boyfriday Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Funny that. I didn't see any black, asian or middle class people. They all appeared like white working class to me. How do you know they were white working class? Their identifying appearance was on of bad sportswear and baseball caps. Given the origin of the video the participants were almost certainly upper or maybe upper middle class (in economic terms anyway) which sort of implies that "chav" is a descriptor of dress and behaviour rather than income bracket doesn't it? Indeed, and I can't imagine that the streets of Glenalmond are overflowing with dark faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 What's aspirational about it? Surely aspirational clothing would be a suit and tie. And the fact that you could immediately identify them as "chav" despite them not being white working class still implies that it's a clothing/behaviour descriptor rather than a class/income one? The fact I could identify them as that was equally because that's how they were being played as misbehaving white people, chavs. Yes, a clothing outfit which is associated with white working class. Black working class are rarely seen in the Burberry outfit in question. What's aspirational about it? To me nothing but to thousands of youths who will happily now pay for the £100 designer belt knowing they'll never afford the jeans. BBC have been doing a series on this very thing. The fact remains the word chav is only ever used to describe a white, working class rapscallion . We already have words for rapscallions of other races. That's why I think chav is so popular. People can't use the other terms so freely anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorkerSWFC Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The fact I could identify them as that was equally because that's how they were being played as misbehaving white people, chavs. Yes, a clothing outfit which is associated with white working class. Black working class are rarely seen in the Burberry outfit in question. What's aspirational about it? To me nothing but to thousands of youths who will happily now pay for the £100 designer belt knowing they'll never afford the jeans. BBC have been doing a series on this very thing. The fact remains the word chav is only ever used to describe a white, working class rapscallion . We already have words for rapscallions of other races. That's why I think chav is so popular. People can't use the other terms so freely anymore. White and black people wear the same clothes which are classed as chavy, so both are chavs, so do Asians, Africans the lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The fact I could identify them as that was equally because that's how they were being played as misbehaving white people, chavs. Yes, a clothing outfit which is associated with white working class. Black working class are rarely seen in the Burberry outfit in question. You may associate it with white working class - I associate it with anti-social behaviour, bad dress sense and worse attitude as do many others. Race and income don't come into it. What's aspirational about it? To me nothing but to thousands of youths who will happily now pay for the £100 designer belt knowing they'll never afford the jeans. BBC have been doing a series on this very thing. Sooooo is it actually aspirational then? If the clothing is associated with an underclass and general crappiness it's a uniform of a "culture" not an aspirational garment. The fact remains the word chav is only ever used to describe a white, working class rapscallion . We already have words for rapscallions of other races. That's why I think chav is so popular. People can't use the other terms so freely anymore. Ermmm no it's not - there are black chavs, asian chavs, white chavs, rich chavs and poor chavs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted June 3, 2011 Author Share Posted June 3, 2011 I do think some people have been using the term in a lazy, superior and unthinking way recently, judging by appearances rather than attitude. For instance, not everyone who buys a pasty from Greggs is a chav, but some people will class them as such out of a sense of superiority. I don't believe everyone who buys a pasty from Greggs is a chav, but if they were gob it in my face and demand "what's your problem" then they would be. I think this is the problem for some of the "left wing" commentators in the article in the OP. Instead of the term being used to describe actions it is lazily being used against people who shop at poundland, eat pasties, wear shell suits etc whether they are behaving like gits or not. It is a derogatory term, so IMHO should only be used against people who behave badly, not who just happen to dress in a certain manner, shop in certain places or live in certain housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe-Public Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I don't care if they are poor or rich, if they are drunk, abusive and generally stupid there Chav's. The word Chav for me, does not differentiate whether they are poor or rich. A Chav is a Chav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 When I was a lad the term used was common. It still stands now. Despite her millions jordon is common. A hard working person who lives in a council house and works hard and had a modicum of thought for his surroundings regardless of his dress ( and lets face it at 18 few of us were pinnicles of society ) is working class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrStayPufft Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 More to the point, has anyone heard of the new craze "Chav-Bashing" Strange world we live in!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I've heard that one before. So if a person can change their social standing then we're free to call them what they want. If it is so easy to get out of poverty why the hell isn't everyone middle class. So is it acceptable for me to use the term Yid, that's got nothing to do with skin colour just location. People can change their location can't they? I give up, you keep being told it's about behaviour, and then you immediately try to argue as if it's about social standing, despite it having been proven not to be. It's a pejorative based on behaviour, behaviour can be changed, it's not a characteristic you're born with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celeb Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 No such thing as working class anymore. Everyone owns a mobile phone now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.