51 pages • 1 hour read
Nancy IsenbergA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Isenberg traces the origins of contempt for the white poor to colonial England. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the New World of America was considered a wasteland, uncivilized and wild and, therefore, a perfect place to send waste people. The poor of London, who were described as vagabonds and a plague, were expendable in the minds of the upper class. They could be sent to America, where, in many cases, they would be worked to death. The children of the poor were not exempted. The upper class of England considered the poor to be inferior beings, a breed distinct from themselves. Those attitudes would repeat themselves in the landed classes of America.
The conditions under which the poor lived in the New World were squalid and resulted in poor health and hygiene. Instead of attributing the state of the poor to the conditions of poverty, the landed classes blamed the poor themselves. That pattern of elite observation and condemnation repeats itself in American history from the early days of the settlements in North Carolina to the trailer parks of the 21st century.
Throughout American history, the upper and middle classes used and still use derogatory terms to describe the white underclass in politics, journalism, and popular culture. Examples include waste people, rubbish, clay-eaters, rednecks, and white trash. While the terms have varied throughout history, the meaning is always similar: The labels mark this class as inferior, intellectually challenged, racist, lazy, and even physically deformed. This stereotype is so ingrained that even those from the white underclass at times internalized and accepted it. Class status is erroneously deemed to be permanent and inheritable, rather than a function of economic policies.
As a result of such beliefs, little is done to address the underlying poverty of this class. Those in the middle and upper classes quickly and loudly object to economic programs benefitting the poor, believing that the people in this class are lazy and undeserving of help. There are those in the political class that also politically exploit the white underclass. They imitate the style associated with the stereotype, which is vulgar and at times violent, and claim to be “one of” the white poor class. These leaders meet the disdain of the upper and middle classes with a rougher disdain of the elite. Many in the white underclass embrace these politicians, even though they do not offer to change the status quo. The class hierarchy, thus, persists, with the poor kept on the margins of society in poorly paid jobs.
The white underclass of England and America was considered a different breed in the 16th and 17th centuries. This thinking had racial overtones, with the color of the poor person’s skin said to be yellowish. Additionally, this class status was believed to be inherited, as evidenced by the poor treatment and sale of children as well as the later fascination with the pseudo-science of eugenics. In the early 20th century, prominent members of society, including President Teddy Roosevelt, called for better breeding and encouraged the middle and upper classes to have several children. Humans were compared to horses and other domestic creatures at that time, with the goal of creating thoroughbreds. The despised poor, in contrast, were to be sterilized if at all possible.
As slavery became entrenched in the Southern states, white people without land or with small tracts of land could not compete with the landed gentry. Such poor white people were consigned to poor economic circumstances. From the antebellum period to the era after the Civil War, Southern elites used racism to keep them in line. They labeled those poor white people who made common cause with Black people traitors. Encouraging this white underclass to direct its anger toward Black people, Southern elites sought to direct their attention away from class inequities. When the Union soldiers made their way into the South, they were shocked at the deplorable conditions and the dire poverty in which the white underclass lived. The conditions of the Northern working class were vastly superior. In this period, a regional association started to develop between the white underclass and its Southern, rural roots. The attribute of racism was attached to the white underclass as well.
In the 20th century, Southern politicians used racist tactics to win support from the white underclass. Journalists first wrote about—and later showed on television—members of the white poor class behaving abominably. Members of this class exhibited ignorant, mean-spirited behavior and were the face of opposition to de-segregation in the South. Yet, as Isenberg notes, patricians such as Teddy Roosevelt hated race-baiting politics but harbored racist and classist attitudes. He considered Black and poor people to be inferior. In the 1960s, wealthy Southerners opposed desegregation as well, and they had the means and political influence to shield their own children from it. However, that side of the story was not reported, and the focus was kept on the racism of poor white people.
Progressive politicians from the South such as LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton shunned racism but could not completely shake the stereotype of the white underclass. Southerners with rural roots—especially those from poverty—were associated with stereotypical traits. Clinton had some success in getting mainstream America to embrace his “Bubba” traits and image. However, these leaders were never quite accepted into the Washington elite. The white underclass is defined in relation to race and is still thought to be a breed apart.
Isenberg continually emphasizes the relationship between the land and people. One of the earliest names for the white underclass was waste people who were consigned to wastelands. Then, the wealthy criticized this class of people for failing to thrive on such poor lands. Whether it be the wilds of the Americas, the swampy lands of North Carolina, the Western frontier, or trailer parks, this class was sent to the periphery of civilization. They were outcasts meant to be kept out of sight and mind of the wealthier classes.
Land ownership was and remains the key to wealth. From the early settlements, such as Jamestown, the white underclass was denied land. They came as indentured servants, for example, and had to work for a master. Kept in a wretched cycle of poverty, they did not have the means to purchase land. Therefore, they were squatters only, living on land not their own. When it was convenient for the wealthier classes, the wealthy had the right to move squatters along. Rights, in 18th- and early 19th-century America, were only for those with land. Only land owners could vote and hold office; the landless could not. As a result, laws favored the propertied. Such treatment continued into the 20th century with zoning laws that kept apartments and multi-family homes out of desirable areas. Homeowners could deduct part of their mortgage payments when filing taxes, but renters could not do so. The pattern of preferential treatment of the landed continues. Even worse, the poor are often consigned to environmentally dangerous areas, such as those with a contaminated water supply.
The association of ugly land and ugly people accounts for several of the derogatory names assigned with the white underclass. They have been called clay-eaters for eating reddish dirt and sand-hilllers for living in sandy soil, for example. Thomas Jefferson drew an analogy between layers of soil and the class hierarchy. The poor conditions of some lands, such as North Carolina, resulted in rashes and yellowing of skin. The difficulty of working such lands also caused the poor to have physical disabilities. The wealthier classes labeled such attributes as ugly and blamed the poor for them. They were viewed as inbred or inherited traits, and, therefore, the people with such traits deserved nothing more than to be on poor land. Above all, they were to be kept apart from the wealthier classes.
Books on Justice & Injustice
View Collection
Books on U.S. History
View Collection
Business & Economics
View Collection
Class
View Collection
Class
View Collection
Community
View Collection
Contemporary Books on Social Justice
View Collection
Nation & Nationalism
View Collection
Politics & Government
View Collection
Sociology
View Collection
The Best of "Best Book" Lists
View Collection