What is a WASP?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:39:46 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  What is a WASP?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: What is a WASP?  (Read 9935 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2014, 11:33:45 PM »

This forum uses it in a bizarre way I'd never seen before...  I always thought of it as exactly what it stands for:
White (obvious enough)
Anglo Saxon (English/German/Northern European with fair features)
Protestant (mainline denomination, not evangelical).
I've heard that definition a lot, but
1. In which way are Germans and Northern Europeans Anglo Saxons?
2. Isn't Anglo Saxon almost redundant in this case, because how many White Protestants are there historically that are not British, German, Dutch or Northern European? (Huguenots? Hussites? Valdesi? Sobozinians?)

Excuse my ignorance and preliminary knowledge on the subject, but I was under the impression that the Anglos were from England and the Saxons were from Germany, giving rise to the definition I used.  As for your second point, I agree.  I was just saying I'd usually heard it used that way.  Honestly, without trying to veer off subject or getting to tender subjects, I kind of always associated it with ethnicities of people that the Nazis would have gone all googly-eyes over.
The Angles were from what is now Schleswig-Holstein, who settled in eastern Britain, where they gave their name to East Anglia, the part of Britain that sticks out northeast of London.  But the Angles settled as far north as Edinburgh.  The Saxons were in southern England around London, where they gave their name to Essex, Sussex, Wessex, and Middlesex.  Over time they became intertwined and their language of English developed. 

Anglo-Saxon generally refers to someone from Britain or particularly England, and also the the English-speaking world, particularly the special relationship between the USA and GB (terms such as British or English, of course would not be acceptable in the USA, to the way that they would in Canada or Australia).

WASP may have originally been Wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestant, the elite, wealthy, largely of English or British descent, Protestants who dominated American business and society, particularly through WWII.  It is a handy term if you are Catholic, or Jewish, or ethnic, or black, and want to claim you are using a descriptive term, but want to use it in a disparaging or derogatory manner.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 06, 2014, 10:09:31 AM »

This forum uses it in a bizarre way I'd never seen before...  I always thought of it as exactly what it stands for:
White (obvious enough)
Anglo Saxon (English/German/Northern European with fair features)
Protestant (mainline denomination, not evangelical).
I've heard that definition a lot, but
1. In which way are Germans and Northern Europeans Anglo Saxons?
2. Isn't Anglo Saxon almost redundant in this case, because how many White Protestants are there historically that are not British, German, Dutch or Northern European? (Huguenots? Hussites? Valdesi? Sobozinians?)

Excuse my ignorance and preliminary knowledge on the subject, but I was under the impression that the Anglos were from England and the Saxons were from Germany, giving rise to the definition I used.  As for your second point, I agree.  I was just saying I'd usually heard it used that way.  Honestly, without trying to veer off subject or getting to tender subjects, I kind of always associated it with ethnicities of people that the Nazis would have gone all googly-eyes over.
The Angles were from what is now Schleswig-Holstein, who settled in eastern Britain, where they gave their name to East Anglia, the part of Britain that sticks out northeast of London.  But the Angles settled as far north as Edinburgh.  The Saxons were in southern England around London, where they gave their name to Essex, Sussex, Wessex, and Middlesex.  Over time they became intertwined and their language of English developed. 


There is nothing beyond the name that connects the Angles with the Angel peininsula in central Schleswig. No linguistic connection to local dialects or any archeological evidence.

Anglo-Saxon is most closely related to the Frisian languages in the northern part of the Netherlands and - to a lesser degree - other Frisian languages in East Frisia and western Schleswig. Genetically there is a strong connection between the modern English population and Frisians in the Netherlands.
Maybe some came from S-H, maybe not. But the northern Netherlands/East Frisia is a more plausible place of origin for the Angles.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2014, 11:59:52 AM »
« Edited: September 06, 2014, 12:03:54 PM by Sibboleth »

The population history of England in the early middle ages is... er... contentious. It is not certain how large the migration of Germanic peoples actually was. The idea that there was a wholesale replacement of the previous population is discredited, but the idea that England and the English were created by a small settler elite is not massively popular. The situation is further complicated by later Norse invasions and settlement; again the exact extent of the latter is uncertain. And we shouldn't pretend that pre-Roman population history is simple either... or, actually, that there was no significant immigration between the Conquest and the beginning of emigration to the future United States.

As a historical term 'Anglo Saxon' means a speaker of Old English; it is often shortened to just 'Saxon'. Even Anglo Saxon is a simplification as traditionally the Anglo-Saxons were held to have been comprised of the Angles, the Saxons, the Frisians and the Jutes (we can be fairly sure that things were not this neat). Exactly where these people originally came from is not entirely certain, despite the seemingly certain names. Things were not recorded until centuries later, so it isn't really all that fair to blame the Venomous Bede for simplifying things.

In the context of 'WASP', though, Anglo Saxon just means English (irrespective of early mediaeval family history) and should be understood simply as the linguistic creation of a society obsessed with the idea of 'race' as a quantifiable scientific category.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,419
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 06, 2014, 12:18:40 PM »

In the context of 'WASP', though, Anglo Saxon just means English (irrespective of early mediaeval family history) and should be understood simply as the linguistic creation of a society obsessed with the idea of 'race' as a quantifiable scientific category.

Utilizing scientific insight to construct a rationale/justification for power hierarchies in society is a proud tradition in the "Western" world.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 08, 2014, 06:06:38 PM »

The population history of England in the early middle ages is... er... contentious. It is not certain how large the migration of Germanic peoples actually was. The idea that there was a wholesale replacement of the previous population is discredited, but the idea that England and the English were created by a small settler elite is not massively popular. The situation is further complicated by later Norse invasions and settlement; again the exact extent of the latter is uncertain. And we shouldn't pretend that pre-Roman population history is simple either... or, actually, that there was no significant immigration between the Conquest and the beginning of emigration to the future United States.


I think population genetics has shown that the people of the British Isles have much more in common with themselves than the Roman, Anglo-Saxon-Jute or Norman influences. This is probably disturbing news to hucksters in certain quarters who used to/still do exploit the supposed defaults in the Celtic character or the accursed and treacherous Sassenach gene.

I did the DNA testing and fascinatingly related to quite a few WASPs. It is interesting to see the surname evolution based on when someone emigrated. Not surprising I have many connections to the O'Briens, McNamara, Slattery, standard surnames from the part of Ireland my grandfather came from.  I found that those who left in the colonial era, before surnames became standardized, had a high degree of change and presumably Anglicization. A lot of Bryan, Bryant, Slattery becomes Slater etc. etc. The primary source records from County Clare in the colonial era also shows a huge variety in surname spellings.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 08, 2014, 06:18:31 PM »

There has been a recent DNA study showing that English men (of English ancestry ) share 50-100% of genetic inheritance with (West) Frisians while having surprisingly little in common with the Welsh.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 08, 2014, 06:30:45 PM »

There has been a recent DNA study showing that English men (of English ancestry ) share 50-100% of genetic inheritance with (West) Frisians while having surprisingly little in common with the Welsh.


There are a wide variety of studies that sometimes conflict. There is also variation between different regions of Britain, with some having more Germanic or Norse admixture than others. However, most studies I have seen, particularly on the maternal line,  there is large number of the genetic sampling being the original paleo or neolithic settlers.  On your study, it seems to suggest that that area of the sample had a male replacement and hostile takeover. Frequently, there was a movement of families who traded and integrated with local population. Id love to take a look at the study if you can find it.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 08, 2014, 06:56:12 PM »

I don't have a link, but I will try to look into it.

I dunno enough about measuring of female DNA to discuss that aspect, but you can apparently be relatively accurate. I saw a study saying 85% of the Faroese male DNA is Nordic and 80% of the female Celtic/Gaelic which seemingly confirms the hypothesis of Norse men buying/stealing Celtic women. But presumably doing a similar study for a population the size of England with its much more complex immigration history is difficult.

Regarding a hostile takeover there is the problem with a conspicuous absence of a layer of ash from burnt down villages in excavations and a lack of wounds on the men in Germanic warrior graves from the relevant era. So the archaeological evidence contradicts a Germanic conquest. It seems the Anglo-Saxons were just more successful for some reason and was so over multiple generations leading to a large genetic imprint.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 08, 2014, 07:12:23 PM »

The yDNA is tested for the paternal line and mtDNA for the maternal line.  Each has their own mutation rate that are passed down.  However, it should be noted that even this fascinating view is only looking through a straw and disregards the indirect line genetic contributions.

This genetic history is all rather fascinating- very interesting and sometimes sinister is the variety that male and female lines take.  eg., more European on paternal and native and African on the maternal in the Americas.

I for one take a dim view at the Celtic label on a genetic front. Likely the Celts were another cultural conquest and had limited genetic contribution to the original inhabitants. Uncomfortable for some but evidence points that the Celts were invaders to Ireland too.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: September 08, 2014, 07:26:26 PM »

I should also walk back my sinister comment because that need not be so. In pre-Christian societies and even today- successful and powerful men passed down their genes. This is borne out by the genetic contributions of the supposed Niall of the Nine hostages and Genghis Khan markers.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2014, 07:28:45 PM »


I for one take a dim view at the Celtic label on a genetic front. Likely the Celts were another cultural conquest and had limited genetic contribution to the original inhabitants. Uncomfortable for some but evidence points that the Celts were invaders to Ireland too.

Well, I think Celtic is discredited as a category in serious studies. In the one I refered they only used it as shorthand for comparing with the modern population in Ireland and Scotland.

Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2014, 07:52:49 PM »


I for one take a dim view at the Celtic label on a genetic front. Likely the Celts were another cultural conquest and had limited genetic contribution to the original inhabitants. Uncomfortable for some but evidence points that the Celts were invaders to Ireland too.

Well, I think Celtic is discredited as a category in serious studies. In the one I refered they only used it as shorthand for comparing with the modern population in Ireland and Scotland.


Yep. There are many interesting things about the Celts but really it seems to be a cultural phenomenon that swept from Central Europe out.
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2014, 08:38:20 PM »

I did the DNA testing and fascinatingly related to quite a few WASPs. It is interesting to see the surname evolution based on when someone emigrated. Not surprising I have many connections to the O'Briens, McNamara, Slattery, standard surnames from the part of Ireland my grandfather came from.  I found that those who left in the colonial era, before surnames became standardized, had a high degree of change and presumably Anglicization. A lot of Bryan, Bryant, Slattery becomes Slater etc. etc. The primary source records from County Clare in the colonial era also shows a huge variety in surname spellings.

I remember once that a woman from Ireland doing amateur genealogical research e-mailed my mother asking about a common ancestor who had emigrated to Canada in the 19th Century. It was clear from the woman's e-mail that she assumed the ancestor was Catholic, as she was, and likely that we were too. In fact we knew that this guy had been active in the Orange Order in Toronto, and had assumed that this branch of the family (like all others of mine, really) were altogether Protestant.

Of course this could be an outlier, but I kind of inferred from this story that religious intermarriage in rural northern Ireland may have been more common during certain periods than we would now think.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: September 08, 2014, 09:23:15 PM »
« Edited: September 08, 2014, 09:33:14 PM by patrick1 »

I did the DNA testing and fascinatingly related to quite a few WASPs. It is interesting to see the surname evolution based on when someone emigrated. Not surprising I have many connections to the O'Briens, McNamara, Slattery, standard surnames from the part of Ireland my grandfather came from.  I found that those who left in the colonial era, before surnames became standardized, had a high degree of change and presumably Anglicization. A lot of Bryan, Bryant, Slattery becomes Slater etc. etc. The primary source records from County Clare in the colonial era also shows a huge variety in surname spellings.

I remember once that a woman from Ireland doing amateur genealogical research e-mailed my mother asking about a common ancestor who had emigrated to Canada in the 19th Century. It was clear from the woman's e-mail that she assumed the ancestor was Catholic, as she was, and likely that we were too. In fact we knew that this guy had been active in the Orange Order in Toronto, and had assumed that this branch of the family (like all others of mine, really) were altogether Protestant.

Of course this could be an outlier, but I kind of inferred from this story that religious intermarriage in rural northern Ireland may have been more common during certain periods than we would now think.

Interesting story, yes people should be careful of their assumptions.  Take two notorious people from The Troubles.  One born Hugh Murphy in Belfast and the other John Stephenson from London.  Now Hugh Murphy, a Catholic sounding name, was none other than notorious Shankill Buther Lenny Murphy.  John Stephenson, background was Protestant but he converted in the UK became committed to the Republican movement and was to be Provisional IRA chief of staff Seán Mac Stíofáin.

My Grandmothers side were Irish Republicans from the Monaghan/Armagh border but shared a likely Scottish clan name with Protestants.

--Interesting side note that Dublin Castle kept records on "Converts from Popery" in the 18th century.  This was for Tithe collection purposes but still an interesting document to see how many merchants and landholders made a move- whether motivated by money and connection or real faith is of course personal.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: September 09, 2014, 06:35:23 AM »

There has been a recent DNA study showing that English men (of English ancestry ) share 50-100% of genetic inheritance with (West) Frisians while having surprisingly little in common with the Welsh.


Interesting, Frisian is the closest language that is out there to English. It is interesting to listen to it on the internet. You feel as if you should understand it, because the cadence is very similar, yet except for the odd word that pops out that is the same as English, you don't of course.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 12 queries.