Anyone else notice that “white ethnics” are more maga than DAR/mayflower/wasp types?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Within the white population has anyone else noticed that white-ethnics (Italians, polish, Eastern Euro, Irish) seem to be have a higher incidence of maga than mayflower whites/dar eligible types.

Thoughts? Isn’t this the exact opposite of 20-30 years ago?

They're movin on up they think. Not the way they were treated when they came here a century+ ago.

And folks like Miller want to lead the charge look at where he "comes from." Ha.

[Anonymous]

I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are white but they’re some of the dumbest people I’ve met. I went to West Virginia and the people there are so uneducated and so poor even after a hundred years of trying to help them. Without other (non-white) people for them to take advantage of, they form the poorest fattest and least educated communities. There is a lot of white on white violence surrounding drug use there as well. A lot of them are on welfare or can’t hold jobs because they can’t pass drug tests or are just lazy.

[Anonymous]

OP those white ethnics tend to be more insecure about their status, so they tend to embrace racism and anything that they believe makes them look more white. They’ve got it wrong. The mayflower types are more confident and don’t rely on nasty positions to feel on the in.

[Anonymous]

Read American Nations by Colin Woodward. It explains this phenomenon rather well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Within the white population has anyone else noticed that white-ethnics (Italians, polish, Eastern Euro, Irish) seem to be have a higher incidence of maga than mayflower whites/dar eligible types.

Thoughts? Isn’t this the exact opposite of 20-30 years ago?

Are you asking why there seems to be more democratic support among brahmin limousine liberals than among whites that are maybe one generation removed from working class?

[Anonymous]

This is why I hate why people paint “whites” with one swath - we are also diverse

[Anonymous]

I belong to a very WASPy club that is about 98% white and old money. Thirty years ago, my parents had to hide the fact that they were Democrats. Now it's the few remaining Republicans who are on the down low. I think you'd probably be kicked out if you admitted voting for Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren’t many WASPs left. They stopped having children a few generations ago.

About 44% of white Americans are estimated to be descended from people in the 1790 census. About 60% of all Americans have ancestors that lived in America during the revolutionary war. Seems like “many”.

Does that 60% include people who were enslaved by WASPs?

And originally sold by their African leaders into dlavery? Don’t leave that out.

Why is that relevant? We are trying to determine ancestry not moral culpability for slavery.

And just for the record, in what way is the moral culpability of slaveowners any less because they bought the slaves from other africans?

[Anonymous]

This thread is ridiculous.

If it were Whites talking like this about Blacks, or Asians, or Latinos, there would be a lot of people squawking.

I get it. You want a double standard, but in your favor so you can talk trash whenever you want to, without consequences.

LOL.

[Anonymous]

We northern DAR types have always needed immigrants to build our mills and railroads, do our laundry, sell fruit.
Now, who maintains our landscaping? Plows our driveways? Hard working immigrants.
We don't wast a 21st century version of a day without a Mexican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren’t many WASPs left. They stopped having children a few generations ago.

About 44% of white Americans are estimated to be descended from people in the 1790 census. About 60% of all Americans have ancestors that lived in America during the revolutionary war. Seems like “many”.

Does that 60% include people who were enslaved by WASPs?

Yes.

Most ADOS people are descended from slaves AND slave-owners. That's why they have so much European DNA.

Just like Kamala Harris's dad, who was a descendant of African slaves brought to Jamaica, slave owners, and of Irish who were brought as indentured servants during the famine of 1845. Afro-Caribbean and European, plus Indian from her mom's side. Most Americans are a mix of many things. But stupidly people focus on hate and othering, like the ADOS folks who tried claiming she wasn't Black or the descendant of slaves. We need to stop being so divisive and to stop letting others manipulate us on lines of race and ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

This thread is proof that there are a lot of anon posters on here who are clued up observers and it’s just not msnbc woke

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read American Nations by Colin Woodward. It explains this phenomenon rather well.

💯

And Albion’s seed by david Hackett fisher

[Anonymous]

How are you "noticing" this? Is it proven factually, or just a way to set apart Mayflower people as "better" white people? Sarah Palin and Clint Eastwood are Mayflower descendants btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting take on the Anglo vs Scots divide

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/most-white-americans-wasps-why-matters-michael-robinson-byrd

Imagine you are at an extended family reunion. Two main branches are present: the Scots and the English. The Scots family descend from the Celts, along with the Picts and the Vikings. The English family also descend from the Celts but have had a whole bunch of other families force their ways into the bloodline; included in that ancestry is DNA from the Romans, the Angles, Normans, Gauls, Danes, Jutes and Saxons. While the Celt line is present in both families, the Scots family can’t stand their distant cousins, the English. The Scots think the English are hypocrites and colonizing bullies who put on airs. The English think the Scots are savages to be tamed. This family dynamic is one giant tit-for-tat that has been going on for centuries, and the current problem of American political paralysis is a consequence.

The term W.A.S.P. means White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant and is generally used today to describe all White, non-Catholic, non-Jewish people in America. This lens was applied to all White Americans in the 1920’s to encourage the immigrating Catholics and Jews from Europe to assimilate into a W.A.S.P. ideal. However, the term only describes the modern voting bloc descended from England who are primarily Democrats and reside in the American Northeast.

The moniker completely ignores the Scots-descended voting bloc, who were never Anglo nor Saxon. These men and women are the Republican voters in the South, Midwest, the Plains, and Mountain West, whose population is more than quadruple that of the English descendants. For social movements and minority voting blocs seeking to blunt the impact of ‘states’ rights’ and achieve legislative consensus to codify laws that benefit their communities, it will require treating these White voting blocs as distinct ethnic groups. By tailoring political messaging for each group, we can get the machinery of politics moving again.

The English wanted to control the Scots for a few reasons. The first is that, well, who didn’t the English want to control? The old phrase “The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire” had a very specific meaning: they were everywhere.

Militarily, the English wanted to conquer Scotland for territorial integrity and peace of mind.

Economically, they wanted their lands for sheep grazing, as Scotland had and still has the perfect environment for sheep but not much else. Wool used to be the main export for England and the country remains one of the top five wool exporters in the world today.

Politically and perhaps most significantly, the Scottish power structure offended and scared the English monarchs. The Picts and Celts, and then the Scots, always had a clan-based, bottom-up, Confederacy-style view of democracy that has never been friendly to central authority – even that of its own kings. Once the Romans conquered England, the English and their contributing bloodlines have always had a strong central authority and top-down view of society. The Normans then fortified the monarchy and peerage system England uses today. These worldviews have clashed for two thousand years as the English rulers have repeatedly tried to bring the Scots to heel. Just because these two groups left Britain doesn’t mean their rivalry ceased.

David Brooks noted this phenomenon. “Do you want to predict how a certain region is going to vote in the 2020 presidential race? Discover who settled the region in the 17th and 18th centuries. If the settlers were from the East Anglia section of Britain, then that region is probably going Democratic. If the settlers were from the north of Britain, that region is very likely to vote for Donald Trump.” His article highlights research from Gary Miller and Norman Shofield, along with work from Jonathan Rauch here. Cameron Joseph covered it in The Atlantic; Thomas Friedmancovered it in the New York Times. Tim Miller even covered it on Morning Joe when he said that Trump’s rise to power was “a bottom-up thing.” In fact, it was a Scottish thing.

This is very interesting. To add, Trump's mother was born in Scotland. Also, most white folks are a mix of ethnicities. It was common among Whites of my boomer generation to rattle off their ethnicity as part of their introductory phase when they're dating. Vanna White has many times stated she's German, Italian and Spanish. Pat Sajak used to joke he was straight Polish despite his first name which is common among the Irish. The WASPs are not a monolith. A lot of them are part German or Irish or something else.