British slang under attack
"Chav" is a uniquely British word which has become widely used in recent years. It reflects the British dislike of colorful dress and assertive behavior. It refers to assertive but poorly educated white youths who dress in an ostentatious way. Chavs endeavor to impress others by their accessories -- bling of various sorts and accessories in Burberry check, as in the cap above. Burberry is a British luxury goods brand, which has probably been severely damaged now that chavs have shown such a liking for its emblem.
"I am not in the habit of agreeing with the socialistic Fabian Society, but they have a point. Chav does not derive from "Cheltenham Average" or "Council House and Violent". It comes from a Romany word for "boy". The origin is irrelevant, though, for it is the meaning that hurts.
Certainly the stereotypical chav is an absurd figure in his white tracksuit and bling, a silly hairstyle and Burberry accessories, perhaps accompanied by a nasty bullish terrier.
But many people use chav as a smokescreen for their hatred of the lower classes.
Source
On my reading, "chav" is in fact normally used for a particular type of behavior rather than class identity. "Oiks" is the more general derogatory term for working class people in Britain.
If you read the article in full, you will see a reference to "public schools". Outside Britain, the schools concerned would be described as "private schools". Taxpayer-funded schools are described as "State" schools or, usually, "Comprehensives".
6 comments:
Typical of the left to illegitimately equate criticism of behavior with hatred.
It's Britain, who cares.
Tribal conflict denoted by plumage has been around for millenia.
Who has the most beaver pelts when they die........Wins!
"It's Britain, who cares."
We all know the average american cares little and knows little about the rest of the world (not helped by their parochial media).
Just as "knowledge is power" so the corollary is "ignorance is weakness" (and at the root of many of the USA's international problems).
Speaking as a Brit who uses the term, the article is nonsense and tendentious. The 'hatred of the lower classes' is the giveaway: the writer subscribes to the usual outdated lefty boilerplate belief that it's all about class. It's not. When we use the term chav we mean chavs - not poor people (chavs tend to have money anyway, hence their gaudy ostentation), not the unemployed, not the less educated. The ascription is nuanced - and given their off-the-shelf 'class' beliefs the writer has a difficult time understanding that. I wager that the writer has no problem hypocritically using the word ‘toff’ about the more well off.
Presumably a "chav" is a type of parvenu - new money but lacking the "class" to use it with "style", and so expose themselves to ridicule.
Post a Comment