Entitled, “White Trash. The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America,” by Nancy Isenberg is a comprehensive and very scholarly detailed book. It traces the origins of the term and how it entered into the class system of England. The ideal of a ‘classless society’ maybe a noble aspiration. Yet as Isenberg points out, the underbelly of British class structure still has a hold upon us.
For this reporter, reading Isenberg’s book at over 320 pages, ranging from pre-colonial history to present day pop culture and politics was a bit daunting. The award-winning author and scholar turns up many stones in her examination of this subject as it permeates our collective American history. While the National Review wrote a scathing review of the book, calling it, “a dreadfully stupid and lazy book. It is badly written, poorly conceived, and incompetently executed.” Others, like the New York Times, have praised it, as an “eloquent volume.”
This reporter finds it difficult to accept the National Review’s point of view. Professor Isenberg cites more than 140 pages of notes and historical documents she makes reference to. Yet, in some ways, the National Review’s ‘knee-jerk’ type of reaction tells me that she is onto something. Isenberg brings up a topic people react to. But seldom do people really ponder deeply over. The term, “White Trash” even in and of itself, may be said superfluously and in jest with some. But it hurts just as much as any other derogatory label or phrase intended as a cut down.
The Washington Post in its review said, “Isenberg takes a very particular look at class in the United States, examining the white rural outcasts whom politicians from Andrew Jackson to Donald Trump have sought to rally, but who otherwise have remained vilified, shunned, targeted and kept apart, both physically — in poorhouses and trailer parks, through eugenic science and discriminatory public policy — and in the nation’s cultural imagination, where they have inspired mockery, kitsch and unceasing grimaces.”
Isenberg even follows trains of thought about how lines are drawn within a society. For an example as I read the book, I was reminded of how much a simple bias can become a prejudice. And, if we look further, it is rather puzzling how much people lean on a bias to form a sweeping opinion or judgment of others.
Then I began to recognize that many of our likes and dislikes are formed by influences that can have very little to do with the actual situation or circumstances.
One example that comes to mind is the phrase, “from the other side of the tracks.” This implies that one side is better than the other. A town or city no matter how prominent or pleasant has its “more desirable” side. From what I understand, traditionally the phrase means: That if a person lives away from industrial areas or densely populated neighborhoods that some how they are in a ‘better class of people.’ Yet, in order for an economy to be thriving it must have industry, commerce, etc. And, what about, “out in the sticks” or “out in the boondocks?” What a complicated irony! A struggle between a rural and an urban identity for class structure. America likes to think of itself as sophisticated, metropolitan, cosmopolitan, but without land and agricultural growth for food how will a society survive?
Then there is the idea of working. In British society, especially around the 18th and 19th Century, aristocrats and upper class did not work, they had servants. Typically, they got income from tenants and or farmers working on their land. Yet, America is known for its ‘work ethic.’ Ironic that the term ‘blue collar’ and ‘blue blood’ convey completely opposite meanings. One term is about the working class and the other is about royalty or nobility next to royalty.
Then there is the idea about money. Is it inherited or earned? Yes, everyone must have money. But there is a snobbery about ‘old money’ versus ‘new money’ or the “Nouveau riche.” Here is where it gets confusing. Some praise new money while others despise it because it lacks, dignity, quality or longevity. And then, the term ‘filthy lucre’ implying that there is money that is clean and good and money that is dirty and bad. In fact not too long ago it was considered rude to speak of money (especially about how much things cost, salary, etc) in public. Today prices and salary amounts are advertised everywhere.
As I kept reading, I realized one thing for certain. Much of our ideas and attitudes, for better or worse about class comes primarily from Britain. Whether as a negative or a positive, the British influence is there. Delving a little further made me wonder if our British foundations were a curse if not a blessing.
And, it seems much of our attitudes towards who is deemed worthy and who is deemed less than worthy come from unrealistic notions of class from a distant past.
Isenberg notes almost immediately, in the first few chapters that our most treasured notions of American ideals were not always held by our founding fathers. Notable men as they were, they had their flaws. And, like it or not, the ideals of freedom as we see it today was not their vision.
Many in colonial times, still viewed themselves as British subjects. And seeing themselves as such, included the attitude about class. Keep in mind, It was not until recently when ordinary citizens and women in the United States were allowed to vote. In Washington and Jefferson’s time, only land owners were permitted to vote.
Our valued notions of free speech, freedom of expression and religion, these too are relatively new, when placed against the backdrop of the larger scope of history. People sometimes forget that when the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, they were seeking religious freedom for themselves, not for other people. Other religions were not permitted. (Even if they were part of the Judaic-Christian tradition).
Our sense of landownership is garnered from Britain. From its ancient beginnings, as tribes and then to kingdoms, the British Empire was about conquest. Aside from the clashes with Native American tribes when they landed; look at how the English treated the tribes in their own land. The Celtic, the Scottish, the Welch, these all were made to assimilate to the English-British way of rule or suffer the consequences.
Why these traits survived, even amid such change and diversity of people arriving in America is something to examine. And, as I see it Isenberg, succeeds. For me her book doesn’t really explain why prejudice and caste system emerges, she only points out how and where it came from historically.
For me, I see a lot of this class and social-structure as collective expressions of vanity and narcissism. It would be interesting to see how a sociologist would view Isenberg’s book, utilizing social scientific explanations of biased and prejudiced behavior.
Social Stratification is one aspect that a sociologist might use to describe what Isenberg refers to. Social Stratification is using terms or labels to differentiate various types or levels within a given society. Since much of what makes America appealing is its sense of work ethic and opportunities available to many to succeed financially, why is it that Americans in an informed and educated culture continue in such a superficial and narrow mindset?
One explanation might be, America bases its social and class distinctions upon income, rather than character. Oh sure, we like to point to the ‘rugged individual.’ The one who pulled herself or himself up by the boot-straps and overcame adversity to provide for a family and then the entire community.
Yes, that is admirable and certainly there are plenty of examples of that in our entire American history. All that ‘rugged individual’ had to do was ‘work for it!’ But the reality is, income level and how we view that is at the heart of what is valued, not the principle or character.
The problem with this as I see it now, is the rate of inflation. No doubt there are millions and millions of Americans working very hard to maintain or achieve financial goals. Yet, let’s think about this for a second. If the rate of inflation continues to skyrocket, then regardless of the so-called ‘income bracket’ – which is really how we rate or view or social class structure, at some point no income bracket will be able to maintain a stable standard of living. Our current 21st Century culture, needs a stable standard of living in order to continue. And, so far the standard of living that helps build a nation united is not possible today.
This I think, is what is causing the decline of a viable ‘middle class’ and the increase in homelessness.
It seemed to me that not too long ago, everyday, ordinary people were able to afford the basics. A place to live, food on the table and some savings in the bank. But now, even the basics are getting harder and harder to reach. Both parents are working (if a household has a traditional nuclear family unit) and many people are holding down two or three jobs.
When will leaders and policy-makers say “enough!” Or, will it be the people themselves who say “enough!”
To learn more about “White Trash. The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America” and author Nancy Isenberg, visit her web site.
