Wasp

Question

Hi,I was just taken aback by Wickipedia's definition of the subject term, stressing its use as a pejorative, warning against its lack of political correctness, and describing its focus on elite power.  (I never thought it had anything to do with elite power.  Foolish snobbery, perhaps.) How have I missed this in 73 years living as a US wasp?  I'm not ashamed of being a wasp, neither am I proud.  I just view is as a convenient shorthand.(After all, aren't skinheads wasps too?)Where do others stand on this?Best wishes,  - A.

Philip · Accepted Answer

I use 'WASP'  most often in casual conversation, with a bit of [self-depricating] humor attached.  I don't find it elitist, snobbish, power-holding or politically incorrect.  I give it the same power as the word 'yuppie'.

Avangi · Answer

Thank you, Philip.  We seem to be on the same wavelength here.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

I still see it as a pejorative, although these terms often do tend to get watered down as time passes.

Best wishes, Clive

Avangi · Answer

Thanks, Clive.  <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>

Vorpar · Answer

As an acronym, it's pretty neutral: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. It's really how one uses it that makes it a pejorative.

Avangi · Answer

I agree, Vorpar.  Thank you.

Philip · Answer

VorparAs an acronym, it's pretty neutral: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. It's really how one uses it that makes it a pejorative.

I absolutely agree.

Clive · Answer

Hi guys,

I'd hesitate to say that classifying someone by their skin colour, their ethnicity and their religion is pretty neutral.

Can you think of any other cases where we do that?

Clive

Avangi · Answer

Clive I'd hesitate to say that classifying someone by their skin colour, their ethnicity and their religion is pretty neutral.

Perhaps I should have posted in controversial subjects instead of Vocab.

There's got to be some irony here.
It seems like all the classifications in all the categories are relatively free from prejudice in this case. I'm not sure if that makes it special or not.

I've had two black friends, one of each gender, who were close enough to forget occasionally that I was not black. I'll admit it seemed really strange to hear the girl use the term "paddy" in reference to racial "outsiders," but she never used it in reference to me. It was definitely a pejorative, and I can't say that I liked it; but it was so mild as to become neutral for all intents and purposes.
The other case was harder to get out of my mind, although it seemed humorous. The guy really hated John Wayne because he played war heros but was never in the military. My friend remarked that Wayne's pink *** never saw a second of combat. At that moment, I felt like an outsider, but again, it was very mild.
I guess my point is that prejudice without animus is not really prejudice - or, at least, it's in a special category.
I know white jazz critics who have accused Miles Davis and Wynton Marsalis of being racists, but I think that's a bunch of bull.

Vorpar · Answer

CliveHi guys,

I'd hesitate to say that classifying someone by their skin colour, their ethnicity and their religion is pretty neutral.
Can you think of any other cases where we do that?

Clive

You're right, there probably aren't any equivalents for other combinations. I was thinking that as pure descriptors, the terms are neutral. The problem would come from lumping people into a group with a term that may be offensive in certain contexts.

Wasp

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions