Why does Portman-Lacer, the author of this article, elude to the fact that dropping the "poor" from "white trash" somehow make it, for lack of a better phrase, more characterizable?
The author states that the original phrase for Caucasians in the United States who are at the poverty level and may or may not be considered immoral, is "poor white trash." But as the years past the "poor" has been dropped because, they state that it "emphasizes the perceived lack of social worth of white trash." What?! The term "white trash" has an extremely negative connotation attached to it, but dropping the "poor" from the beginning of it somehow replenishes the social worth of people who may be regarded as "white trash??" However, I suppose I agree with the claim that adding the words "poor" and "white" together in an effort to describe a category of people is somewhat oxymoronic, because in American society those two words are perceived to be opposites due to the undoubted advantage whites have over other races. But to be honest this article was a little lost on me. Going back to the question at hand, it is my personal opinion that both "coined terms" are without a doubt negative and dropping the "poor" does nothing, but further agitate other races into believing that whites even have the upper-hand when it comes to namecalling. That's all for now, until next time. ~StayPretty
