Scottish and Orange Irish Ancestry

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This is a question I've been curious about for a while.  Although I dislike the term "WASP" (partially because it's so frequently used as a slur), I've been wondering: could people of Scottish or Irish Protestant ancestry be considered WASPs if they don't also have English ancestry?  I'd like to get some opinions on this.

[jimrtex]

This is a question I've been curious about for a while.  Although I dislike the term "WASP" (partially because it's so frequently used as a slur), I've been wondering: could people of Scottish or Irish Protestant ancestry be considered WASPs if they don't also have English ancestry?  I'd like to get some opinions on this.

WASP is a modern term, and may have original stood for Wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestants (particularly Episcopalian).   That is, it referred to the dominant elite in the northeast who ran the corporations, sent their children to prep school and the Ivies.  While this group may have regarded themselves as superior, they likely would not have used to describe themselves or others (they wouldn't say "she is not a WASP", but "she's Catholic" or "she's Jewish" or "he's German", or "he goes to public school"

"Anglo-Saxon" has broadened to mean English-speaking, particularly in reference to the special relationship between Britain and the US (plus Canada, Australia, etc.).

[Indy Texas]

Trying to apply a strict genetic test to WASP-hood, which is a sociocultural construct never used by the people to whom it is applied, is futile.

If one must be of non-Catholic British Isles descent to be a WASP, must one also be wealthy? Must one have attended an Ivy League school? Would a strong liberal arts college like Amherst or Swarthmore be acceptable? Is there a minimum net worth requirement?

Would the du Pont family of Delaware qualify as WASPs? They are of Huguenot French, rather than English, stock, and they came to America in the early 19th century, which is "late" compared to the colonial Mayflower settlers. Same story with the Rockefellers, who are of German ancestry and came to America well after the Revolutionary War.

[jimrtex]

Trying to apply a strict genetic test to WASP-hood, which is a sociocultural construct never used by the people to whom it is applied, is futile.

If one must be of non-Catholic British Isles descent to be a WASP, must one also be wealthy? Must one have attended an Ivy League school? Would a strong liberal arts college like Amherst or Swarthmore be acceptable? Is there a minimum net worth requirement?

Would the du Pont family of Delaware qualify as WASPs? They are of Huguenot French, rather than English, stock, and they came to America in the early 19th century, which is "late" compared to the colonial Mayflower settlers. Same story with the Rockefellers, who are of German ancestry and came to America well after the Revolutionary War.

Certainly not John D.'s father Bill, who was a traveling salesman (elixirs), abandoned his family, and was a bigamist under an assumed name.

John D. graduated from a business college.

His only son, John D., Jr., went to Brown.

His sons all went to Ivy League schools: John D III (Princeton), Nelson (Dartmouth), Laurence (Princeton), Winthrop (Yale, but expelled), David (Harvard)

The 4th generation includes John D IV (Jay) Harvard, Nelson's 4 sons: Dartmouth+Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, and Princeton; David's sons: Harvard and Harvard Medical (I don't know if his BA is from Harvard).   The only exception is Winthrop's son, who went to TCU (so being expelled from Yale, and moving to Arkansas, must de-WASP you.

So by the time, WASP's began being called WASP''s they would have been. 

[Citizen Hats]

I've always been under the impression that the term "WASP" was only really relevant in the North, and particularly the North East, in dichotomy with the waves of Irish, Southern, and Eastern Europeans who flocked to the region in the late 19th Century and their decedents.

In the South, the term isn't really relevant, considering that it arguably applies to almost the entirety of the white population of Southern Stock. 

I suppose that saying that southern whites are 'WASPs' is sort of like saying that southerners of Cherokee ancestry are 'mestizo'. It fits the technical definition, but it's not relevant to the society in question

[jimrtex]

I've always been under the impression that the term "WASP" was only really relevant in the North, and particularly the North East, in dichotomy with the waves of Irish, Southern, and Eastern Europeans who flocked to the region in the late 19th Century and their decedents.

In the South, the term isn't really relevant, considering that it arguably applies to almost the entirety of the white population of Southern Stock. 

I suppose that saying that southern whites are 'WASPs' is sort of like saying that southerners of Cherokee ancestry are 'mestizo'. It fits the technical definition, but it's not relevant to the society in question

According to Wikipedia, the term WASP did not come into use until the mid-20th century - its first bublished used was in 1957. and was used by sociologists to describe the elite in the northeast.   And it it was true that "W" stood for wealthy, it would exclude most southerners, regardless of race or ethnicity.

[Sol]

I've always been under the impression that the term "WASP" was only really relevant in the North, and particularly the North East, in dichotomy with the waves of Irish, Southern, and Eastern Europeans who flocked to the region in the late 19th Century and their decedents.

In the South, the term isn't really relevant, considering that it arguably applies to almost the entirety of the white population of Southern Stock. 

I suppose that saying that southern whites are 'WASPs' is sort of like saying that southerners of Cherokee ancestry are 'mestizo'. It fits the technical definition, but it's not relevant to the society in question

A good hunk of southerners are Scottish or Scots-Irish.

[jimrtex]

I've always been under the impression that the term "WASP" was only really relevant in the North, and particularly the North East, in dichotomy with the waves of Irish, Southern, and Eastern Europeans who flocked to the region in the late 19th Century and their decedents.

In the South, the term isn't really relevant, considering that it arguably applies to almost the entirety of the white population of Southern Stock. 

I suppose that saying that southern whites are 'WASPs' is sort of like saying that southerners of Cherokee ancestry are 'mestizo'. It fits the technical definition, but it's not relevant to the society in question

A good hunk of southerners are Scottish or Scots-Irish.

The Anglo-Saxons kingdoms included much of Scotland.  Northumberland went way north of the Humber.  Scots English was not English that developed in the south and then moved north.  It developed contemporaneously.

[Brittain33]

The Anglo-Saxons kingdoms included much of Scotland.  Northumberland went way north of the Humber.  Scots English was not English that developed in the south and then moved north.  It developed contemporaneously.

While all of these facts are more or less accurate, as a result of revisionist history and the impact of a defined border more recently than that, Scotland when taken as a whole is considered a Celtic nation as opposed to Anglo-Saxon. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nations

[afleitch]

The Anglo-Saxons kingdoms included much of Scotland.  Northumberland went way north of the Humber.  Scots English was not English that developed in the south and then moved north.  It developed contemporaneously.

While all of these facts are more or less accurate, as a result of revisionist history and the impact of a defined border more recently than that, Scotland when taken as a whole is considered a Celtic nation as opposed to Anglo-Saxon.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nations

I will jump into this one

Scots-English is a language that developed after the Union of the Crowns. The Germanic language of Scotland was Scots which only slightly less far removed from 'English' as Frisian is removed from English today. It's home was the sweep of Scotland from the Firth of Forth (including Edinburgh) to the English border and also, somewhat independently (at last initially) in the North East. It developed from Northumbrian Old English. The area to the south west (the Kingdom of Strathclyde) spoke an early iteration of Welsh until the collapse of the kingdoms of the Britons where it then made way for both Gaelic and Scots. Gaelic was the predominant language of the north of Scotland which as late as the 1800's was spoken from a line that stretched as far south as about 20 miles north of Glasgow.

Now you have to remove today's demographics from the map. At the Act of Union in 1707 the population of Scotland was about 1,000,000. It is estimated that it stood at around 800,000 in the very early 1600's. The population of Scotland, in terms of distribution at this time was more heavily concentrated in the Highlands and islands. 'Scots' itself was technically an umbrella term for a collection of tongues that people could have a simple conversation across including Doric, Norn, Lallans etc. These had not yet been standardised and indeed never would be by the time of the Union and the permeation of Scots-English. As a language, Gaelic was at the very least the largest in terms of languages spoken by plurality if not by outright majority.

Gaelic's strength ironically was probably greater from the 1350's to 1600's than it was from 1000 to the 1350's simply as a result of a higher mortality rate as a result of the Black Death which also led to a migration northwards.

That is why Scotland, at least in terms of language should be rightly considered a 'Celtic' nation from it's foundation to the acts of union.