There is a whole movement in Europe towards militant rejection of the everyday world and what might be called "the rat race" or "the daily grind". I understand there's a whole library's worth of chav books. I've heard a book called "How To Be Idle" mentioned. Most European cultural movements eventually make their way to the US, but chavism has yet to show up in the Colonies. Punk, Goth, and Rave eventually made their way here, albeit shorn of the political overtones they had in Europe (to be fair, Detroit claims to have invented the Rave, but I think they didn't), but chavs haven't, nor has any of the other militant anti-everyday movements that exist in Europe (I'm told there's something very similar to chavism in France).
White teens at least in the US are very materialistic and all dream of working on Wall Street or in a Silicon Valley start up. Indeed, there are five "supercities" in the US, each attracting its own brand of yuppie-wannabe. (New York: Wall Street/financial; Washington DC: future politicians and children of old money elites; San Francisco/Silicon Valley: techies; Los Angeles: future movie stars; I forget what the fifth one is, I think it's Houston for future oilmen.) White kids in the US dream of Making It Big and are willing to pay any price to do so. There doesn't seem to be any desire to "downshift"; the New Agey "simple life" movement of the mid 90s seems to have withered away. Militant downshifting, such as the chavs, doesn't seem to have caught on big here, even among poor kids.
Each ethnic group does its own thing. Whites are materialistics, Latinos are heavily into the Reconquista movement that advocates the violent killing of whites and establishment of a Latino state in the US, blacks split between remnants of the Black Power movement and rap culture; and Asians are focused on academic achievement as an end in itself and "brainy" occupations such as doctor, lawyer, or anything to do with mathematics. Asian kids who want to study humanities are usually discouraged from doing so. There just isn't the impetus for broad subcultures that there is in Europe. The last attempt was the cyberpunks, around 1993-94. I actually liked cyberpunk, but it existed more in the minds of magazine writers than as a youth subculture.
Since then, balkanization has set in, overlaid with elements of black rap culture. White kids listen to rap and wear FUBU clothes, but don't get any deeper than that. US whites are mainly about the acquisition of as much cheap but cool looking junk as possible. Storage facilities for all the stuff people accumulate are common in white areas. For a few bucks a month you can rent a prefabricated cubicle and fill it with your stuff. People store cars, they store virtually anything. I once read a post by a guy who works at one of these places (they usually include living quarters for a guard) who talked about the many odd people who use his facility, such as the guy who shows up everyday to measure the tires he has stored. "Will they grow?" Homeless people store the remnants of their past lives as functioning members of society. The storage facilities are cash cows; little expense, almost pure profit. The superwealthy LOVE to invest in them.
pezar, there are so many generalization in that post that there might just be something in there to offend everyone. What an odd world you inhabit. Glad I don't live there.
^Yes, he does seem to live in a very strange world...doesn't he.
As for chavs...
Well, I wouldn’t call chavism a movement--they’re not like Hippies or Punks. They don’t have a cause--in fact they don’t seem to believe in anything very much.
Chavs are what happens when young people become disaffected by the world, but lack the courage or idealism to do anything about it. They become bitter, twisted, violent and greedy. They’re not anti-establishment…they’ve been corrupted by the establishment.
A Chav is just a new name for a good old fashioned Yob.
Well, you see, all I knew about chavs comes from a book called The Overspent American, written by Juliet Schor, a Harvard economist, about a decade ago. She equated the chav "movement" to the "simple life" movement in America that popped up briefly in the mid 90s. I've since found that much of Schor's work was unrealistic, too rosy, or just plain wrong. (Her suggestions for combating materialism tend towards neo-socialism, such as the idea of communal "lending libraries" for such things as lawn equipment. That reminds me of the "bicycle library" a group of Sacramento punks tried in 1994 that flopped because people "borrowed" the bicycles and didn't return them.) It sounds like contrary to what the Harvard ivory tower type believed, English chavs are more like a white version of Black American "thug life gangstas"-disaffected youth without any real unifying principles or philosophy except to leech off the system and wreak havoc on the law abiding.
The closest thing I can think of to a chav in America is what is called "white trash" or "trailer trash" (because in the popular mind they tend to live in recreational vehicles or manufactured housing). They are poor and disaffected but don't really care; they'd rather sit at home and collect welfare and take illegal drugs (the drug of choice seems to be methamphetamine; I don't know if it's come to England yet, but it's a pure form of amphetamine, the same stuff given to ADHD kids to calm them). Trailer trash are not inherently antisocial however; if they kill somebody, it's to get money for their drugs. Most of the crime they commit is traceable to narcotic usage. Chavs sound inherently antisocial-they'll kill you for the heck of it. If an American youth is alienated, he/she tends to lose themselves in drugs. I may be wrong, but chavs don't sound like big drug users, at least not anything stronger than marijuana. They sound more twisted than trailer trash, who if they commit some horrible crime are too doped up to realize what they're doing.
The only positive aspect to chavs is that they provide a good base for comedy. If you find swearing offensive, then don't watch (Probably not to everybody's taste), but otherwise, enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4PthyDuFbk
You want to get 'rid of them'? In the sense that you disapprove of anti-social behaviour? Well, ensure that you do not vote for your Conservative Party. The root cause is not social, rather economic. Why are there no Austrian or Norwegian chavs? Child poverty is not so widespread and the wealth gap is far smaller. It's simple economics. I mean no offence, but in spite of their terrible behaviour you must not indict them. Their environment is beyond their control.
"actually, he is correct.
its the disrespect for authority, lack of defininate boundries, and the feeling that "it doesnt matter", along with the whole throwaway society and the situation of, "if you want it, take it".
no, this generation, and possibly the next, are ******. after that, well, we'll see. but we need to address the root cause, namely the parenting and education availible during the formative years."
They do not respect authority because there is nothing in that authority that they need respect. The British state and media treat them like ***. They are alienated. Why should they abide by an elitist and anti-meritocratic society's rules? In Europe they are known as 'Thatcher's Children'. There is a reason for that.
To say that their behaviour is a consequence of progressive morality is ridiculous and counter-productive: people act like that when there is no alternative. The alternatives, whatever they may be, are provided by the state and delivered by a fair system of taxation.
I lived in the UK for a number of years while I was studying in London and at Oxford. Here is my overview:
1.You have a system whereby the rich become richer and the poor poorer. This is a consequence of decades of Conservative and then New Labour government. If you actually look at the British tax system, for example, it's laughable: there are very few bands, and I understand that the bottom band of income tax (10p to the pound) has been abolished. The poorest, again, shall be most adversely affected. The super rich are treated so, so leniently. The middle and lower income families foot the bill. It's actually extremely illogical, embarrassing and barbaric. It is something that many educated Britons are ashamed of, in my experience. The problem will only get worse if things continue.
2.People are not inherently evil, and if they become so that is an indication of an enormous problem. Society, in and of itself, must be just. British society, as much as American society, is not. Did you know that it is far easier to set up your own business in France or Germany than it is in the UK? Considering that these countries are far less capitalist, I find that to be rather ridiculous. I will go further. The UK isn't even capitalist: it's oligarchical and elitist. The corporations and City have the ear of the major political parties. A situation has developed whereby even the aspiring poor, the potential entrepreneurs or university students, are excluded because they are too -poor-. Sounds somewhat illogical, eh? So much wasted potential for the sake of some fool at Lloyd's making 10,000,000 pa rather than 7,000,000. Education is more expensive, opportunities harder to come by. Things have improved under Labour, but not by much and not to a great extent. They're trying to privatise healthcare as well, and by stealth. You guys are in a pile of *** unless you prevent the Tories from coming to power. At least the Labour Party can be reformed. Your politicians in the UK look to the US for all of the solutions. Why? I mean no offence, but it's a dysfunctional country with entrenched poverty en mass. Why not look to Germany? It's of comparable size and better run.
3.The amorality of the chav is a consequence of his nihilism, itself a product of complete disenfranchisement. He does not care, as I said earlier, because he doesn't need to. He is probably frustrated by the lack of vocational or educational opportunities. As he is dehumanised, so he dehumanises the other. He sees no humanity where there is none in himself; there can be no meaningful association.
Any thoughts?
I fear that if we tried to change the British system, we'd only end up with something worse.
in order to change the system, we would need to start over; change the very thought patterns of certain sections of society (bets that would include us?) and a complete scrapping of our legal system and getting a do-over.
not..really that practical.its not like we can say, "everyone out, we need to change the infrastructure!"
That would be impractical. There are, however, pragmatic solutions. A majority decided to elect Thatcher. Now you have to deal with the consequences. It's not entirely fair, but still. A good first step would be to provide equal education and vocational opportunities: easier financial access to universities, more meritocratic etc. More options? In Austria and Germany they have a system where you can choose vocational path from an early age. Apprenticeships, skills training etc. Not everyone is academic, and British society needs to get rid of the idea that you're only successful if you go to university. The tide is turning. Soon you will probably have a racist Mayor of London and another decrepit Conservative Government. I really do fear for the UK, the sick man of Europe. Incremental changes must start to be introduced, and soon.
What could be worse than the system you have at the moment? I mean the situation, from a socio-criminological perspective, is better in Cuba and Venezuela. It's bizarre.
No government=no real law..you know where i'm going with this
odds that the big corps would have enough money to hire private armies and take over?
Of course. The state protects us from capitalism.
I think that the American system is far more meritocratic than the British system, actually. Most of the "new rich" in America aren't those who are somehow favored by the existing elites, but immigrants. It is extremely easy to start a new business in America, so new arrivals will simply file incorporation papers, rent a shop space, buy equipment, and boom they're in business. They work hard and save their money, invest it wisely, and the kids have a fat nest egg. In America the kids and grandkids of the new rich tend to blow the money, so that by the fourth generation the immigrant family is deep in debt and living paycheck to paycheck. A researcher who looked into this concluded that acclimation to American materialism was actually the problem and that the country needed a steady stream of immigrants to keep from stagnating.
In the UK, the same people have been on top for a thousand years. The system reminds me of Latin America, where the descendants of the "colonios" (immigrants from Spain) who settled there at the beginning of colonialism hold all the economic cards and have for 500 years. Want to better yourself? Kiss butt, buddy. The UK is the same way. Don't want to kiss butt? Too bad, you get left out. It's called mercantilism, and it never got anywhere in the US. The UK still holds to mercantilist setups, so does Latin America, and both places have stagnated as a result.
The system in the UK is designed to assure the top nobles most of the pie. In the US, anybody with enough ambition can grab some pie. You will have to fight for it, but having apple filling on your face from eating pie is the best revenge. The problem with the US is that people want "money for nothing and chicks for free", in the words of redneck rockers Dire Straits.
In the UK everything goes to the nobility, so the lower classes get zilch. The chav reminds me of the roaming gangs of antisocial youths that bedeviled Albania in the 1980s before Hoxha's regime collapsed. North Korea is rumored to have the same problem. The youth gangs in Albania eventually grew so powerful that the government didn't just collapse, it disappeared completely. There was a couple years of absolute chaos before the situation rectified itself.
There are some areas in America that are effectively under the control of youth gangs. Every immigrant group has a gang problem, as do the blacks, and sometimes the cops just pull back and let the gangs run things. These gangs tend to be more organized than chavs or the Albanian kids, and function more like the Mafia. American youth gangs are not completely antisocial, they do have rules, albeit somewhat twisted. I think that eventually the UK will end up like Albania in 1996.
I think that the American system is far more meritocratic than the British system, actually. Most of the "new rich" in America aren't those who are somehow favored by the existing elites, but immigrants. It is extremely easy to start a new business in America, so new arrivals will simply file incorporation papers, rent a shop space, buy equipment, and boom they're in business. They work hard and save their money, invest it wisely, and the kids have a fat nest egg. In America the kids and grandkids of the new rich tend to blow the money, so that by the fourth generation the immigrant family is deep in debt and living paycheck to paycheck. A researcher who looked into this concluded that acclimation to American materialism was actually the problem and that the country needed a steady stream of immigrants to keep from stagnating.
In the UK, the same people have been on top for a thousand years. The system reminds me of Latin America, where the descendants of the "colonios" (immigrants from Spain) who settled there at the beginning of colonialism hold all the economic cards and have for 500 years. Want to better yourself? Kiss butt, buddy. The UK is the same way. Don't want to kiss butt? Too bad, you get left out. It's called mercantilism, and it never got anywhere in the US. The UK still holds to mercantilist setups, so does Latin America, and both places have stagnated as a result.
The system in the UK is designed to assure the top nobles most of the pie. In the US, anybody with enough ambition can grab some pie. You will have to fight for it, but having apple filling on your face from eating pie is the best revenge. The problem with the US is that people want "money for nothing and chicks for free", in the words of redneck rockers Dire Straits.
In the UK everything goes to the nobility, so the lower classes get zilch. The chav reminds me of the roaming gangs of antisocial youths that bedeviled Albania in the 1980s before Hoxha's regime collapsed. North Korea is rumored to have the same problem. The youth gangs in Albania eventually grew so powerful that the government didn't just collapse, it disappeared completely. There was a couple years of absolute chaos before the situation rectified itself.
There are some areas in America that are effectively under the control of youth gangs. Every immigrant group has a gang problem, as do the blacks, and sometimes the cops just pull back and let the gangs run things. These gangs tend to be more organized than chavs or the Albanian kids, and function more like the Mafia. American youth gangs are not completely antisocial, they do have rules, albeit somewhat twisted. I think that eventually the UK will end up like Albania in 1996.
I agree, though only to an extent. If the US is more meritocratic then why is it the most static society in the developed world? Why is social mobility almost non-existent? The UK comes next, however. They are both haunted by the grand Anglo-Saxon tradition: the accumulation of wealth across generations, within those families, to the detriment of everyone else. To be honest, as a European and a socialist, the UK is more appealing than the US...simply because there is a progressive tradition. Things can change for the better, but it has to start with the economy.
I agree, though only to an extent. If the US is more meritocratic then why is it the most static society in the developed world? Why is social mobility almost non-existent? The UK comes next, however. They are both haunted by the grand Anglo-Saxon tradition: the accumulation of wealth across generations, within those families, to the detriment of everyone else. To be honest, as a European and a socialist, the UK is more appealing than the US...simply because there is a progressive tradition. Things can change for the better, but it has to start with the economy.
Actually, social mobility IS alive and well in the US. It doesn't look that way from Europe because all the billionaires inherited their wealth. Well, ok, but if you go down a couple notches from Bill Gates you'll find a lot of new rich.
The thing with the US is that there are actually two social groups-people who believe that possessions make the man, and people who don't care about material things (the latter being more like a European democratic socialist). The materialists tend to be the flashy ones, the publicity hounds, so they get all the press. In truth, the materialists are all either greatly in debt or have inherited their money and are idle rich.
The real new rich are members of the second group. They live in modest houses and drive pickup trucks (most popular brands: Ford and General Motors brands like Chevrolet and GMC; very few new rich drive Mercedes Benzes). Their businesses are stuff like general contracting businesses (building trades) and industrial supply outfits. They don't wear a suit unless they're being honored for something; then they'll go to Penney's (low end department store) and buy a store brand suit. They are anything but flashy.
American media personalities all tend towards materialism, so that's who they profile. Therefore the evening news will have a salesman who makes six figures a year whining about how he invested in real estate and is now bankrupt. Or the newsmagazine program will interview Donald Trump when they aren't doing the Jerry Springer thing and profiling freaks. The news couldn't sell ad time if they profiled the true new rich, because their lives are pretty dull, and Americans especially won't tolerate dull TV.
That's why it looks like America has little social mobility, because the news in America is either fawning over the flashy rich or eagerly tearing apart the single mom who got downsized from her middle class life and turned to prostitution to pay her mortgage and then disappeared. (Newsmagazines here love to talk about prostitutes, because Americans have rather twisted societal views of sex. The novel Peyton Place was about a middle class mom who becomes a prostitute, and that was written in the 1950s.) Rarely do you see ordinary people on American TV, or the new rich. It's easy to conclude from afar that all Americans look gorgeous, live in big houses, drive expensive cars, use drugs, and turn to scams to pay for it all.
It reminds me of the European who visited America and said "I went to Marin County, and the people were so beautiful and so rich. I thought that there must be a law against being ugly and poor there. I wondered where all the ugly, poor people were. Then I went to Las Vegas and realized what they had done with them all."
What depresses me about the UK...it seems to be the only country in Europe where politicians are completely unwilling to listen to experts. Sociologists, political theorists and even psychiatrists have been pushing the same points as us for near a decade. Even economists are beginning to say 'Look, this kind of arrangement isn't working at the moment...' Will they budge? No. The *** has to hit the fan. It's as if David Cameron thinks he's a better economist than someone that holds a professorship at the LSE. It's **** ridiculous.
I spent 15 years working for a Scottish local authority, and have to say that many politicians, at least at local level, are not only staggeringly thick but also completely convinced of their own self-determined superiority.
Scottish politics have been Labour-dominated for generations and it is the areas which that Party have "served" for decades which are amongst the worse in Europe in terms of poor housing, unemployment, health, educational attainment or attendance, drug problems, crime and so on. Many of these problems could have been attended to by local politicians, but haven't been.
One problem is that the people in these areas, if they vote at all, continue to vote for the party which has so signally failed them. Labour politicians have for years relied upon their vote, no matter how undeserved, and this at least partially explains the Scottish Labour party's shock and ill-grace at losing out to the SNP in the last Holyrood elections!
Hence, to at least some extent,the success of the SNP who provide an alternative which is not available in England!