Who's the Boss?

Picture it. America. 1776. A new country is born. The oppressive rule of the British empire is behind us and the new world is ours. The 13 states comprise the United States of America.

Embedded in the foundation of the United States was a hierarchical culture. At the time, it was very openly and the truths were self-evident that the people who  America was for was White Anglo Saxon Protestants, known as WASPs.

The dynamic was simple. In a gender structure, male WASPs dominated and female WASPs were servant to them. The other dynamic of this was these WASPs had to own property to be considered part of the voting population and therefore represented and representing within the governmental structures of the new country.

The dynamic is interesting when you look at it in a historical context. So plainly, a system was set in place to prioritize one sect of society over all the others. Breaking it down, an Anglo Saxon did not include Italians, Greek or Spaniards...they were white Europeans but not Anglo Saxon. It didn't include black people or Asian people. So many people were left out!

Of course, suffrage eventually came to people without property, then black people, then women. Now, it is, theoretically, a universal right unless, in some states, you have a felony.

In the book The New Jim Crow, we learn that slavery and Jim Crow have not gone away but rather have re-manifested into new, complex ways.

So, when we look at that context, we obviously understand that this re-manifestation has had an effect to where some people who might have been enslaved pre-13th amendment might not wind up incarcerated, just based on chance. Likewise, some people who are white, who definitely wouldn't have been enslaved, might wind up trapped in the criminal justice system. This is because the re-manifestation has to be challenging, race neutral (on paper) and as a result, it is complex and impossible to fully oppress just the group you wish to oppress.

Now, if these systems could manifest in new, modern ways, why couldn't the WASP system? Just like the prison industrial complex doesn't encapsulate all black people and how it sometimes oppresses white people, any new manifestation of the WASP system will, inadvertedly, not work in the advantage of all Anglo-Saxon Protestants and in some cases, non-WASPs are able to sneak into the elite class and build power. Ultimately, however, the main gist and purpose remain in place.

Only someone living completely under a rock would believe that money doesn't have power in politics today. It isn't an entirely new concept but it is something that has recently blown up to new proportions with the Citizens United ruling. Economist Robert Reich speaks on the control of money in great detail in his blog post: "Right now we’re headed for a perfect storm: An unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top, a record amount of secret money flooding our democracy, and a public in the aftershock of the Great Recession becoming increasingly angry and cynical about government. The three are obviously related."

It is no doubt that the wealthiest, elite class (often referred to as the 1%) control our corporations and our government. They do this through campaign finance and access to the resources to manipulate and control the government. By doing so, the government still belongs to a limited minority club. Whereas that was previously property owning WASPs (re: white Anglo-Saxons with wealth), it is now those who have the largest incomes.

So, who does have the largest incomes and therefore, by default, the most control for the electorate process in the United States?

According to the research, the top 1% of wealth in the United States belongs to a 96% white population, with only 1.4% of the wealth belonging to black Americans. The remaining percentages go to Latinos and Asians and are still, obviously, very small numbers.

"William Darity, Professor of Public Policy, African and African-American Studies and Economics at Duke University told the Duke Chronicle:

“The major sources of wealth for most of the super rich are inheritances and in life transfers. The big reason is racial differences in access to resources to transfer to the next generation.” Darity added that the practices of enslavement, violence, Jim Crow, discrimination and dispossession of property have kept generations of African Americans from accruing the type of wealth that whites in the top 1 percent have today."

As the chart demonstrates, white people still hold the key to the democratic process. Although a small number of black people have risen into this elite class, just like a number of poor white people have entered into the New Jim Crow, none of this negates that fact that America is ran by wealthy (property-owning) white people. Now, let's take a look at wealth and religion:

Because this data isn't specific to just the 1%, it can make the conclusion a bit harder to affirm. However, using deductive reasoning, I think we can come up with a pretty clear answer. Catholics only have 19% of people with income exceeding $100,000. Because that paints with a very broad brush, we do not know how many of them are actually at the 1% level but I think it is fair to say not too many.

We can see that the Jewish community has a large sector above that $100,000 mark. It may make it seem that Jewish people, who clearly are not Protestants, are in the top tier. But looking at the collective percentage of wealth of Protestants, who are classified in several categories on this sheet, it does appear that Protestants, if were to be combined into one column, would account for more wealth than the Jewish and Hindu religious groups. Episcopal Christians have a wealth range of 36%, Presbyterians in the top tier are at 35%, so on and so forth. Again, although this chart does not represent just the 1%, it does make a compelling argument that the majority of those in the 1% might be Protestant. Here is a clearer breakdown of the top tier by religion, according to Slate: 

Let us breakdown some of the ethnic backgrounds of our top tier 1% and see what we come up with, thanks to this interactive chart by FiveThirtyEight:

First, we need to understand what makes someone an Anglo-Saxon. Although it is often disputed and re-defined in time, it typically covers those from the Germanic tribes, such as the British, Germans, Scottish, Irish, Welch and French. Not all Europeans are Anglo-Saxon, as discussed earlier, such as Italians and Greek Europeans. It is important to note also that ethnically, some European Jews would also be Anglo Saxon because they may ethnically come from an Anglo-Saxon defined ethnicity.

Bill Gates--Irish, Scottish and German  [ANGLO SAXON] 1
Warren Buffett--British [ANGLO SAXON] 2
Larry Ellison--Jewish Italian [NOT ANGLO SAXON] 1
Charles Koch--English, Dutch, Scottish, German [ANGLO SAXON] 3
David Koch-- same as above [ANGLO SAXON] 4
Sheldon Adelson-Ukrainian [NOT ANGLO SAXON] 2
Christy Tallant Walton-- English [ANGLO SAXON] 5
Jim Walton--English [ANGLO SAXON[ 6
Alice Walton--English [ANGLO SAXON] 7
S. Robson Walton--English [ANGLO SAXON] 8
Michael Bloomberg--German [ANGLO SAXON] 9
Larry Page--English [ANGLO SAXON] 10
Jeff Bezos-- German [ANGLO SAXON] 11
Sergey Brin--Welsh [ANGLO SAXON] 12
Mark Zuckerberg--Yiddish/German [ANGLO SAXON partial] 13
Carl Ichan--Undetermined 1
George Soros--Hungarian [NOT ANGLO SAXON] 3
Forest Mars-British [ANGLO SAXON] 14
Jacqueline Mars-British [ANGLO SAXON] 15
John Mars-British [ANGLO SAXON] 16
Steve Ballmer-British or German [ANGLO SAXON] 17
Len Blavatnik-Wales [ANGLO SAXON] 18
Phil Knight-English [ANGLO SAXON] 19
Michael Dell-English [ANGLO SAXON] 20
Abigail Johnson-English [ANGLO SAXON] 21
Paul Allen-English/Scottish [ANGLO SAXON] 22
Anne Cox-English [ANGLO SAXON] 23
Charles Ergen- Turkish [NON ANGLO SAXON] 4
Harold Hamm-English [ANGLO SAXON] 24
Ronald Perelman-Yiddish [NON ANGLO SAXON] 5
Lauren Powell-Welch [ANGLO SAXON] 25
John Paulson- Dutch/British [ANGLO SAXON] 26
Rupert Murdoch-Scottish [ANGLO SAXON] 27

 Obviously, people may have multiple ethnicities and since pure bred Anglo Saxon probably doesn't exist anymore and likely didn't in 1776, it is difficult to truly know. However, since the founding fathers did not run DNA tests on people to determine their true relationship to Anglo Saxon, it is fair to say appearance combined with last name can help determine who was and wasn't in the elite club. From the list identified above, only 5 1% would not be considered Anglo Saxon, while 27 of the listed are.

As discussed prior, unlike the full exclusivity that the WASP system provided in the 1800s, today, due to policy changes, some non-Anglos have snuck in and made it to the elite class. Likewise, some non-whites and non-Protestants have done the same. Remember, though, they are outliers and as outliers, they make hardly a dent on the WASP control of the government structure. Because we know the 1% influence politicians and campaigns, we know that the WASPs still have control of the system. 

It is interesting to see how this has manifested. In the past, male property owning WASPs counted on voting to control the government. As policy changed and the structure took some power from the WASPs, this system had to change to accommodate the new times. I am certainly not saying that voting is useless, however, running for office is expensive and typically reserved for the rich. The top 1% have no qualms or issues with donating large sums of money to politicians or campaigns, whether directly or through PACs. As a result, they largely influence the government and how things are run, just as they did in 1776.

Take away from this what you will. I have a desire to end this exclusivity and live in a truly representative republic, that is centered on all of the citizens and not just WASPs. It is a possibility--but we have to change the way we allow government to obtain their assets. There are several methodologies to this but one way that I am particularly in favor of is the Move the Amend campaign. 

O:)
~ArchAngel~