 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / March 2004Lennon meaning of line "A working class hero is something to be"
I'm having a hard time understanding the refrain (chorus), "A working class hero is something to be". I'm guessing this "... is something to be" is much more common in Brit. English. Could someone enlighten me? For the past 20 years I've undertood the line to mean combinations of -- It's important to become ... -- You can become ... -- It's difficult to become ... .........................a working class hero. http://www.lennonworld.com/lyrics/workingclasshero.htm They hurt you at home and they hit you at school They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool Till you're so f.cking crazy you can't follow their rules A working class hero is something to be When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years Then they expect you to pick a career When you can't really function you're so full of fear A working class hero is something to be >I'm having a hard time understanding the refrain >(chorus), [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >-- It's difficult to become ... >.........................a working class hero. I understand "A working class hero is something to be" as being similar in meaning to "A working class hero is something worth being". >http://www.lennonworld.com/lyrics/workingclasshero.htm > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. >http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools  SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) > I understand > "A working class hero is something to be" > as being similar in meaning to " A working class hero is something one could try to become" regards Esben I. - not a native English speaker >>I'm having a hard time understanding the refrain >>(chorus), [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > as being similar in meaning to > "A working class hero is something worth being". That's what I thought, until I read the rest of the lyrics. If "you" is a working class hero, and "They hurt you at home and they hit you at school / They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool," it sounds more like "If you're a working class hero, it's a tough thing to be." But I never heard the song, so WDIK? Bart Mathias My self I've always felt he meant that reaching the top was near imposable and involved becoming something very inhuman, so you do the best with what you have, and stay a good person. A working class hero > >>I'm having a hard time understanding the refrain > >>(chorus), [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Bart Mathias > > > That's what I thought, until I read the rest of the lyrics. If "you" is > a working class hero, and "They hurt you at home and they hit you at > school / They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool," it > sounds more like "If you're a working class hero, it's a tough thing to be." > > But I never heard the song, so WDIK? I agreed with Peter Duncanson. Now that I've read your post, I daresay it could mean "It is something to be a working-class hero", "something" as in "..., and that's saying something", that is to say "it is pretty hard to be a working-class hero". Bye, FB >>>I'm having a hard time understanding the refrain >>>(chorus), [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >But I never heard the song, so WDIK? I don't think I ever heard the song, or if I did, the words meant nothing to me. >Bart Mathias SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) To be "working class" and a hero ie John Lennon, is not easy because once you become the "hero" a person changes and often is no longer working class. In this case I am not sure if John was claiming to have been working class (which he never was, but the Beatles had been described as just 4 working class lads from Liverpool) or if he is trying to apologise for no longer being working class. > >>>I'm having a hard time understanding the refrain > >>>(chorus), [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > UK > (posting from u.c.l.e) In uk.culture.language.english Richard Dixon <richard.d.dixon@btinternet.com> wrote: > To be "working class" and a hero ie John Lennon, is not easy because once > you become the "hero" a person changes and often is no longer working class. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > class lads from Liverpool) or if he is trying to apologise for no longer > being working class. A "working class hero" I would think refers to someone who has retained their working classness ather than just escped it e.g. (thread merge alert) by going to grammar school. A trade union leader or a tenants association leader might be a working class hero. A bank manager whose father was a labourer wouldn't be. I guess someone who has risen to fame from a working class background through some unconventional means, like being in a pop group, and has retained elements of his person conventionally associated with being working class e.g. his accent, might be termed a "working class hero". It's possible Lennon saw himself ibn this light, though as you say, his family background wasn't working class, more lower middle class. Matthew Huntbach > In uk.culture.language.english Richard Dixon <richard.d.dixon@btinternet.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It's possible Lennon saw himself ibn this light, though as you say, > his family background wasn't working class, more lower middle class. The U.S. mind boggles at a distinction between "working class" and "lower middle class." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> In uk.culture.language.english Richard Dixon >> <richard.d.dixon@btinternet.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > The U.S. mind boggles at a distinction between "working class" and > "lower middle class." Mostly because the American definition of "working class" is somewhat different, and would include "lower middle class." SignatureJohn Briggs > >> In uk.culture.language.english Richard Dixon > >> <richard.d.dixon@btinternet.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Mostly because the American definition of "working class" is somewhat > different, and would include "lower middle class." Precisely. On the rare occasions when we invoke such concepts. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>>> In uk.culture.language.english Richard Dixon >>>> <richard.d.dixon@btinternet.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Precisely. On the rare occasions when we invoke such concepts. Rare occasions? Have you tried Google? "Middle class" gives half a million references. SignatureJohn Briggs > >>>> In uk.culture.language.english Richard Dixon > >>>> <richard.d.dixon@btinternet.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Rare occasions? Have you tried Google? "Middle class" gives half a million > references. Out of how many conversations in the entire history of the country? Whyever would I want to google such a thing. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>>>>> In uk.culture.language.english Richard Dixon >>>>>> <richard.d.dixon@btinternet.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Whyever would I want to google such a thing. To see whether it was used more in England, or not. SignatureJohn Briggs > > The U.S. mind boggles at a distinction between "working class" and > > "lower middle class." > > Mostly because the American definition of "working class" is somewhat > different, and would include "lower middle class." Yes, but these are not really UK distinctions any more either. "Lower middle class" hasn't been used in anything but a historical context since the 1960's. See: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0FQP/4414_127/53567067/p1/article.jhtml ------- GC In uk.culture.language.english Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> I guess someone who has risen to fame from a working class background >> through some unconventional means, like being in a pop group, and has >> retained elements of his person conventionally associated with being >> working class e.g. his accent, might be termed a "working class hero". >> It's possible Lennon saw himself in this light, though as you say, >> his family background wasn't working class, more lower middle class. > The U.S. mind boggles at a distinction between "working class" and > "lower middle class." The distinction would be between someone whose work involves manual labour, wears overalls to work, and someone who works in a minor clerical role and wears suits. We are talking about the 1960s here, when a much greater proportion of the population than now would have worked as manual labourers. At that time, anyone who worked in an office probably would have felt they were a rather privileged sort of person, better than average. Times have changed since then, and the feeling of division which would have existed in the 1960s would hardly exist now. Matthew Huntbach >The distinction would be between someone whose work involves manual labour, >wears overalls to work, and someone who works in a minor clerical role and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >changed since then, and the feeling of division which would have existed in >the 1960s would hardly exist now. Trimmed to ucle. And many of those doing "manual" jobs are now skilled self-employed businessmen with mortgages, children at university etc. The Registrar General's system of classification by letters seems pretty inadequate these days. The interest in official social class statistics evidently began in he early C20th and had a distinct eugenic aspect to it. There was a fear that the lower orders were multiplying. I don't know if I dropped down a classification when I left a "middle class" job to run a market stall but I'd like to think so. After all, a working class hero is something to be. SignaturePhil C. >> The distinction would be between someone whose work involves manual >> labour, wears overalls to work, and someone who works in a minor [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And many of those doing "manual" jobs are now skilled self-employed > businessmen with mortgages, children at university etc. What's an unskilled self-employed businessman? SignatureJohn Briggs >>> The distinction would be between someone whose work involves manual >>> labour, wears overalls to work, and someone who works in a minor [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >What's an unskilled self-employed businessman? A major feature of the black economy. SignaturePhil C. > In uk.culture.language.english Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > changed since then, and the feeling of division which would have existed in > the 1960s would hardly exist now. American for that is probably "blue-collar" vs. "white-collar," and, especially at that time, blue-collar jobs often paid considerably better than white-collar jobs (thanks to powerful unionization). SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Peter T. Daniels typed thus: > American for that is probably "blue-collar" vs. "white-collar," and, > especially at that time, blue-collar jobs often paid considerably better > than white-collar jobs (thanks to powerful unionization). Not these days - "Scientist quits to become plumber": http://tinyurl.com/2ox4u SignatureDavid ===== > Peter T. Daniels typed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not these days - "Scientist quits to become plumber": Er, that's what I said. Or do plumbers in your part of the world wear white shirts to work in the gunk? > http://tinyurl.com/2ox4u > > -- > David > ===== SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net Peter T. Daniels typed thus: > > Peter T. Daniels typed thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Er, that's what I said. Or do plumbers in your part of the world wear > white shirts to work in the gunk? Don't mind me - I'm colour blind when it comes to collars. SignatureDavid ===== > Peter T. Daniels typed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Don't mind me - I'm colour blind when it comes to collars. You could probably work up a very nice shaggy-dog story involving "collar-blind." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net > Matthew Huntbach wrote: >>>> I guess someone who has risen to fame from a working class background >>>> through some unconventional means, like being in a pop group, and has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> The U.S. mind boggles at a distinction between "working class" and >>> "lower middle class." >> The distinction would be between someone whose work involves manual labour, >> wears overalls to work, and someone who works in a minor clerical role and >> wears suits. > American for that is probably "blue-collar" vs. "white-collar," and, > especially at that time, blue-collar jobs often paid considerably better > than white-collar jobs (thanks to powerful unionization). Ah, so although the U.S. mind boggled at it, merely change the words used and we find the U.S. mind has just the same concept. So the U.S. mind wasn't *really* boggling at the distinction, just the terminology. It is rather like the U.S. mind boggling at "rubber" and claiming that the idea of a piece of material that erases pencil marks is strange and British, until the U.S. mind is reminded that it uses the word "eraser" for the same thing. Similar regarding wage rates would have been found in the UK, where indeed manual labour at that time was highly unionised. There was also the feeling that manual work was a manly thing to do, while a desk job was effeminate. This would partly explain why people would proudly declare themselves to be "working class", and why a working class here would be something to be, but a lower middle class hero would not. Matthew Huntbach > >>>> I guess someone who has risen to fame from a working class background > >>>> through some unconventional means, like being in a pop group, and has [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > themselves to be "working class", and why a working class here would > be something to be, but a lower middle class hero would not. You don't see the difference in attitude? A U.S. guy can take a bath and change his clothes and get an office job. A U.K. guy was (is?) just about permanently mired in the "class" of his birth. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>>>>> I guess someone who has risen to fame from a working class background >>>>>> through some unconventional means, like being in a pop group, and has [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > A U.K. guy was (is?) just about permanently mired in the "class" of his > birth. If you believe that, why does America have the terms "blue-collar" and "white-collar"? SignatureJohn Briggs > >>>>>> I guess someone who has risen to fame from a working class background > >>>>>> through some unconventional means, like being in a pop group, and has [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > If you believe that, why does America have the terms "blue-collar" and > "white-collar"? They're kinds of jobs, not kinds of people. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net [This post was originally written on Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:58:33 GMT. Which was during, or after, the GNSNAFU that Demon's customers experienced during the period 21st--24th February 2004. My usual mechanism for injecting news, via their mail2news gateway is STILL broken (the advertised MX for the news machine is refusing sonnections on the SMTP port), so I'm reposting using telnet manually to port 119. The Message-ID *has* been changed, so apologies to those outside Demon who may have seen the earliest posts before.] > >> feeling that manual work was a manly thing to do, while a desk job was > >> effeminate. This would partly explain why people would proudly declare [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you believe that, why does America have the terms "blue-collar" and > "white-collar"? More to the point, if the discriminant is the taking, or not, of a bath, why isn't the "blue-collar" a "gray-collar"? <d&rfc> SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 > [This post was originally written on > Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:58:33 GMT. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > More to the point, if the discriminant is the taking, or not, of a bath, > why isn't the "blue-collar" a "gray-collar"? It isn't. Work shirts were blue, dress shirts were white. (These days, dyes are more widely available and cheaper.) SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net [32 needlessly quoted lines snipped: has no one ever suggested that you should learn to trim?] > > More to the point, if the discriminant is the taking, or not, of a bath, > > why isn't the "blue-collar" a "gray-collar"? > > It isn't. Work shirts were blue, dress shirts were white. (These days, > dyes are more widely available and cheaper.) Duh! Proof yet again[1] that Merkins are greatly deficient in the irony module. [1] As if we hadn't had enough proof over the past two decades. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them". George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919 In uk.culture.language.english Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Matthew Huntbach wrote: >>>>> The U.S. mind boggles at a distinction between "working class" and >>>>> "lower middle class." >>>> The distinction would be between someone whose work involves manual labour, >>>> wears overalls to work, and someone who works in a minor clerical role and >>>> wears suits. >>> American for that is probably "blue-collar" vs. "white-collar," and, >>> especially at that time, blue-collar jobs often paid considerably better >>> than white-collar jobs (thanks to powerful unionization). >> Ah, so although the U.S. mind boggled at it, merely change the words >> used and we find the U.S. mind has just the same concept. So the U.S. >> mind wasn't *really* boggling at the distinction, just the terminology. > You don't see the difference in attitude? No. All I see is a difference in terminology. > A U.S. guy can take a bath and change his clothes and get an office job. > A U.K. guy was (is?) just about permanently mired in the "class" of his > birth. It's not the case now, and it wasn't then. The UK has always had a relatively high degree of social mobility. I myself was born the son of an unskilled manual worker, the lowest social class. I have never seen myself as "mired" in that position. I am now a university lecturer, which counts as fairly high up on the class scale. It hasn't seemed to me to be a particularly strange or unusual progression. If one reads newspaper obituaries, one finds that actually there's nothing unusual in the UK for someone eminent to have come from a humble background. Matthew Huntbach > In uk.culture.language.english Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > No. All I see is a difference in terminology. Look closer. > > A U.S. guy can take a bath and change his clothes and get an office job. > > A U.K. guy was (is?) just about permanently mired in the "class" of his > > birth. > > It's not the case now, and it wasn't then. The UK has always had a > relatively high degree of social mobility. Define "always." 'Since World War II', maybe? If that were the case, why would *Pygmalion* have been such a hit? Or, for that matter, *Upstairs Downstairs*? *Keeping Up Appearances*? > I myself was born the son of an unskilled manual worker, the lowest > social class. I have never seen myself as "mired" in that position. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > actually there's nothing unusual in the UK for someone eminent to have > come from a humble background. And that's why I wrote "was (is?)." SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> In uk.culture.language.english Peter T. Daniels >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > If that were the case, why would *Pygmalion* have been such a hit? Or, > for that matter, *Upstairs Downstairs*? *Keeping Up Appearances*? You will be telling us next that there isn't a class system in America. SignatureJohn Briggs > >> In uk.culture.language.english Peter T. Daniels > >> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > > You will be telling us next that there isn't a class system in America. Nothing remotely like the British. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >>>> In uk.culture.language.english Peter T. Daniels >>>> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Nothing remotely like the British. Dream on. SignatureJohn Briggs > > You will be telling us next that there isn't a class system in America. > Nothing remotely like the British. Surely you mean "nothing like the (1950s) movies" ------- GC > John Briggs wrote: >>>>> A U.S. guy can take a bath and change his clothes and get an office job. >>>>> A U.K. guy was (is?) just about permanently mired in the "class" of his >>>>> birth. >>>> It's not the case now, and it wasn't then. The UK has always had a >>>> relatively high degree of social mobility. >>> Define "always." 'Since World War II', maybe? >> You will be telling us next that there isn't a class system in America. > Nothing remotely like the British. How would you know? You clearly *don't* know what the British "class system" is like, because the statement you made above is actually quite seriously wrong, and always has been, not just since WWII. It just seems to be one of those silly national stereotypes people carry on believing even those there's little truth to it that Britain has a class system that means there is little chance in changing the station in life to which you were born. When the president of the USA is the son of a previous president, with brothers who also have senior political positions, it strikes me as rather hypocritical of Americans to suggest that social classes and political aristocracy and the like are something other countries have but they don't. Matthew Huntbach | How would you know? You clearly *don't* know what the British "class | system" is like, because the statement you made above is actually | quite seriously wrong, and always has been, not just since WWII. Michael Howard, leader of the oposition, at Prime Ministers Question time talking to Tony Blare. "This Grammar school boy will not take lessons from that Public school boy ..." Dave F (another Grammar school boy) > > John Briggs wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Matthew Huntbach The Americans have a democracy mitigated by varying special interests. Power runs in US families if the members of the same families are 'reliable'. It is of course kind of difficult to get to be a Head of State just about anywhere without having a bit of clout. Ganton Pretz typed thus: > The Americans have a democracy mitigated by varying special interests. > Power runs in US families if the members of the same families are > 'reliable'. > > It is of course kind of difficult to get to be a Head of State just > about anywhere without having a bit of clout. Letting aside "Head of State" (which is not an achievable position in the UK unless one is Prince Charles), all the recent UK Prime Ministers came from utterly ordinary backgrounds without prior wealth or clout. Thatcher, Heath, Wilson, Calaghan, Major. The old toffs trail ends in 1964 after Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Hulme. SignatureDavid ===== > Ganton Pretz typed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The old toffs trail ends in 1964 after Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, > Douglas-Hulme. Douglas-Home. m. mUs1Ka typed thus: > > Ganton Pretz typed thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Douglas-Home. I knew that. I even spotted it the moment I posted, but it was too late to correct and we all know that Cancel is useless. SignatureDavid ===== > mUs1Ka typed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I knew that. I even spotted it the moment I posted, but it was too > late to correct and we all know that Cancel is useless. I pres-Home-d that you did. m. >> mUs1Ka typed thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >I pres-Home-d that you did. >m. Smart Alec! SignatureColl > Matthew Huntbach wrote: >>> A U.S. guy can take a bath and change his clothes and get an office job. >>> A U.K. guy was (is?) just about permanently mired in the "class" of his >>> birth. >> It's not the case now, and it wasn't then. The UK has always had a >> relatively high degree of social mobility. > Define "always." 'Since World War II', maybe? Since the Middle Ages (when we should be talking about England rather than the UK). History shows us plenty of cases of powerful characters who rose from humble origins - Cardinal Wolsey comes to mind, though there are many others. The English aristocracy tended to be more open than the continental aristocracy. > If that were the case, why would *Pygmalion* have been such a hit? Or, > for that matter, *Upstairs Downstairs*? *Keeping Up Appearances*? Possibly because the relative ease with which people could move between social classes meant people identified with the positions the characters found themselves in these. Matthew Huntbach > >>> A U.S. guy can take a bath and change his clothes and get an office job. > >>> A U.K. guy was (is?) just about permanently mired in the "class" of his [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > social classes meant people identified with the positions the characters > found themselves in these. The point of all three being _amusement_ at the pretension of attempting to escape one's class. SignaturePeter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net >> Matthew Huntbach wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >there are many others. The English aristocracy tended to be more open >than the continental aristocracy. This was evidently especially true after the Wars of the Roses which thinned out the ranks of the aristocracy and enabled promotion by marriage. SignaturePhil C. >>>I'm having a hard time understanding the refrain >>>(chorus), >>>"A working class hero is something to be". >>> >>>I'm guessing this "... is something to be" is >>>much more common in Brit. English. >> I understand >> "A working class hero is something to be" >> as being similar in meaning to >> "A working class hero is something worth being". > That's what I thought, until I read the rest of the lyrics. If "you" is > a working class hero, and "They hurt you at home and they hit you at > school / They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool," it > sounds more like "If you're a working class hero, it's a tough thing to be." The literal interpretation of the words "is something to be" is "is something worth being". However, Lennon is using irony here. You can imagine someone saying "Oh yeah, it's really great to be a working class hero" in a slow manner with a downward tone that people use when they're being ironical, followed an account of how hard it is. Matthew Huntbach > >>>I'm having a hard time understanding the refrain > >>>(chorus), [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Matthew Huntbach Or he was saying you're not going to make it in the fame and fortune department so a working class hero is something to be. > I understand > "A working class hero is something to be" > as being similar in meaning to > "A working class hero is something worth being". I am not a scouser but that's what I take it to mean. -- Skræðer I've always thought of it as being a "tongue in cheek" kinda of line...the song is actually dark in the way it's recorded, so I find it hard to see the lyrics in a positive light... We are raised into this belief of what "success" is (i.e. the "working class hero"), but in reality this is how such a person is treated. Austin P.S. I think lyrics are the last place to find proper english usage...:) > I'm having a hard time understanding the refrain > (chorus), [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Could someone enlighten me? Phil? As in my all time favourite firesign superhero? > I've always thought of it as being a "tongue in cheek" kinda of > line...the song is actually dark in the way it's recorded, so I find it [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > Could someone enlighten me? >Phil? >As in my all time favourite firesign superhero? >"Austin P. So (Hae Jin)" <haejin@ubc.ca> wrote in message No, that's not Phil Austin, but he does show up occasionally on Thursday night chats at http://www.firesigntheatre.com/chat Check out the archives. --- Merlyn LeRoy |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.