Talk:White trash

Suggested fixes

At User:Beyond My Ken's suggestion, I'm making some suggestions for fixes here. There is lots of unfounded, outdated or unsourced information on this page, so I made a bold edit. My edits were reverted with minimal explanation (e.g., without saying which parts were problematic), so I am opening a discussion here for editors to get involved in so we can move forward with this.

Stylistically, this article also reads like a personal essay, rather than an encyclopedia entry, with lots of editorialising, comment and hyperbole. Some of these are matters of taste, but where they stray into POV, weasel words and peacock prose, I think they need to be addressed as well.

I believe that the existing article is of poor quality and has some serious problems which have to be addressed. We should avoid ownership attitudes when trying to come to a new consensus, and revert only when needed (WP:ROWN).

For example, the first paragraph in the history section is quite long but only has a single (quite old) source for some quite contentious information. It implies a large number of children were tricked into indentured servitude in the Americas, when more recent scholarship suggests most children transported in this way were sponsored by family members to come work on their land. Just because a single source makes such a claim, if doesn't mean it's noteworthy or should be given equal weight to other info.

Scholarship also indicates that the number of indentured workers at any one point was less than the overall number of people who were free wage labourers and ex-indentured servants at any one time (except for a few notable exceptions). The Wikipedia page Indentured servitude in British America confirms most of this and is at odds with this section, which feels like ira paraphrasing a single author's view.Lewisguile (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I will make a new topic for each area I believe needs improvement. We can then discuss them individually as requested. Lewisguile (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Beyond My Ken

I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I feel that the edits made by Lewisguile on this article were well evidenced, accurate and an important restoring of a factual telling of these histories.

I hope that a decision would be made which is a fair and respectful telling of this topic.

Thank you Redraspberryswirl (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. So far, we've only had your response. I'll check back in a few days, when hopefully a few more people will see this. I am hoping the issue raised, and which triggered reversion, was more to do with stylistic choices (i.e., my copy edits) rather than the factual and bias issues I corrected. If so, then hopefully it'll be a quick job to address the specific issues raised below, and we can return to the subject of copy edits at a later date. Lewisguile (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I should add, some of the edits which were reverted weren't mine, either. There were helpful edits made by others which I agreed with and which were also undone. Lewisguile (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Redraspberryswirl has made only two edits, this one and one to your talk page. Odd that someone would swoop in only to agree and then vanish. Doug Weller talk 10:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably a new editor/dabbler. The person who wanted me to start the BRD cycle also posted on my page and then hasn't replied since.

Do you disagree with any of the key points? It would be helpful if you could discuss any improvements here.

Lewisguile (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Factual issue: tobacco brides

The article claims 'The Virginia Company also imported boatloads of poor women to be sold as brides.' This is misleading. The women were transpored to America, but they weren't "sold". The men paid for their transport but they were incentivised with land, inheritance and the right to choose their own husbands.

The Atlantic confirms, 'Although the financially strapped Virginia Company was eager to recoup the costs of sponsoring the Jamestown brides, it was not selling women.'

History.com also agrees: https://www.history.com/news/jamestown-colony-women-brides-program

Wikipedia already has a page outlining what the tobacco brides were, so this part of the article should be aligned with that page.

Suggestion: reword or add context.

Lewisguile (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, "boatloads" is arguably loaded language. A more neutral approach would be to indicate roughly how many women were transported. Lewisguile (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile HIstory.com is not a reliable source. See RSNP. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That's good to know. The Atlantic and the other sources from the page on here should be more than enough. Thank you. Lewisguile (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I checked and I didn't use History.com for that section. The current wording uses RS from the tobacco brides page. Lewisguile (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Bias/POV: selective use of quotes

Quotes are often used selectively in this article, and often omit important context that works against the article’s presumed “thesis”. The arguments presented by scholars and critics are only partially referred to.

For example, Leah Donnella argues that “white trash” is also offensive to people of colour because a) it implies that those other people are inherently “trash” so don’t need a racial qualifier, and b) the tropes used to portray “white trash” as “bad poor” are the same tropes used to stereotype people of colour.

In her discussion with Wray, she also points out that “white trash” implies poor whites are “not quite white”. Source: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/30/633891473/why-its-time-to-retire-the-disparaging-term-white-trash

The following was also removed:

'Sociologist Matt Wray also claims that the term is used to perpetuate the long-held belief that poor whites are more racist than wealthier whites. This helps affluent whites to avoid criticism as racists while characterising poor whites as the embodiment of "real" prejudice. Wray states:

“Whites who use the term are saying, ‘Look, I’m not racist. The person down the road is racist. The one who drops the N-word, or has the Confederate flag flapping off the back of their truck. That’s real racism.’"' (Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/08/01/605084163/why-its-still-ok-to-trash-poor-white-people)

This is important context for why "white trash" is racist and covers a crucial part of the modern stereotype of "white trash" as more racist than other people.

Lewisguile (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The same happens with Lucas Lynch. He is quoted as saying "white trash" is racist, but the wider context is left out. This was what I suggested adding:

'Lucas Lynch states that white trash emerged "as a racial slur for white indentured servants" and argues that it "remains a powerful insult against poor whites and people of color alike," because it reinforces white supremacy (as both racist and classist)." (Source: https://thesocietypages.org/clippings/2018/09/12/how-the-term-white-trash-reinforces-white-supremacy/)

Notably, Lynch agrees with Wray (as does Donnella).

Kirstine Taylor also points out the contradiction of accusing "white trash" of a) being more racist than other whites and b) being more like people of colour, and specifically points out that poor whites are singled out as "racial transgressors" because of this. I suggested the following:

'While the term stereotypes poor whites as being more racist than other whites, Kirstine Taylor argues that the term is also used to accuse them of negative characteristics stereotypically ascribed to blacks, and even of allying with blacks against other whites, making them "racial transgressors" in the eyes of wealthier white people.' (Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43823007)

So there is a consensus among these modern scholars/critics that a) "white trash" are portrayed as more racist than other whites and b) "white trash" tropes are connected to racist tropes used against other racial and ethnic groups too. This is therefore important context to add back in, and not remove. Lewisguile (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Here there is an avoidance of direct language where it troubles the "thesis" of the article:

'Northerners claimed that the existence of white trash was the result of the system of slavery in the South, while Southerners worried that these clearly inferior whites would upset the "natural" class system which held that all whites were superior to all other races, especially blacks.'

Why not just call it what it is: white supremacy? This ties into the point about editorialising (also: "clearly inferior" is less suitable than "allegedly inferior"). Lewisguile (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can be a "critic". Since there is plenty of good scholarship available, the article should mainly use such mainstream academic sources. I've placed the Lynch source (which is a blog by a non-expert) under § Further reading for now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I saw, and I think that's a good idea. Wray and Taylor seem better anyway (Lynch is just reiterating what they said). Lewisguile (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Coatrack

Apart from the issues above, I think one thing that needs to be considered about this article is its scope. It starts out about a "derogatory racial and classist slur", but expands to include an over-sized and detailed history of poor, white, southern Americans. Is this the purpose of the article? Is this not content that should be in a more suitable article, rather than as part of an article about a slur? Is this content not already elsewhere in Wikipedia? Do the sources for all this even include the phrase? There is a distinct hint of WP:COATRACK about it all. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Very fair point. I did wonder that myself. Lewisguile (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The most heavily cited source in the § History section is Isenberg (2016). "White trash" is literally in the title. That said, the book is from a trade publisher rather than an academic press, and claims to tell an "untold history" by "upend[ing] assumptions" in the vein of many a bestseller. So it's doubtful whether the source represents current scholarly consensus. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this potentially accounts for the disparities between, e.g., her account of indenture and the actual Wikipedia page on the same topic. Isenberg is probably building a thesis to sell her book, so she is naturally being selective, and simplifying for a mainstream audience. Lewisguile (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)