Tags

on Chavs

So the debate is raging. Chav!

Is it a classist word? For the unawares, ‘Chav’ is used to refer to people of the lower classes in the UK - strange...despite the Brits penchant for democracy, they still keep a monarchy....nothing short of moronic of course.

Anyway, ‘Chav’ refers to those whom are relatively not as refined, having bad taste, not having the right manners, not speaking the right way, etc, etc, etc - with ‘right‘ being associated with the style of the upper classes. The equivalent in Australia would be ‘bogan’, in Scotland, ‘ned’, in singapore, ‘ah beng’.

In other words, those whom tend to behave in such a manner because they have yet to acquire enough of the traits of the upper classes despite not being afforded the financial, experiential, and educational exposure required to do so naturally. It isn’t words that are classist mate. The class system is itself classist, stupid! Frowning on words as classist detracts us from the exploitative causes of differences and basically serves to perpetuate such a system.

For instance, according to a BBC report, a Lib-Dem peer (member of the undemocratic ‘House of Lords’ - another moronic British institution) ‘twittered’ (i really wonder about this twitter nonsense. You really have to be quite intellectually-challenged to be bothered about a minute to minute update of the inane pastimes and observations of some jackass, celebrity or otherwise),

"Help. Trapped in a queue in chav-land! Woman behind me explaining latest Eastenders plot to mate, while eating largest bun I've ever seen," Baroness Hussein-Ece tweeted. - bbc


'Baroness' Hussein
Now this idiot, Hussein-Ece, has just about summed up the meaning of ‘chav’ in her ‘twitter’ - someone who lives vicariously through the soap-operatic lives of others, and who is hungry enough to want to devour a large bun - (that is why they serve minute portions of food in huge plates in overpriced restaurants the ‘sophisticated’ frequent. The large plate serves as an obvious background to the fact that they are there because they have ‘good taste’ and not because they are ‘hungry’....like the poor. In my books, only morons pay for tiny portions of food on large plates. I wouldn’t give up the worst curry for shite like this. Anyway, i’ve said for quite a while that westerners don’t know how to cook, that’s why they focus so much on ‘presentation’, and Jamie Oliver is a celebrity. Frankly, I wouldn’t use his food to even wash my arse.)

But I can understand why this chick, ‘Baroness’ Hussein-Ece, would use a world like ‘chav’. She is of Turkish-Cypriot origin. In other words, a Turkish-Cypriot chick. Wonder if she does a good belly dance. Anyway, not being English, and being a peer in the British House of Lords and Ladies, she probably wants to show that she is thoroughly English by identifying herself with the upper English classes. It’s a double-self validation move. By using the term ‘Chav’, she is implying that she has taken on board enough English traits to contrast herself with the lower orders of English society. So she is presenting herself as the ‘best of English’ - like the so-called ‘royalty’.

So, in a nutshell, a Chav is one who is disempowered enough to get their thrills from talking about what people are doing in the soap opera as opposed to living their lives in a significant way (Eastenders - a soap opera based on the lives of the working classes, or Chavs, in east London), and whom are poor enough to be hungry, and to show it in public by shoving large buns in their faces.

It isn’t words that are classist mate. The class system is itself classist, stupid! Frowning on words as classist detracts us from the exploitative causes of differences and basically serves to perpetuate such a system.So now the some amongst the toiling classes are pissed off about it. Some call it ‘classist’ - discriminatory on the basis of class; whilst some proles are squabbling amongst themselves in an effort to define Chav as someone whom are ill-mannered - like ed for example - have bad taste, and loutish in behaviour. This is quite amusing. It’s like the peasants are trying to distinguish themselves from their own class by donning the attire of their overlords. One chav puts on a suit and tie and states confidently that Chavs are those whom don’t. Sorry mate. You are a chav. You can pretend to not be one by attempting to take your fashion sense from the sensibilities of the rich, you may make an effort to mask your cockney accent with that of the Queen, you can watch Qi instead of Eddie Izzard, but your tie is still going to serve as tether whose point of restraint lies in the hands of the upper classes. So stop kidding yourselves. This infighting amongst the peasantry of ‘modern’ times is not unlike those Indians who donned the white man’s garb in colonial times and identified with them whilst still being expected to serve his role as a coolie for their colonial exploiters.

That is the essential definition of Chav. This effort by Chavs to distinguish themselves from other Chavs because they’ve managed to take on the persona of their overlords is pathetic. It just fragments the working classes and weakens their consciousness of themselves as a class. It seems that when class is taken as normal, what ensues is the efforts of the sweating classes to make themselves feel good by looking and sounding like the upper classes. It’s good that there is enough of an experientially-induced difference between the upper and working classes. That reminds us of the reality of the exploitative divide. Let us not dilute this divide by pathetic efforts at looking and sounding like ‘em and viewing as inferior those whom are natural Chav-like consequences of the class system. The point is, when the lower classes begin to dress, think, sound, smell, and etc, like the upper classes, that is when we are going to think that our class location is our fault and not theirs. If we can change our persona to sound and smell like the upper classes, it illustrates that we can make ourselves into anything we want to be. And if we don’t make a ‘success’ of ourselves like the upper classes, than it’s got to be our fault. But that isn’t true. The power to change your looks and accent might be within your control, but the power to put yourself in the place of Donald Trump or the so-called ‘Queen’ isn’t.

If the upper classes agree with those amongst the lower classes whom redefine Chav to refer to those whom don't behave like the upper classes, it is not because they aren’t classist, but because they'd rather have the more ‘refined’ Chavs out there serve as role-models for the ill-behaved Chavs.
Not unlike the British colonialists controlling the local native population via other natives.

So if you’re one of the working classes, you’re a Chav. It would be natural for you to be one. It’s not ‘bad taste’, ‘bad fashion sense’, etc. It’s a natural corollary of your subjugated status. Don’t make a culture out of it that you can justify via some of you being given record contracts like those ‘gangsta’ rappers, or ‘grime’ ‘musicians’. That’s just compensation. Don’t forget, for these people to ‘make it’, it shows that there are enough Chavs in the world to buy it. That just perpetuates this whole nonsense and further enables the fans to be blamed for their own disadvantage relative to the ‘stars’. Let your compensatory strategies be directed toward taking on the injustice of the class system, not make money, or gain respect, through it - which is what those Chavs whom try to redefine the word Chav to refer to those whom have yet to sound and behave like the upper classes. If the upper classes agree with those amongst the lower classes whom redefine Chav to refer to those whom don't behave like the upper classes, it is not because they aren’t classist, but because they'd rather have the more ‘refined’ Chavs out there serve as role-models for the ill-behaved Chavs. Not unlike the British colonialists controlling the local native population via other natives.

Go think. Chav.


ed




0 thoughts:

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo