The use of the word 'chavs' seems to have caused a bit of consternation. Until this thread I don't think it's one I've used (I'd more likely have said 'louts') so I thought I'd look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav
As far as I can tell the earliest derivations come from Roman times, the word (or its predecessors) more or less meaning 'unruly child'. That will do for me. Apparently there have been many attempts to explain the word's derivation and its rise in popularity but I think it's most likely just down to the media picking a word that slips easily off the tongue, cynically to describe something in an article they want to make money from. We could probably all come up with hundreds of similar words or expressions which are in common use in all manner of contexts. Personally, I don't have any problem with the words. They're just words. Words like 'nigger' and 'queer' don't bother me either. I'm much more concerned that not all that long ago my ancestors traded in human lives and that when I go to give blood they need to ask me if I've had any homosexual contacts.
I have nothing in particular against what people call the working class and I don't think unruly children are unique to any class -- using the word class in a wider sense than just the social one. My father and both my grandfathers were miners. They would definitely have thought of themselves as working class, and that's the way I think of myself. My grandfathers, my father and I all worked hard most of our lives, and tried to make a contribution where possible -- mostly to our families of course. I'd like to see everyone else do the same, but not everyone is capable of it. That's just life and I can live with it. But to my mind bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and it will label you, no matter what background you come from. The label is an expression of disapproval, and whatever the word, similar sentiments are going to be attached to it.
There have always been unruly children, but I'm pretty sure that until recently there was much less of the wanton destruction that we see all around us nowadays. I'm pretty sure that's because nowadays it goes more or less unpunished, and the unruly children think they can do what they like with impunity because, in fact, they can. The chavs/unruly children/louts who burned down my hut also ransacked a nearby caravan and several sheds, and set fire to a bus in a layby on the main road a couple of miles away which was being used as a roadside cafe. The bus was a total loss and there's no more cafe. At least four of the culprits were identified to the local police, who did nothing at all. Not even a
quiet word.
The thing that surprises me here and now, I suppose, is how people seem to be exercised by the use of a word to describe the perpetrators of these and many other crimes (some petty and some not so petty), yet the same people seem not to want to get to grips with the fact that the crimes themselves are happening with such frequency that they have come to be expected. It isn't realistic to put up a hut somewhere, kit it out, and go back a couple of weeks later to chill for a couple of days. At least in most of the places I spend any 'quality' time, the overwhelming probability is that when you go back it will have been trashed.
We really shouldn't be distracted from that indictment of our society by the use of a particular word to try to express feelings of anger, condemnation and frustration.
Mary, you're quite right and in deference to you I've cut a chunk of this post and edited some of the rest. I hope you think I've done enough.
I'm now going to read Pango's post again, because I haven't understood it yet.
does it sound similar to you ?
