Talk:White trash/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Factual issue: Indentured servitude

The opening paragraph of the history section is:

'Beginning in the early 17th century, the City of London shipped their unwanted excess population, including vagrant children, to the American colonies – especially the Colony of Virginia, the Province of Maryland, and the Province of Pennsylvania – where they became not apprentices, as the children had been told, but indentured servants, working particularly in the fields, especially in Maryland and Tidewater Virginia. Even before the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade brought Africans to the British colonies in 1619, this influx of "transported" English, Welsh, Scots, and Irish was a crucial part of the American workforce. The Virginia Company also imported boatloads of poor women to be sold as brides. The numbers of these all-but-slaves was significant: by the middle of the 17th century, at a time when the population of Virginia was 11,000, only 300 were Africans, who were outnumbered by English, Irish and Scots indentured servants. In New England, one-fifth of the Puritans were indentured servants. More indentured servants were sent to the colonies as a result of insurrections in Ireland. Oliver Cromwell sent hundreds of Irish Catholics to British North America during the Irish Confederate Wars (1641–1653).'

This paragraph only has a single reference and yet there are numerous claims, presented as fact, which conflict with the material at Indentured servitude in British America.

1. We need a direct citation for shipping unwanted people and orphaned children to the Americas against their will. I am almost certain this may have some basis in fact, but I can't adjudicate how accurate it is without such a source. Most modern scholars say that the majority of transported children were brought over by their extended families to work.
2. It conflates penal transportations with indentured servitude. We should be accurate and specific when talking about each.
3. The "selling" of brides is hyperbole and misleading (see topic up the page).
4. "all-but-slaves" is editorialising. If this is a direct quote, make that clear. Indentured servitude is a specific form of bonded servitude, sometimes described as slavery, but we shouldn't present an opinion on that as fact. We should also be accurate to avoid the Irish slaves myth.
5. "only 300 were Africans..." is partial information. How many were from other groups, specifically? It's editorialising in that it seems to present a very vague point to add to a "thesis". Again, let's avoid the Irish slaves myth too.
6. "More indentured servants" -- how many? Two? A million? It's vague and seems only added to build to a thesis.
7. There's no talk about the duration of indentured servitude, that most Europeans were engaged in free wage labour, or that the number of free and formerly indentured workers outnumbered indentured servants at any given time, with some exceptions.

Lewisguile (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Editorialising

This is one paragraph:

'In the mid-19th century South, even upper-class parents were extremely indulgent of their children, encouraging both boys and girls to be aggressive, even ferocious. They soon learned that they were expected to grab for what they wanted, wrestle with their siblings in front of their parents, disobey parental orders, make a racket with their toys, and physically attack visitors. Patrician girls would later be taught to be proper young ladies, but boys continued to be unrestrained, lest they become effeminate. These behaviors – which were also practiced by poorer whites to the extent their circumstances allowed – propelled young men into gambling, drinking, whoring and fighting, which "manly" behavior was more or less expected – but which their mothers carefully did not allow themselves to be aware of – and which was certainly preferred to effeminacy. This pattern of child-rearing was predominate in the backwoods, where it was not limited to the upper class, but could be found among yeoman and poor whites alike. For white trash, given this method of raising children, combined with violent folkways inherited from their English, Irish, and Scottish progenitors, it is not unremarkable that their culture should have been a violent one.'

As well as featuring a number of archaic words ("lest", "whoring"), it also displays editorialising and a clear POV (we describe children as "even ferocious", mothers "carefully" don't pay attention, presumed violence is clearly deemed "unremarkable"). If a reliable source has argued that these "violent folkways" were inherited from British and Irish progenitors, for example, then we should quote that source, instead of saying it in Wikipedia's voice. Lewisguile (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

See also:

'Poor Southern whites in the 19th century were often casual about male sexual activity outside of marriage, sometimes exhibiting a moral informality that was only slightly suppressed by the rise of evangelical revivalism and increasing church discipline. This behavior was part of a roistering tradition that had roots in the British origins of the class, and differentiated white trash from both the yeoman class and landed gentry of the plantations, where church proscriptions and social inhibitions held sway, respectively.'

More archaic language and presenting sources' opinions on causation as fact. Lewisguile (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, the article states opinion as if it were fact:

'Americans may have degenerated somewhat in comparison to their ancestors, one of the weakening effects of civilization, but they still maintained their superiority over other "races", and white Southerners of all kinds, but especially poor ones, were themselves inferior to their countrymen from New England and the north'

Firstly, this is only a reference to white or European Americans; non-European Americans are erased by this statement. Secondly, "somewhat" is a weasel word. Thirdly, that white Americans have "degenerated" due to the "weakening effects of civilization" and yet still maintain "their superiority" is clearly an opinion. We should make this clear with appropriate language. Lewisguile (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's another bit:

'Use of "white trash" epithets has been extensively reported in African American culture. Some black authors have noted that blacks, when taunted by whites as "niggers", taunted back, calling them "white trash" or "crackers". Black parents often teach their children that poor whites are "white trash". The epithet appears in black folklore. As an example, blacks who were slaves would, when out of earshot of whites that owned slaves, refer to harsh slave owners as a "low down" man, "lower than poor white trash", or "a brute, really".'

The first part, bolded, implies that this is an ongoing situation, but the sources used are from 1999 and 2001. I think this needs to be contextualised as historic unless we have a good source to indicate this is still an ongoing issue.

The last sentence also over-labours the point and is overwritten (it's enough to say "refer to harsh slave owners as "lower than poor white trash"). Lewisguile (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

And here:

'In 2000, Chuck Jackson argued in the African American Review that Hurston's meditation on abjection, waste, and the construction of class and gender identities among poor whites reflects the eugenics discourses of the 1920s.'

The word "reflects" could imply Hurston herself believes in eugenics or is endorsing them. A more accurate summary of the review would be that she "critiques" these discourses (she tries to compare the plight of poor whites and black people, according to the source). Lewisguile (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)