BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Definition of a chav

  
  

Page: 12345(6)

 
 
Spaniel
14:46 / 20.11.06
...and whether you're an arsehole
 
 
jentacular dreams
16:28 / 20.11.06
Smokescreen? Not at all. I'm still confident that if you take a survey and ask people if they knew the term chav has racist origins, the overwhelming majority will say no. That will probably (hopefully) change over time, but as a general rule people assume that when words are used by the public and media (the employees of which I will concede are ultimately just more members of the public) that they're not going to be accused of hate crimes should they choose to use them themselves (just ask rural savage). My point is that people do not examine every word in their vocabulary. They assume, rightly or wrongly, that if no-one objects, it must be P.C.. Perhaps this is wrong. I can understand, and to an extent agree with, the argument that one should have a clear understanding of the words one uses, *especially* with regard to insults and stereotypes. But I would be surprised if this ever actually happened.

Though rare, I have heard the term chav (and previously the term townie) applied to people of south-asian and afro-caribbean origin, so I believe it applies in a panracial manner (especially since chav is now the national replacement for the previously regional townie, ned, scally, etc.). Have you considered the possibility that your experience may to an extent be based on the overwhelming majority of white people in the UK (>90% nationally, >70% in the cities I think, no matter what the daily mail would have us believe)? Of course that doesn't eliminate the element of comparison against a racial stereotype, but...

...if the metaracism approach is true, would that not mean that 'chav' is only (directly) successful as an insult if those labelled with the term hold the same view of the stereotype as those using it? And if my prediction in the first half of paragraph one is true, then I don't think there is actually any racist comparison taking place.

As an aside, I've never met anyone who was totally free of prejudice. Hence the caveat at the end of that sentence. But I am pretty damn confident that they're not racists. We can continue this for the whole thread if people want to, but I doubt it will make for better reading.
 
 
Evil Scientist
17:39 / 20.11.06
My point is that people do not examine every word in their vocabulary. They assume, rightly or wrongly, that if no-one objects, it must be P.C..

I think it's an inaccurate statement to say that people will assume something is acceptable simply because no-one objects. Especially when it is a word with such negative stereotypes attached to it as "chav". People may not examine every word in their vocabulary, but they sure as shit know when they're using a word to insult or deride someone.

Out of interest kingofthebees, earlier you said:

I will probably mention the racist origin next time I hear it used, but as I and my friends know they aren't racists, and that they aren't using it against or comparing the subjet to a racial subgroup, should they choose to use it I'm not going to be reporting them to the commission for racial equality.

Assuming you heard your friends using this word, would you feel obliged to call them up on the fact that it's a classist slur? You have said previously that you agree it's classist. What are your views on people labeling others as belonging to an "inferior" class?
 
 
iconoplast
18:54 / 20.11.06
This may be me, but I find the "This is what I meant" vs "This is what your words mean" debate to be kind of... tiring. At times, I would guess that a quarter of this board's archives revolve around this exact back-and-forthing.

One poster is basically saying, "Look: I say stuff, I get to decide what it means, and I don't see what the big deal is, since I'm using it the way most people do."

The response is, as standard, "This is Barbelith. We have taken great pains here to carve out a space where people are accountable for what they say. And what you said means something different from what you meant to say, whether you like it, meant it, or not."

The thing is, there's this moment that people miss when they start posting, which is that, as soon as you click 'Post Reply,' the words travel from inside your head and your own ideolexical beliefs to this shared space. Where they now live. And so words, on Barbelith, get judged by Barbelith's standards.

Barbelith has a different view on racism than a lot of places. -isms on Barbelith are not seen as states of being (in other words, a X-ist is not a thing you are) as much as actions (a X-ist is a thing you act like) - here, it's taken for granted that it is entirely possible to not be a x-ist, and yet to use x-ist language - to ACT in a x-ist manner without BEING one. Or 'You're being x-ist' instead of 'you are an x-ist'.

So, when someone says "Hey - I think that word is kind of loaded. Doesn't it strike you as being classist? Did you know about its racist roots?" The general intent of that response is to let you know that what you said, when translated to Batbelith, may mean something completely different. And that, if you meant something else by it, you may want to use different language.

I'm going to quote you quoting Evil Scientist:
Ignorane of the origins of the word is no excuse for its use.

I think that's clearly untrue. How many kids use socially unnacceptable words or phrases without understanding their meaning? If we forgive that then how can we blame people for using this term in ignorance?

I don't quite get this - because I imagine that you forgive the kids while you're letting them know it's not okay to say certain things. But when kids keep saying things they've been asked not to, they get in trouble. Barbelith can't really take away dessert or restrict access to Polly Pockets, but perhaps these discussions might go easier if we could.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:08 / 20.11.06
Well said, iconoplast.

Although it should be remembered that this bit: The thing is, there's this moment that people miss when they start posting, which is that, as soon as you click 'Post Reply,' the words travel from inside your head and your own ideolexical beliefs to this shared space. Where they now live.

is not exclusive to Barbelith, or indeed to message boards. In the same way that there are insulting things you could call your friends which, if said to a stranger or someone who didn't share their usage with you, would get your head kicked in, it should always be remembered that once a word leaves your mouth it's in the public arena. Even without words that could be considered hatespeech, everyone can think of times when what they have said has been taken to mean something other than it did when it was in their head. And the same principle applies.

My general rule for myself is that if I cause offense unintentionally (or indeed fail to communicate on any level), it's not usually a good idea to blame the people hearing or reading me for my bad word choice or phrasing, but to figure out how I could have said what I wanted to more coherently and less offensively.

That said, "chav" is a word I've never used. Not being all self-righteous or anything, I've used far worse in my time, but as someone pointed out upthread it's an ugly word, even if you take its meaning out of the equation. (At least when situated in a modern sentence in English, it's actually physically uncomfortable to say, for me anyway- it feels like there's something missing. I guess I'm just not used to words that end in "v").
 
 
jentacular dreams
08:23 / 21.11.06
In the majority of situations I like to think I would probably highlight the classist implications of the word chav. It hasn't happened yet, so I can't be sure. The only exceptions I can envisage might be in times of high 'stress' (loud debate, or another of my friends being mugged and beaten by a gang of youths) where a socioracial equality soapbox stance would be less than conducive to the matter at hand. In these cases I would probably bring up the classist implications of the term in discussion myself at a later time, or at it's next use.

People may not examine every word in their vocabulary, but they sure as shit know when they're using a word to insult or deride someone.

Which brings up the question, is it 'too' wrong to insult/deride individuals? I agree that labelling individals with negative associations to stereotypes is well over the line. However, sometimes you meet people you 'dislike'. Whilst most people would I think regret the use of negative adjectives, is it realistic to expect that no derogatory labels will be used, even if only in one's rage inspired inner monologue? Or is this all just threadrot?

Yes, we do educate kids about not using socially unacceptable words. But (imagine) if they can justify it, or the parent's understanding of the term is different (perhaps even outdated) with respect to the child's, sometimes the parent may have to be the one who learns.
 
 
Saturn's nod
09:02 / 21.11.06
However, sometimes you meet people you 'dislike'. Whilst most people would I think regret the use of negative adjectives, is it realistic to expect that no derogatory labels will be used, even if only in one's rage inspired inner monologue? Or is this all just threadrot?

I think it's interesting to consider what could be done instead of using insults. Insults are not considered an acceptable public consequence of dislike in my subculture (Quaker). Instead, people tend to say things like "I find him really difficult", "I get irritated by her really easily", "What made him act like that?!" , "she's not someone I'd find it easy to work with", and so on. I think the words we use in our inner speech are the words we learn from those around us, and when we have more skillful and accurate ways to represent our anger, grief and fear perhaps it's not necessary to use derogatory labels at all?

I understand the principle of the Quaker usage is to acknowledge that the irritation is not located in some property of the other but actually in the interaction between the speaker and the person they're finding difficult. Perhaps it's emotionally more taxing. I need to point out that it's never been perfectly enacted yet (as christians we're (perpetually) citizens of a world of possibility which is only just appearing on earth) but I can see the point in making an attempt and it's one I've taken to heart. Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent communication or compassionate communication is an overlapping subculture operating a similar approach.
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:32 / 21.11.06
Which brings up the question, is it 'too' wrong to insult/deride individuals? I agree that labelling individals with negative associations to stereotypes is well over the line. However, sometimes you meet people you 'dislike'. Whilst most people would I think regret the use of negative adjectives, is it realistic to expect that no derogatory labels will be used, even if only in one's rage inspired inner monologue? Or is this all just threadrot?

I don't think it's threadrot, it's a good question.

To answer, whilst I accept that it would be unrealistic to expect someone in the middle of a vicious argument with another, an argument which has descended to the point of verbal abuse, not to use derogatory language in the "heat of the moment", there are certain qualifiers which have to be considered (in, obviously, my view).

Firstly, a derogatory term used in anger is no more acceptable than one used to, for instance, bully someone walking down the street. Depending on the situation it might be understandable that it was used or that someone was so angry that they didn't think what they were saying, but that doesn't negate the potential offensiveness of the word.

Secondly, if we look at the very specific situation of being threatened by others. Use of derogatory language is unlikely to resolve the situation is it? Verbal abuse in this situation is more like the chest-beating foreplay to physical violence. Again, it doesn't negate the fact that the word itself is harmful, and in some threatening situations are all it needs to turn a face-off into full on head-kicking (I can't imagine any potentially violent situation I was in that would be improved by my use of, for instance, a racial slur).

With regards to people that one "dislikes". Is it not possible to address the issues that one has with that person specifically rather than applying a classist slur? Not liking someone, for whatever reason, is not (in my view) an acceptable reason for using that kind of language about them (I do consider classist slurs to be as bad as using racial or mysogynistic slurs).
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:48 / 21.11.06
With regards to people that one "dislikes". Is it not possible to address the issues that one has with that person specifically rather than applying a classist slur?

I have to admit, I'm often quite a fan of insults. But I avoid the use of classist (and racist, misogynist etc) slurs. Part of this is that when you use them, you're not just insulting the person you want to insult, you're insulting an entire group of people who have nothing to do with the person with whom you have problems. (And you're also making yourself look like a wanker and losing what moral high ground you may feel you have).
 
 
Quantum
15:00 / 23.11.06
Like Stoats, I love the insults but racist/classist/etc stuff doesn't really insult the person in the way I want. If I tell someone I think they're a prick, it's because they're *acting* like a prick, not because they are in a wheelchair or have dark skin or whatever. People of all classes and races can be c*nts, and there's plenty of punchy in-your-face high impact swearing one can bring out to smack down someone you dislike without using 'chav' or similar. Indeed, 'you racist fuck' is a particularly strong insult in my view.
I'm reminded of a scene in a story* where two friends fall out and abuse each other, but after the event one writes to retract the word 'Bastard' as unintentional (the character being born out of wedlock) but standing by the rest of the invective and challenging him to a duel.

*O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin series
 
 
Mourne Kransky
21:19 / 23.11.06
When I was a mouthy, early twenties, know it all, I had a very heated argument with my father, the Old Bull. I lost my rag and called him a Bastard. He crumpled, having been born the illegitimate child of a miner's daughter, in the early 1930s, in a little Scottish mining village. I never did it again and have used the word only guiltily as an insult since.
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
02:25 / 27.11.06
Straighten me out oh mud baths of the ditch. I'm back with a mouth full of slurs and a limp wrist that'll knock the bigger picture back into loads of little annoying pictures that'll make everyone feel good about themselves.Lol.Liked the sexy party thing, bit tight all the same though.
 
 
Quantum
14:56 / 27.11.06
The sexy party was in reference to a bad short story written on the board a while ago by a pillock. So you know.
 
 
jentacular dreams
20:39 / 27.01.09
Noticed a yahoo article a on a firm advertising "chav-free" holidays and the complaints they recieved. If anyone here took the time to complain, I'd like to say well done.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:28 / 27.01.09
The truly remarkable part, for me, was the manager of the travel agency claiming to be proud of being middle class and being a positive contributor to society. A travel agent said that.
 
 
Tsuga
00:36 / 28.01.09
I missed that part of the story, but yeah. Those travel agents. I mean, jesus.
 
 
Neon Snake
08:05 / 28.01.09
Can't see the problem with it myself. After all, many of (company director) Barry Nolan's friends call him "Bazza", like the loveable rogueish scamp he no doubt is.

So...that's alright then.
 
  

Page: 12345(6)

 
  
Add Your Reply