a low class and low ambition. The difference between the term "white trash" and "nigger" is that what the terms say about the person. If you use nigger as a slur you are using it to insult a person solely becuase they are black. White trash,however, is used as a much more specific attack on somebody. It then means that you are attacking their lifestyle and choices. If you call somebody white trash you are making a less generalized statement than if you use a slur such as nigger of wetback.

I would also say that stereotypical white trash listen to metal as well. White trash doesn't neccassarily imply hick, I would say it implies a lack of self respect, an inability to operate under the values of society, as well as a dysfunctional family which leads to the ability to not have a strong value system. If I imagine a standard metal head,that would be somebody who works on a very simplistic level, that likes to "rock out with their cock out". They typically do not have a good job, or even goals for that matter. When I think of typical white trash values, it's a trans-am, a stereo system, and a trophy girl.

I do not find white trash offensive because labels are important to our and any society. I would also have to say that most people who get called white trash are done so justly, because they reflect the same simple value system that is associated with white trash.


“White Trash” is not an attack on one's lifestyle choices so much as it is a way of demeaning people who to not live standard middle to upper class lives. In most cases the target of the slur will never have made a conscious choice to live and act like white trash. Unlike middle class Americans, they are not afforded the luxury of choosing the kind of lifestyle they wish to have or of choosing whether or not to have self respect. White trash may be most accurately classified as a classist insult. --YellowLeftHand 22:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


The meaning of "white trash" is revealed by the ethnicity and class of the speaker versus the ethnicity and class of the people referred to. Invariably, the term applies to light skinned people whose ancestors, looking back over the past 1000 years or so, come from the majority ethnic groups of the British Isles or, to a much lesser extent, other northwestern European lands. It is ethnically and racially defined and it is undoubtedly seen as a slur by the people it refers to, excluding perhaps the lower half of the intelligence range. Thus, it is as much an ethnic slur as a racial one. It is generally used by members of other ethnic groups. That is, the users of this term are almost invariably within the top 5 % of the income distribution or the top 5% of the wealth distribution of the USA, or they are members of ethnic or racial groups which generally would not be eligible for this "harmless" slur. Generally, the users of this term have all seen themselves as of non-British descent, in my experience. It usually is used in a context justifying some sort of harmful act against such people, and is always seen as a not only justified term but one which enobles the user. In short, it is a stock term for ethno-political sterotyping and as shameful and stupid as other such derogatory slurs are. Its use is very similar too. If you are not mostly descended from the British in their various flavors, do *NOT* use this term or tolerate those who do. Permission to use it, to *THINK* it from wealthy, powerful "whites" does nothing to reduce the stench from this sterotyped racial and ethnic slur.

It is astounding that this subject is even a topic for intelligent discussion. It is a derogatory ethnic and class term from the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries in North America useful mainly as an excuse for dastardly acts.

[edit] How come Only...

some people are "White Trash" but all Black people are "Niggers"?

That there is racism.

[edit] Explaining my revert

I agree with the basic point made by User:70.20.232.17 -- the media is shamefully silent in admonishing people who use the phrase "white trash". Even so, I'm reverting for these reasons:

  • The insertion is unreferenced.
  • Who uses the phrase has nothing to do with race or class; all sorts of people use it.
  • The insertion is party redundant with the first paragraph.
  • The insertion interrupted the flow of the writing.

I won't object if anyone wants to reinsert the information in a way that addresses at least most of these concerns. --Allen 17:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The second paragraph

I don't think that "white trash" are upsetting anyone's understanding of what to be white is; I think they just amuse or upset people as being "unrefined" or "low-class." There doesn't seem to be anything particularly non-white about "white trash," and their existence isn't such a new or surprising thing that anyone's boundaries should be shaken. I think it is one author's opinion, and I'm not confident that many other people agree with her. Do we really think that white identity is shaken, that "white trash act black"? In particular, I don't think the "poor black" and "white trash" stereotypes closely match besides both describing poverty. I vote to strike the second paragraph and the reference. Does anyone agree? —Vivacissamamente 07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Better: who disagrees? Vivacissamamente 06:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm no sociologist, but that author's theory does sound plausible to me. And I feel like I've heard it before; I think it might be implicit with the defendant's accuser in "To Kill a Mockingbird". But right now it's worded as fact, when, as you point out, it's clearly opinion. I won't object if you take it out as POV, but would you be okay with it if someone else (probably not me; I've never read that book) later added it back with more appropriate wording? --Allen 04:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; it's been removed, pending revision. The theory makes it sound like all people accepting the white trash stereotype do so out of racism, and I seriously doubt that. I thought Mayella Ewell in To Kill a Mockingbird accused Tom Robinson of rape because her father had caught her trying to seduce him and had beaten her, and they wanted it to be Robinson's fault. I'm not clear how that connects to the theory that "white trash" are resented because they seem to exhibit stereotypical "black" behavior... please explain? —Vivacissamamente 04:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
About the Ewells... my feeling was that Lee, by putting that extreme "white trash" stereotype on display right next to the jury's display of anti-black racism, was inviting us to draw connections between the two kinds of prejudice. I don't have the book with me, but didn't she put the Ewells' house right next to the black section of town? I think I interpreted that to mean that "white trash" were seen by other whites as belonging in the same category as blacks, or nearly so, and that other whites saw blacks and "white trash" as sharing a disrespectability that was basically of the same kind. But in addition to not being a sociologist, I don't have a great track record with literary interpretation. So I'll pretty much take your word for it if I was off on that.
And then about the theory on "white trash". I agree with you that not all, and maybe not even many, people who accept the white trash stereotype today do so out of anti-black racism. And reading again the paragraph you took out, I see you're right -- it was saying that people today who use the phrase harbor anti-black prejudice. What I find plausible (and perhaps what Newitz meant in context, for all I know) is that anti-black racism might have helped cause the development of the white trash stereotype, even though it now has a life of its own. --Allen 05:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It's an interesting origin story; maybe I'll rework it to raise it as a possibility. I don't recall the book well (I think I read it in middle school), but I seem to recall that Walter Cunningham was a nice poor "white trash" boy who Scout liked, so maybe an analogy of prejudices was being drawn that I missed. Vivacissamamente 20:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
One user's disagreement with a source does not seem reason to remove it. Hyacinth 10:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
So it's your contention that it's fact and not opinion that people who stereotype "white trash" do so out of racism [against blacks] (despite the fact that the first people who used the term were aristocratic slaves), and it is our place as Wikipedia to promote the view (of this book) that this is in fact the case? I understand that my opinion doesn't matter to you, but the passage seems to be POV. —Vivacissamamente 14:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
So it's your contention that "aristocratic slaves" cannot be racist? Is it also your contention that wikipedia not cite sources? Hyacinth 08:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I rather meant that while the text you defend seemed to claim the white trash stereotype is a reflection of racism against blacks, it seems slaves, although it's of course possible that they too harbored racist views of blacks, would be less likely to blame "white trash" for "acting black." I don't know.

As for citing sources, after I removed your text (which I should instead have refactored), the material that came from that source seemed to be gone, so I deleted the source too. I agree that I shouldn't have done that. I apologize. —Vivacissamamente 11:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] text may or may not belong, but not racist in any obvious sense

Cantus, I feel you were out of line to refer to Hyacinth's text as racist. That is far too strong a word. Please see WP:CIVIL. Furthermore, there is in fact an ongoing discussion about much of that text on the Talk page, and Hyacinth has participated in it. Please contribute to it if you can do so constructively. --Allen 22:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Good luck. If you cast your eye even briefly over C's work you will see that s/he typically does not bother to respond at all to requests to engage in constructive discussion on talk pages, let alone civilly. Case in point: Michelle Bachelet. If you feel the deletion of the subject text was "out of line" (which I note is referenced), then please ensure that reversions to reinstate the text are maintained. BLUE 09:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, BLUE, for NPOVing the material that I (overenthusiastically) deleted. —Vivacissamamente 12:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You all would do well to note that the text is not "mine" but a summary. Hyacinth 12:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant yours in the sense that you contributed it to Wikipedia. I didn't mean to imply that you necessarily agreed with Newitz; I'm sorry if it sounded that way. --Allen 17:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stereotype list

I'm trying to clean up the stereotype list just a bit, though a lot more work is needed. While none of the stereotypes are explicitly referenced, I think that's okay, temporarily, for those that are unchallenged. But I'm removing some of the ones that I've never heard of, that seem obscure, or that seem like stereotypes of the wrong group. I'm also clearing up some of the more obvious redundancy. --Allen 23:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need to qualify the "white" in white trash?

The veracity of the quote "Some people argue that 'white trash' is racist, not because it includes the word 'white,' but because it implies that trashiness is the normal state for non-white people and thus when a white person is trashy it must be specified that the person is white" is debateable. To begin, how many are "some people?" Does a small number of people who use the term unconventionally warrant mentioning as a counterpoint to the dominant usage? EVERYONE I have witnessed using this term (most of whom were middle class whites) have used it to describe people who are perceived to be the "trash" of whites, NOT the "whites" of the trash [read: "non-white" in this context]; they have referred to whites, without a hidden reference to non-whites. If I rationally presume that non-whites who use the term also refer to the perceived "trash" of the whites, without a hidden reference to themselves, and/or also, more importantly, as an elided term (trash=white), then the term can indeed be used in a racist manner, but the objects in this case are white, which the article overlooks. Kemet 13 April 2006.

"Some people" is a Wikipedia:Weasel word and there should be guidelines for dealing with the term there.
Yes, the term is racist towards non-white and white people. It is racist towards white people in that it attempts to constrain their behaviour through comparing it negatively to those of non-white people. Hyacinth 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drug use

In the activities list, something that should probably be considered is use and manufacture of crystal meth, since that seems to be a drug which is primarily associated with "white trash." Willbyr 14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

This is a waste of bandwidth.LIllIi 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article has problems, but I think the article could be improved and should stay. What would you think of deleting the list of stereotypes, and requiring that any new stereotypes in the list have reliable sources, and be re-worded so that it is clearer that the stereotypes don't apply to any real group of people? --Allen 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The list of stereotypes is ridiculously offensive. There is no sourcing and no other article that I've seen does anything like this. How quickly would a similiar list in the nigger article be reverted? Witness:

People described as a nigger consistently have similar characteristics:

   * Lack of education, i.e. school drop-outs, supposedly often due to teenage pregnancy, drugs or crime.
   * Anti-social behaviour in public, such as drunkenness, heavy smoking, swearing, being loud and crude.

The section should be removed, in my opinion. - Ray 68.11.235.232 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Well, I don't think that "Nigger" is a proper analog to "White Trash". First of all, it is definitely a term that is more used by whites regarding whites - so a better analog would maybe be the black usage of "Boojie" (or however you would spell it)to connote the bourgeoise sensibilities of upper-class blacks, or, in lower class blacks, creating the image of upper-class-ness. I don't think that white trash-ness depends on wealth necessarily - it's more a sensibility that is derived from a culture originating in poverty (sorry if my sentences are a little bad. Very tired). Roseanne Barr's eponymous show is a good example of white trash aesthetic/behavior to an extent. And on that show, after she wins the lottery, her sensibilities remain intact. Hulk Hogan is far from poor, but something of a white trash icon...216.158.233.219 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Morningwindow

[edit] Clinton Era

Should there be something in here about former President Bill Clinton? I'm thinking in particular of the Paula Jones scandal, his advisor James Carville made lots of public comments about Ms. Jones being "trailer park trash" and I think this helped popularize the white trash/trailer trash labels. JME 66.72.215.225

Only if someone can find a reputable, third-party source for the idea that such statements helped popularize the labels. --Allen 01:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in the arts

I think all entries in the "white trash in the arts" section should be deleted unless a reliable source can be given showing that the work actually uses the term "white trash" or that a third-party source uses the term in discussing the work. Thoughts? --Allen 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No response, so I've gone ahead. --Allen 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ranch dressing?

first, i would like to defend this page against those who say it shouldnt be here. just because the term is offensive, or the people frowned upon by society...has nothing to do with the page itself. this is a site that covers everything about everything. moving on - since when is white trash associated with ranch dressing? is that a joke someone slipped in? i've never heard white trash being associated with ranch dressing before. someone please explain this to me. Strawberryfire 07:53, 2 August 2006 UTC

It stuck out as an obvious joke to me as well so I removed it. If someone wants to put it back get a source. Thedoorhinge 14:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stereotype list

Anyone have a source for "white trash" stereotypes? I suspect the list now includes a lot of entries that are not documented stereotypes, but just jokes or descriptions of particular fictional characters. If no one has sources for these, I think we should delete the list. --Allen 00:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than delete them all, I've deleted all those that I personally have any doubt about. If anyone has any doubt about the ones remaining, I think they should be deleted as well, even if that means there are no stereotypes that no one has any doubt about. Ultimately, of course, everything in the article should be sourced. --Allen 20:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "wigger" section

I deleted the section about the word "wigger" because it duplicates information in the Wigger article. An anonymous user re-added the section without comment. Please explain here, on the talk page, why you think the section should be included. --Allen 04:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No response; re-deleting. --Allen 20:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Byrd

The Robert Bryd quotes that keep getting replaced here have nothing to do with 'white trash'. This isn't the place for inserting irrelivant information just to express one's politics or opinion of a political figure, as indicated by the username of the individual posting it. It has been removed. Please refrain from replacing it. It is already mentioned in the relevant articles and has no place here. Castlecraver 01:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please explain this addition

I reverted the following addition, because it is an opinion, rather than a verifiable fact:

One important consideration to note is the fact that the connotation of bigotry reflected with this term is no less offensive than any other undesireable minority or ethnic slur.

But the anonymous editor who first inserted it reverted my revert without leaving an edit summary. Could the anonymous editor please explain why you disagree with my view that this violates WP:NPOV and WP:V? If someone notable said this, then we could attribute it to them. Otherwise, I think it should be removed again. --Allen 01:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] details section

The "details" section seems lacking in quality to me, and has been completely unsourced for a long time. I suggest we remove it. I'm sure decent sources exist that look at the details of modern "white trash" stereotypes, and when somebody who has such a source feels like writing a better "details" section, it will be easy to re-add to the article. --Allen 03:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] source for different definition in new England?

71.146.98.184, do you have a source for the definition of "white trash" being different in New England? I've never heard of this. It sounds a bit like the type of thing anyone in the country might say to defend use of the term against criticism from an anti-classism perspective. --Allen 06:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protect?

It looks like more than half of the last 50 edits on this page have been vandalism or reversions of vandalism. I think this page needs to be semi-protected. Compare Mulatto. --Smack (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)




[edit] Non-Latino Caucasians?

I don't understand why it specifically states that the term is used to describe Non-Latino Caucasians. I have heard the term used by many European Spaniards & Portuguese & Latin American Caucasians to describe one another. I think that particular definition is severely flawed and a byproduct a flawed and bias North American interpretation of the terminology (as opposed to a traditional/factual interpretation).

74.230.146.172 23:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Herald

Ocassional observed anecdotal usage is not an adequate support, and this is clearly an English phrase and not a Spanish or Portuguese phrase.

[edit] Racist Vs. Classist term

Someone keeps changing the home page to read taht it is a classist term and not a racist term.

White Trash can be applied to whites of all income status, but it cannot be applied to blacks, asians, or latinos. Thus it is clearly primarily a racist term with a class component, not vice versa.

[edit] Relative Geographical Term

We should have something in the article not only about the racist and classist elements of the term, but the geographical as well. There is much scholarly research out there on how white people, say, from Indiana tend to look down on people from Kentucky as white trash, how people from Kentucky look down on those from Tennessee and Arkansas as white trash, how the Arkansawers look down on people from Lousiana and Mississippi as white trash, and how almost all white Southerners who use the term "white trash" look down on white people from Alabama. Even within Alabama, the historically pro-Union northern Alabamians have always tended to look down on the southern Alabamians as being a bunch of "white trash" and "hicks."

Socio-culturally and even politically, these terms have been used historically (and still very often in a contemporary sense) by white Southerners to feel superior to white people who live further south than they do. It is an interesting phenomenon, much documented in the critical literature. Just as African-Americans have been looked down on historically depending on how dark their skin is, white Southerners have been looked down on by other white Southerners based on how far south they live.

And it's interesting that the whites of southern Alabama have no other white people to look down on--which is one theory for why southern Alabamians have historically been so vicious in their hatred of African-Americans.Qworty 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] opening paragraph: POV and unsourced

The opening paragraph that editors have been fighting over is both POV and unsourced, which is not a good combination. Why don't we just say that some people think "white trash" is racist or classist, and others disagree? Then at least we'll be NPOV, and someone can add sources later. --Allen 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==Elements of the stereotype==

There are no descriptions of stereotypes for other derogatory ethnicity specific terms. If there were, they'd be gone in a heartbeat.

Leave what defines white-trash to the imagination.

All that crap about Tattoo sporting rednecks who hunt their own meat and get pregnant at a young age, may very well be the truth, but it doesn't need to spelled out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InTheCity (talk • contribs) 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Inconsistency in "Origins and contexts"

The "Origins and contexts" section begins, "The term white trash began in the Baltimore and Washington, DC area in the post-civil war reconstruction boom ...." But it the next paragraph starts, "'White trash' first came into common use in the 1830s ..., " and the following one starts "Harriet Beecher Stowe entitled a chapter 'Poor White Trash' ...." That would place the 1830's and 1854 sometime after the Civil War. :-) I don't know enough about the term myself to make appropriate corrections--though I did make a minor typographical correction. JMRyan 18:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I wrote the wrong war when I added the material from the Wray article. Then the Wray article link was deleted. Hopefully that fixes it somewhat, although the article is still chaotic. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 19:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on heading

I would like to note that the 1820's were nowhere near the Revolutionary War, though quite close to the War of 1812, which ended in 1814 and an economic crash in the late 18 teens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.21.3 (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)