The term originated in reference to White Americans of Anglo-Saxon descent, who were Protestant in religious affiliation. However, the term does not have a precise definition, and can be used to describe greatly differing groups.^[1] It initially applied to people with histories in the upper class Northeastern establishment, who were alleged to form a powerful elite. Working class whites in the U.S. are generally not referred to as "WASPs", even if they are Protestants of Anglo-Saxon descent.^[2] The word white is redundant, since Anglo-Saxons -- whether in the strict or popular sense of the term -- are always white.

So, could someone be WASPy without being Protestant, or while not being white? Maybe the first, but less likely the second. Thus, one can probably say there to be a racial component. However, while it may be necessary, it is hardly sufficient. And I think you would also find, that it is quite a bit more difficult to find WASP-like privilege in non-whites. Its a privilege that derives from many generations of belonging in the favoured socio-economic segment, particularly excluding the nouveau-rich. (How vulgar they are! No refinement from generations of good breeding!)

Equating Anglo with WASP is however a mistake. The best description I have heard is still the comparison to Dutch-disease. There was nothing Dutch about the Dutch-disease. As in, it had nothing to do with the nationality or ethnicity in particular. It was just the Netherlands found itself in the situation where it could contract an over reliance on a particular resource and its extraction, and suffer the consequences.