From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Tue Jun 11 2002 - 21:29:01 MDT
Brian Phillips wrote: Interesting usage spike.
>What are the alternative terms for the counterparts
>of the proles who do not work or are working for
>themselves? Bougie?
Retired? OK, that works for me.
Lee Corbin wrote:
>Spike writes
>
>>freedom is good, and proles are free, therefor
>>it is good to be a prole.
>>
>
>I guess it got some of its bad nuances from Orwell's 1984.
>The proles (Marx's proletariat, of course) were the lower
>class deliberately kept in ignorance by the inner party.
>But often I still hear myself saying "If there is hope,
>it lies in the proles." :-) Lee
>
It has been 18 years since I read 1984, but I do not recall
that Orwell specified that the proles were necessarily
lower class. Certainly they were out of the loop politically,
which would be a good thing under those circumstances.
His description of the outer circle is not one I would
consider wealthy or even middle class. Perhaps it was
implied that proles are poor.
Today, proles are not necessarily poor either. Lee, you and
I have plenty of examples in our neighbors and coworkers
of people who are not interested in politics, but are doing
quite well financially.
Olga Bourlin wrote:
>>>freedom is good, and proles are free, therefor
>>>it is good to be a prole.
>>>
>
>Maybe so. But the "professionals" I know who word for a living do NOT call
>themselves proles - they think of workers such as the janitors and window
>washers "proles" (and I've noticed how, when confronted with a "prole-type
>worker," say, in an elevator, the professionals ignore them or move to the
>other side of the elevator pronto; talking to the "proles" at an office
>party, as you may well surmise, is pretty much out of the question).
>
Remind me not to come to work in your office. {8^D
At my office the engineers cheerfully call each other proles
and I seldom see anyone diss the janitors.
>Perception - while it may not be everything - is important to consider here.
>I try not to use terms that may SEEM pejorative (i.e., could hurt some
>people's feelings) if I can think of something else (and I'm probably not
>100% successful). I don't use terms like "trailer trash." Calling any kind
>of people trash - even in jest? - seems unnecessary and unkind. Even
>"redneck" seems a bit harsh.
>
Unfortunately, some people's feelings are easier
to hurt than others. I myself am trailer trash, or rather I was
at one time (my current abode has no wheels). I am not
ashamed of that, wasn't at the time. Pretty much everyone
I knew were in the same sitch. Redneck? Well, kinda sorta.
I drive a pickup, vote republican or libertarian. My favorite
alcoholic drink is beer, my favorite restaurants are *still* Taco
Bell and McDonalds. They bring back fond memories.
Prole? OK. Cracker? Gringo? Whitey? Fine, I am all these,
I own them all, I have no problem with any of them. We should
all be proud of what we are, regardless of what that is. By
owning a label, we disarm it.
It doesn't always work. The black athletes in the World
Football League were calling each other by the N word,
not as an insult but as an endearing term. Sponsors fled,
never to return. The athletes were not granted immunity for
being black, were they not given permission to own and
disarm the label. The league quickly folded.
Trailer trash: those growing up hearing that term are
filled with a grim determination to make a financial
success, so that they can one day own the businesses
that the hurlers of the insult will someday come crawling
to for a job. Trailer trash often grows up to make some
of the best capitalists. Take Steven Jobs, for instance.
{Please. Take him. Far away.}
My point? By co-opting or owning a epithet, we disarm it.
Olga, let us be proles. Let us be free.
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:44 MST