| |
|
I feel my arguments are being taken out of context and misapplied.
Yes, there is still a classist issue here. But I was discussing the word in relation to its racist connotations, and whether they still apply. As for comparing the individuals with travelling people, well that's an awfully specific comparison. One could just as easily say it is a modern comparison with many of the homeless substereotypes. Or, more amazingly, it bears an even closer resemblance to other individuals who might also be called a 'chav' (circular I know, but still very possible given that chav seems to be simply a 'new' word for the older definitions [townie etc]). As far as most people know, if there are any similarities between those labelled as a 'chav' and travelling people, it is coincidence.
As an aside - with regard to my friends, there is enough of a racial and social mix in our group for me to be pretty confident of their lack of prejudice in those respects. I doubt we would be anywhere near as fond of each other if that were not the case.
As I've said before: as far as most people know, the word is not a racist one. So the use of it alone cannot constitute racism. It is the intent which matters. Of course some individuals may well use it in a racist manner, but it takes more than the word 'chav' alone to determine this. No, I wouldn't use it, even before I discovered the etymology I disliked the sound of it. But whether I would use it or not is not the issue I'm trying to discuss. It is whether the term is still a racist one. And if it is not intentionally used in a racist way then I would say it isn't. You can use the word 'minority' in a pejorative way. That doesn't make the word itself inherently so. You cannot eliminate racism by simply taking away the words racists use. And in *that respect* (and I'd appreciate no twisting of my words here) one could argue that 'chav' is something of a success story for equal opportunities. One may to an extent be described a 'chav' no matter what ones' racial origin.
Again I ask you to consider have you checked that all of your everyday phrases have an 'ism'-free history? For example, some people consider refugee to be a racist term, and some etymologists believe Yankee is derived from a derogatory dutch word.
At the same time, charva, the romani word from which chav is decended has no racist implications, meaning simply boy (and according to wikipedia 'chavvy' was commonly used to mean boy in the cockney dialect). Conversely, given the history of its use towards individuals of colour, 'boy' could equally be labelled a racist term. However, the fact that the vast majority of people do not use it in that context is what prevents it from being considered as such.
Therefore I submit the proposition that unless chav is intentionally used with reference to travelling people, it is not neccessarily a racist term, though I would support the view that it is nearly impossible to use without being classist (unless of course you *are* being racist). |
|
|
