The "white trash" and "trailer trash" slurs have long irritated me, especially since it is PC to derogate this particular group and no other. I have made that point here before but when I ran across this short editorial making the same point, I just had to pass it on.

BTW, Grubman pronounces her name "Groobmon". What a phoney.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New York Daily News July 28, 2001

Lizzie's Trash Talk Offends

By ROBERTO SANTIAGO

When Lizzie Grubman allegedly yelled "white trash" at a Southampton bouncer before mowing down 16 people in her daddy's Mercedes, she made a social statement: "White trash" remains the only slur that is not labeled as hate speech — and the only slur used unabashedly by all races.

I have always hated the phrase, because it assumes a real white person is educated, flaunts WASP-y sophisticated airs and is financially secure. Ironically, Grubman is neither educated (flunked out of a few prep schools and never made it past one week of college) nor WASP-y (she's a product of an affluent Jewish father). But thanks to daddy, she is financially secure and socially connected. Daddy's money is the only thing that saved her from a fate of eating Spam, drinking Kool-Aid and attending monster truck contests.

In a fair world, "white trash" would refer to those who sneer at maids, doormen, messengers and minorities. But because the slur is all about white class distinctions, the worst one can call a Lizzie Grubman is pampered, spoiled brat.

Sad to say, the final arbiters of what is "white trash" and what is "cool" are the world's Grubmans. Body piercings, tattoos and Harleys used to be "white trash" but are now embraced by the socially hip. What's next? I doubt that helping build homes in Appalachia will replace dropping $1,000 on a bottle of champagne at a Southampton club. But you never know.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 28, 2001

Answers

I didn't know that "trailer trash" or "white trash" were PC, Lars. I actually had a little fun with a neighbor on one of our "walks." There's a new development under construction nearby and some of my neighbors are concerned about a particular type of house being built on these lots. As usual, I can't remember the name, but it seems that the materials used are cheaper in both price and quality than the materials used to build "our" homes. These homes apparently sell for the gosh-awful price of about $80,000.

Anyway, my neighbor was fearing this type of housing and the type of people that would buy these homes. I said, "What do you mean?" She tried and tried to come up with a description and I finally said, "So are you talking about mattresses leaning against the house and cars on blocks on the front lawn?" Much relieved, she said, "Yes!"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 28, 2001.

Lars, what evidence do you have that it is PC to derogate "white trash"? Certainly some people do it, but some people murder and murder is not PC.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 28, 2001.

Where does the phrase "rich white trash" stand? Or the long-standing phrase, "Euro-trash"?

-- Firemouse (trailer@coming.attractions), July 28, 2001.

>>Body piercings, tattoos and Harleys used to be "white trash"

Wrong. They still are for the cultural and financial elite. [Pay attention, white trash Cherri.]

-- (My@head is .pounding), July 28, 2001.

LN--

You got me. All I have is anecdotal evidence like the story above about Ms Grubman. (who would be properly pissed if someone had yelled "kike" at the offensive bouncer).

Try this experiment: Next time you go to a wine n cheese soiree with some A-list Liberals, make a snide remark about "trailer trash". See if anyone reacts negatively. Then make the same snide remark about any other racial/socio/sexual "minority". If it is accepted as readily as the remark about trailer-trash, then I stand corrected. Please report back to us.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 28, 2001.

"Next time you go to a wine n cheese soiree with some A-list Liberals..."

I'm willing, but it's gonna be a long wait, Lars. I ain't never been to such an animal in my life and I have no plans to start. The closest thing I can remember from the past couple of years was:

The wife and I attended a concert of medieval music at her alma mater. Afterwards, the audience were invited to go to another building on campus where art works were being shown and cookies and coffee were being served. When we got there, a string quartet was playing and a bunch of people were shuffling in a long line past the cookie table. We both stayed about an hour. I stood around making fun of the art, which was (in my view) a record of meaningless gestures. My wife kept shushing me, so I went off by myself and ate several cookies.

The subject of white trash never came up, but I was probably nearer to it than most anyone else there.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 28, 2001.

Oh no! I'm so sorry LN, I thought you were an A-list guy.

I am.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 29, 2001.

The Culture War

-- (Lyle @ Lovett. or leave it), July 29, 2001.

ugh lars

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 29, 2001.

You are as small as you perceive others to be.

--cin

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 29, 2001.

Uh, you wanna see my Birkenstocks and my Volvo? Not to mention my gewurztraminer and Pouilly-Fuisse?

Yet I don't allow the term "trailer trash" or "redneck" to be used around me. I have friends who happen to be living in trailers. There goes your theory.

Go peddle your silly assumptions somewhere else.

-- Firemouse (trailers@cinema.movies), July 29, 2001.

When I was in my 20s, I managed to save enough to buy a trailer outside of the city limits. It was on its own land. With the money I made from my second job, I gutted the inside and rebuilt it. At no time were there mattresses in the yard, junked cars sitting around, or anything that would make the Secret Lawn Police wrinkle up their noses. A few years later, I sold it for a profit and was able to purchase a house. I'd do that again if it were necessary, rather than go into major debt to a bank.

I resented being called trailer trash, but I made a joke out of it and would tell people who called me that, any day now, my husband, relatives, and twelve junked cars are going to show up. Yeppers, any day now! Funny how they never did.

-- (Meemur@yahoo.com), July 29, 2001.

ugh lars

You are as small as you perceive others to be.

--cin

Aw Cin. What did I say to upset you?

Firemouse--congratulations, sorry that so many of your clan are not as tolerant (and they aren't).

I have worn Birkenstocks in my day and I have my pretensions even now. They do not please me--I appreciate their being called to my attention.

I stand by my original point however.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 29, 2001.

Lars: I have worn Birkenstocks in my day and I have my pretensions even now. They do not please me...

Heh. I've GOT to ask about these shoes. Did you turn from a liberal to a conservative when you stopped wearing Birks, Lars? [I'm still trying to find some magical association between Birks and liberalism.] For ME, my kids, my friends, Birks have simply always been the "energizer bunny shoe"...They molded to our feet and just keep going and going.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 29, 2001.

Anita--

Oh, I must 'fess up. They were not Birks. They were custom made Jesus sandals from a leather craftsman in Madison, Wisconsin. Over time they conformed to my feet like an old leather baseball glove conforms to a boy's hand.

And yeah, in those days I was a la gauche. It's hard to live in Madison and not be Left, especially in the 70s. I began to change politics in 1978. The change was independant of footwear and place of residence. Just one of those gradual things.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 29, 2001.

Lars: If you don't mind, I'd like to pursue further your change. Personally, I can't imagine myself moving from a liberal persuasion to a conservative persuasion without someone/something taking away an integral part of who I am. May I ask how this happened, in YOUR case, or [in retrospect] do you think you purported to be of a liberal persuasion to fit in, while always holding a more conservative prospective?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 29, 2001.

A fair question Anita. I can't give it an easy answer. I may have always been a closet Conservative and was just trying to fit in by being a Liberal. Certainly there is, or at least was, a social pressure to be PC (even before it was called PC).

I got older. The 70s were tacky. Carter was a decent fellow but IMO a dangerously weak President. After Watergate, the Soviets were increasingly aggressive. That made me sympathetic to a more hard-line foreign policy. What I perceived as a snobbery on the Left became increasingly irritating to me. The innefficiencies of planned economies seemed evermore clear. The oppression and corruption inherent in large government struck me as more important than any social-justice that might be rammed down the citizen's throats (especially when the rammers talk came off as more and more self-serving).

For a while I went Libertarian but have backed off that somewhat. I do believe that in a complex civilization, government is needed and essential. But I also think that vigilance is ever needed to protect against a large government becoming Totalitarian. I see Libertarianism as Utopian, not realistic. That does not mean I am not still influenced by its arguments.

I also became more religious. I don't know if that has affected my politics. Surely many Dems are Xtians and many Republicans are not. But I do peceive a bias against religious faith from the Liberals.

Mostly it's been an evolutionary change. There were no epiphanies that I recall. There was no single intellectual influence of which I am aware. There was no dramatic life event or charismatic individual that influenced me.

I hope that I am not a rigid ideolog at this time. I don't think so. If the Right ever assumes too much power, I would oppose them.

In the meantime I remain a (gasp) Republican.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 29, 2001.

Thanks, Lars. That was certainly a "good enough" response. It IS hard to understand how and why we became who we are through the years. Heh. My parents would say I was born this way. I was of the liberal persuasion even as a kid. Some said, "She'll think differently when she gets to school." I didn't. Some said, "She'll think differently when she gets into the REAL world." I didn't. Some said, "She'll think differently after she has kids." I didn't. What's the NEXT transition? Will I think differently after the old people's home?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.

There is an old saying, "If you aren't a liberal at 21, you haven't a heart. If you aren't a conservative at 50, you haven't a brain."

The line between liberals and conservatives is not footwear, but the nature of man. Liberals see man as inherently good; bad only when forced by chance or circumstance. Conservatives see man as self interested; good only when convenient or self serving.

Certainly, man has noble impulses. As an indicator of behavior, however, self interest is more reliable than altruism.

The liberal arrogance that so annoys Lars is common. This is well documented in the book, "Vision of the Annointed" by Thomas Sowell. Collectivism allows one to feel morally superior, more kind and generous than those selfish conservatives. To the annointed, liberalism "feels" right.

Unfortunately, the good intentions of liberalism pave a familiar road. Witness the American "War on Poverty." Here's a question for the good-hearted Nipper: Did the war on poverty end poverty? It may have made a few people feel better, but in the end, the government programs failed.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), July 30, 2001.

I saw "Billy Jack" at the age of twelve and wanted to join the "school". I saw it again as a young, childless adult and wanted to help the townspeople burn it down. Maybe we should rent it this weekend and see which side we're on now. :)

-- helen (billy@jack.hero), July 30, 2001.

Remember: Speaking of the "war on poverty", do you see the "war on pregnancy" providing effective results?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 30, 2001.

The metaphor "War on ...(whatever)" is certainly overdone.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 30, 2001.

Helen,

I don't remember much about the school itself. I just remember that I wanted Billy to kick the rich boys' ass and I probably still feel that way.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 30, 2001.

"Liberals see man as inherently good; bad only when forced by chance or circumstance. Conservatives see man as self interested; good only when convenient or self serving."

That's odd. I see humans as self-interested and I would certainly call myslef a liberal. It is just that I consider that self-interest can be enlightened.

For example, whether or not I have a child of my own, I consider it granting all children a good education to be in my enlightened self-interest, because I can see benefits for myself in the creation of wealth and a stable middle class - which universal education begets.

Further, I think it is in my best interests to live in a society where no class of people is enslaved, brutalized or oppressed to the point of hopelessness. Such a society must live in fear of their own creation.

I definitely think that it is in my own best interests to live in a just society. That is the main reason why I am strongly opposed to treating drug addiction as a crime. It has nothing to do with my heart bleeding for the poor addicts.

I think, Remember the old forum, you will find that the average liberal has more years of education than the average conservative. I know for a fact that when the polling numbers on the last presidential election were broken down by education level, Mr. Gore had a comfortable lead over Mr. Bush among those with any college education - with the correlation becoming stronger among those with advanced degrees.

The average conservative accounts for this fact through a belief that a university education somehow saps one's common sense and turns one into some kind of politically correct zombie. (I hope you do not join them in that belief, Remember). I see many liberals who are above the age of fifty.

Yes, I do agree that these liberals tend to be more level headed, less idealistic and better problem solvers than liberals in their twenties. But that kind of 'conservatism' is innate with the accumulation of age and experience. It has no connection at all to political conservatism - in the sense of (for example) favoring drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve and a missile defense system. One may "have a brain" and oppose these proposals. In fact, I suspect that it is those with a brain who most oppose them.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 30, 2001.

I have found that when liberals say "enlightened," they mean "agrees with me."

One common problem is that liberals assume their enlightened social policies are self evident. Let us take your examples (while I note you do not provide citations or proof):

The middle class (and widespread literacy) existed before compulsory public education. In the early 1800s, the majority of American children attended private schools. My issue, Nipper, is not with universal education, but universal public education. We readily assume parents will feed, clothe and shelter children. Until the rise of the monolithic State, we also assumed (correctly) that parents would provide children with an education.

Moving forward, I agree that human liberties should be secured. A glance at history, however, suggests that we have most to fear from the State. The enslavement or genocide of peoples has most often come in an institutionalized form, be it religious or political.

The disagreement between liberals and conservatives is rarely on the lofty values. Who will speak against justice? The real issue is how we achieve these noble ambitions.

The liberal answer is uniformly collectivist. We promote "equality" by expropriating wealth from some and giving it to others. We promote the common good by regulating the day-to-day lives of our citizens down to wearing a helmet when you ride a motorcycle or seat belt while driving a car. We label cigarettes on the off chance you are the one person who has not heard tobacco smoke is harmful to your health. In short, the "enlightened" liberal feels obligated to impose his "wisdom" on everyone.

It is not surprising to find a correlation between advanced education and a paternalistic attitude towards one's fellow man. After all, Nipper, you must have read Homer in the original Greek. This must qualify you to tell the great unwashed how to live our lives.

Lost in your soaring prose is a direct dodge of a simple question. I'll help you. Remember the "War on Poverty?" What happened? Short answer: It failed. Amazingly enough, the architects of this grand social engineering usually had advanced degrees. I imagine you have one, too.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), July 30, 2001.

Lost in your soaring prose is a direct dodge of a simple question. I'll help you. Remember the "War on Poverty?" What happened?

Talk about "soaring prose", how the hell can I "directly dodge" a question that I wasn't asked? The only charitable explanation is that you were being silly.

I agree that the War on Poverty, as it was originally conceived, failed. If you had only taken the effort to ask me, instead of indulging yourself in rhetorical flourishes, I would have said as much.

Once you get that out of the way, it seems to me that the smart thing to do from such a failure is to learn from it.

The lessons you learned from the failures of the War on Poverty kind of reminds me of Mark Twain's cat. It sat on a hot stove once and it learned its lesson. It never sat on a hot stove again... and it never sat on a cold one, either. In my opinion, the lessons you learned are just as much overdrawn.

Medicare was part of the War on Poverty. So was Headstart. So were food stamps. Every one of these programs still exists. All have been changed to address flaws and deficiencies found in their original forms. If you want to argue that America is better off without a Headstart program or Medicare, you are going to have an uphill pull.

What you label as "collectivism" and then dismiss is something most people recognize as beneficial when you get down to cases. Even you are likely to see the benefit in public health measures that could not be undertaken effectively in a piecemeal fashion by individual initiative.

I notice you say you mistrust and fear "the state", but that does not seem to be what most conservatives believe. On the contrary, self-identified "conservatives" often seem most comfortable reinforcing the elements of the state that wield the most force: the armed forces and the police.

I will not suppose you agree with them, but either way, I have some questions I'd like you to answer:

If you do desire a strong army and police force, then how do you reconcile this with your own self-identified "fear" of "the state"?

If you want to disarm the state, how do you distinguish yourself from common anarchists?

Lastly, are police and fire departments "collectivist" enterprises? If not, why not?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 30, 2001.

"The middle class (and widespread literacy) existed before compulsory public education."

Yes. I would not dispute the existance of a middle class. But I would enquire about its size relative to the general population both then and now.

Nor would I dispute the existance of "widespread literacy". But literacy exists at many levels. For example, Cuba claims a higher rate of literacy than the USA, but this bare fact says nothing about how that literacy manifests itself among Cubans nor how it is measured in each country.

Have you read any of Lewis and Clark's Journals or pioneer diaries in uncorrected transcription? There is every reason to believe that a sampling of such documents would represent the high end of general literacy among the middle class in the early 1800s. (I would exempt Lewis from this consideration. He was a college graduate and secretary to the president. Not exactly your usual 6th grade education of that period.)

You can certainly make out their meaning, but their spelling and grammar are, to by today's standards, sloppy at best.

"In the early 1800s, the majority of American children attended private schools."

Since a "majority" encompasses any precentage greater than 50%, then I won't dispute that fact either. I would question though, whether a "majority" ever reached the 8th grade.

I would also question how competant those early 1800s students would be to step into any contemporary job that paid well enough to secure a middle class income. I suspect that employers would love their work ethic but deplore their clerical skills as abysmal.

"My issue, Nipper, is not with universal education, but universal public education."

There has never been universal education that was not publically funded, so for all practical purposes you are against universal education. If that famous rising tide lifts all boats, then the same is true of the educational tide.

The general level of education in the population is higher now than in the early 1800s you cite as a model. That is a stone cold fact.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 30, 2001.

LN--

Since too many of today's HS graduates are functionally illiterate, maybe 8th grade in 1800 was quite adequate in basic clerical skills like the 3Rs. Remember, there were no "social promotions" then.

Did you see the Ken Burns documentary on PBS about 8 years ago on the Civil War? The poetry in some of those letters from farm boys was extraordinary.

Do you ever see Jay Leno's feature where he interviews contemporary airheads on the street? (I think the bit is called Jaywalkers). These people are abysmally ignorant. It's scary to think that a complex civilization will soon be theirs to run.

But they are very skilled at slipping condoms on cucumbers.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 31, 2001.

Lars, every time I see those kids, I crawl under the covers with embarassment. I remember the two girls who 'followed' the primaries and presidential campaign. I felt so sorry for their parents, and for them. The world was laughing at their stupidity. I saw nothing charming about their big smiles and little brains. Truly sad.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 31, 2001.

Look up in the thread, Nipper, and read the question.

As for Headstart, would you like to talk about the studies that have proven the effects of Headstart are quite fleeting? Or the fraud, waste and abuse found in Medicare. The problem, Nipper, is that you seem to lack the intellectual capacity to consider that the absence of government programs. For you, the "truth" is self evident.

Since "you" are taking "my" money to fund your conscience salving initiatives, I think you have the burden to prove the expropriated money is well spent. As for what "most people think," who cares? Many people have ideas about what is "good" and "bad" that have no basis in reality. Perhaps Medicare should fund the "healing powers of crystals" or home-brewed "herbal remedies." Why not extend services to people suffering from alien abductions or government thought rays beamed into their heads?

As for "public" health, I note that we have many large private insurance companies. These firms allow individuals to pool resources to provide a collective benefit. The difference, as you might know, is that private insurance is based on a voluntary choice by an individual. Public health programs are funded by involuntary taxation. Private health firms face market competition. Public health organizations do not.

Lastly, in the American Constutional republic, the powers of the military and the police are limited by the law. Both entities serve under civilian leaders elected by the populace. Your questions are a crude version of "Do you only beat your wife on Sunday." It is possible to have a standing military and local law enforcement without creating a totalitarian state. The first general rule is to prohibit military forces from possessing police powers. The second general rule is to limit law enforcement to enforcing the law. In the latter case, the most expedient solution is to limit the extent to which laws govern individual activities. Finally, law enforcement ought to focus primarily on ensuring our rights are preserved, not limited.

Let me make a final distinction. There are some activities that ought to be limited to the public sector including law enforcement and the military. These are the exceptions rather than the rule. Many activities, including fire protection, can be capably handled by private firms. I note that rural America has a long tradition of privately-supported volunteer fire departments.

Collectivism is state-run. Private initiatives, including insurance companies, credit unions, volunteer fire departments, etc., are not "collectivist."

Now, on to the "middle class." Please demonstrate the causal relationship between universal education and the middle class. After you provide some evidence or citations, you may then explain why the middle class has decreased during the past 30 years despite the continuing mandate of public education.

As for data, you'll have to do better than anecdotes. Literacy data has been collected throughout American history. Look at the data. If you cannot find it, I'll provide some links.

Oh, and it's "existence."

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), July 31, 2001.