Political Rhetoric: Inventing Pejoratives Describing Oneself

'Tis a curious issue, indeed.

• If I wanted to use flyover country as a disparaging term, I would have omitted the quotes.

• "Flyover country", as far as I know, is a phrase that originated with conservatives as a term mocking perceived liberal elitism. The earliest reference I can find to it is an unsubstantiated allegation by Wayne LaPierre of the NRA: "The South, the Midwest, everything they call 'flyover land' ...." (Roig-Franzia) That was in 2005.

• "Flyover country" is a badge of honor among many conservatives. See above note. If one of these right-wingers could explain the evil, liberal etymology for us, it would be much appreciated. Consider the use of "flyover country" in a 2007 thread about the "Amero", for instance. Or maybe we might pause to consider where "flyover country" enters the discussion of Eliot Spitzer's downfall. Can we find the phrase in a discussion of a manufactured anti-Hillary Clinton scandal? Who brought the term into a discussion of whether or not the U.S. is a democracy? Whence came the term in the discussion of conservative media? Or the thread about the Georgia legislature conducting hearings into anal implants by the federal government? A discussion about the census?

• The earliest use of "flyover country" in the "midwest" context I can find at Sciforums comes courtesy of Madanthonywayne. Shortly before that, Nirakar—neither a right-wing lunatic nor a bastion of liberalism—discussed "Americans from 'the flyover'".

• Many folks who live in "flyover" states use the term. It seems to me no more pejorative, as such, than a Seattlite saying, "Rain City".

• "Middle America", like "flyover country", seems, in its political sloganeering context, a conservative device. When liberals want to disparage these regions, we use the term "Jesusland".

• "Flyover country" can certainly be viewed as having a pejorative context, especially if you buy into the monolithic myth that everyone in those states is conservative. ​

Part of this seems a bit like a prior controversy we had at Sciforums, when we tried to ban the use of the word "Teabagger" to describe Tea Party members or sympathizers. In that sense, the question becomes: "Why do terms conservatives invent suddenly become verboten when other people use them?"

As the record I've linked above suggests, "flyover country" seems to be a term of conservative invention. Would you lecture conservative journalist Tom Bevan (editor and co-founder of Real Clear Politics) on his use of "flyover country"?

The only real curiosity is why someone would want to drag a thread about the poxy weather into a political fight.

Okay, so there's one other: Why is it wrong to use a term people invented to describe themselves?
____________________

Notes:

Roig-Franzia, Manuel. "Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense". The Washington Post. April 26, 2005. WashingtonPost.com. February 2, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html

Bevan, Tom. "Purdum's Hit on Palin". Real Clear Politics. June 30, 2009. RealClearPoplitics.Blogs.Time.com. February 2, 2011. http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/06/30/purdums-hit-on-palin/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If it sounds disparaging, that's because it's meant to be. The whole middle of the country and a large part of the south are full of bible thumping, uncultured, uneducated idiots.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But who is disparaging what?

Okay, but who is actually doing the disparaging? Madanthonywayne? Tom Bevan? Wayne LaPierre?

And what is this trend that conservatives start using a word, but anyone else is wrong to use it in the same context? Is this some sort of simplistic ploy on their part?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm forced to agree with Spidergoat. Those idiotic states in the center of the country are disproportionately represented in the national government for how many people actually live there. There's no democratic theory that would support that bizarre and unevidenced dynamic.

PS. The so-called heartland of America has some of the highest rates of obesity and cardiovascular disease in the country, so much so that "the bible belt" is referred to as "the stroke belt." Those fat hicks in places like Texas are bringing down the standards of the USA's health and their fatass problems are costing the healthcare system more money than cancer is. Truth.

 

The underlying question

Such as it is, though, why should it be controversial if someone other than a conservative uses the phrase, "flyover country"?

Why should we have to stop calling Tea Party members and sympathizers "Teabaggers"? It is, after all, the name they gave themselves. I still remember one libertarian on MSNBC saying, "Come teabag with us!" Although in this case, if one applies the relevant stereotypes, there is a fair argument that he knew damn well what he was saying.

 

I didn't realize that people actually got insulted by regional names. I live in "flyover country" and besides the crappy weather (which is ultra-crappy today) I kinda like living here. Nor am I bothered by all the pesky creationists and neo-cons (though to be fair, I live in a pretty liberal suburb of VERY liberal Cleveland). Every city I've lived in (or attempted to live in) has it's annoying quirks.

• New York: they think they're the center of the universe. New Yorkers act like everything outside the city and Long Island is terra incognita. Like going to Chicago is "roughing it".
• KeyWest: they think that they are somehow semi-independent (see: The Conch Republic). They're as snooty as New Yorkers but with better weather.
• Phoenix: in a perfect world it would be LA style with Texas personality. But no. It's LA personality and Texas style. Sort of a horrible Texas / California experiment gone wrong.

I've yet to see a place that hasn't justifiably earned it's poor reputation.

~String

 

What about your hometown of Cleveland? Would you say it deserves its moniker as "the mistake on the lake"? Given how heavily that town depended on Lebron James, it sounds like a pretty nasty place.

 

I find it simply fascinating how easily people can be manipulated in to the Us & Them mentality.

I thought Canada was the worst(or the best if you are a politician type) at this, playing region against region to grab your easy "base" votes...until I've noticed that the U.S is very state specific in it's vote expectations. To a ridiculous degree that a "massive" change in voter "mentality" can be seen in less than 200miles...

My opinion is, people are for the most part, the same anywhere. The simple minded (politically - one can be smart yet lazy in political thinking - simple minded in this manner), are easily forced to "fall in" the ranks of their close contact peers. Perhaps in small towns it is easier to be bullied into a thought process by so many fkin people you know and talk to on the street...you might know the whole town. The same thing exists in the big apple as a trend, large trend can sweep the city in a matter of days. "Disabled people" was politically correct one week and the next it's "Physically challenged". And Woe to he, that fucks this up!

So what if some conservatives have taken this term (Which we can universally agree means politically and culturally You are not important if you live here -very DANGEROUS!), as a badge of honour. Young and 30-something black men call eachother niggers for christ sake.

The meaning is clear, you are not important, nothing you do or say will matter. So politically speaking, IF THAT IS TRUE, then what do you suppose people, in particular the "United" States of America DO IN SUCH A SITUATION??

Ya they rebel.

 

Cleveland has never recovered from the industrial exodus of the early 70's. It literally left the city rusting from west to east. Like Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Detroit and the like, we are going through a "renaissance" right now. The city is, even during this slump, investing heavily in rebuilding the entire urban area. It's meeting with mixed results and is one of the most pleasant places to hang out.

Overall, I can say that Clevelanders are the most down-to-earth people I've ever known. We don't have the right to be pompous about anything, but save a few things like the Clinic, Case, and inexpensive living prices. I like down-to-earth people. Maybe it's because I'm from Cleveland, but from what I've been told by those visiting, Clevelanders are quick to welcome anybody into their social group. No cover charges at bars and a variety that comes with being in any large city (about two million people).

In the past decade, there's been a food revival in Cleveland (which is probably true in every city). There are some amazing restaurants, diverse, ethnic and all around different, that allow a foodie like me to eat like a king on the very, very cheep. Try getting that in Chicago, NYC or San Francisco.

On the down side, Cleveland weather is sub-par 8 months out of the year, and nearly intolerable for four of those 8 months. Half the city is still dilapidated. Crime, like in most cities, is bad (though, not DC, LA or Detroit bad). Job growth is minimal. The sports teams are total cock teases (the Browns did this in the late 80's, the Indians did this in the last 90's and the Cav's did this to us recently).

On the whole, Cleveland is about 20 years away from a full on revival. As the west of the US dries up (they are doing nothing about the impending water shortage) and gets flooded with poor people from South America, the Great Lakes Basin is on the verge of a massive revival. The lakes are now protected by powerful Federal and Treaty protections (with Canada) that cannot easily be thwarted. Don't know if I plan on staying, but it's a sure bet, that Cleveland will be thriving while San Diego, Las Vegas and Phoenix experience some horrific growing pains.

~String

 

On taking the bait

Wrong.

True, it would be a dangerous mentality to live by, but it's more apparent in the paradoxical claim by the party that put Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, and Clint Eastwood in office that liberals are "Hollywood Elitists".

Flyover country, if you'll notice, is a term used by people who live there, and sometimes with neither rancor nor sarcasm.

It only means people don't matter if that's what one needs it to mean.

It's a con, and you fell for it.

I was actually wondering if that point would come up. After all, it was the black slaves who invented and popularized "nigger", wasn't it?

Sometimes it seems that conservatives are desperate to be oppressed. Almost like Munchausen Syndrome—they envy the attention given to the oppressed, and thus try to cast themselves as similarly oppressed.

However, it seems very difficult to claim, "O! how oppressed I am!" when one's chosen political affiliation and ideology—e.g., the alleged reason for oppression—has enjoyed such privilege in culture and history.

 

Seriously. How can anybody actually not see the humor in the term "flyover". I love the term.

~String

 

Tiassa, you assume I'm a conservative so naturally...just because I think that term is offensive?

I'm neither "liberal" no conservative in the modern sense.

I simply believe in a liberated individual to the degree that your fist stops at my nose. It's really that simple, I don't know who best bullshits that belief nowadays...

My main angle on this is, in the days of absolute political correctness...it's somehow ok to put a dis on someone just because of geography, it's weird and combined with that rancid partisanship of American politics...I think dangerous.

 

Whoever said Tiassa is PC?

~String

 

Please set your watch back five minutes

Hardly. In case you hadn't noticed, I said you fell for a con.

Think of it this way, if it helps: I'm a post-sixties hippie, born after the era. In my lifetime, hippies have been derided as inherently physically ugly, as "granolas", and singled out for hypocrisy—e.g., "How can you be an environmentalist if you drive a polluting Veewee Microbus?"

But this part of society described itself as hippies. My generation still uses the word, even though we're not part of the original ideological, psychological, and spiritual social movement that gave rise to the word.

Some people, though, say the word "hippie" with disdain. They don't like us. They think we're all a bunch of unwashed, patchouli-stinking, pot-smoking, maladjusted freaks.

Not all of us are into patchouli, and some of us actually take showers on a regular basis.

But wouldn't it be strange if suddenly, in the face of conservative disdain toward hippies, I declared the word a pejorative and demanded people stopped using it because it was akin to "nigger"?

That's the con job you're falling for. Like "teabaggers", "flyover country" is a term introduced in its political context by conservatives. Now that other people use the word, can anyone cry foul? I don't see how. It's not like bitch, nigger, or faggot. Those pejoratives were raised by others.

Okay, I would appreciate a straightforward, honest answer here:

If I introduce a term to the general lexicon in order to describe myself, can I complain that it is pejorative when someone else uses it?​

It's not that I don't recognize the issue you're raising. But its application isn't valid, in my opinion, because this is a term used by the people you suggest should be offended by it.

The "dis", as such, is a con job. And you bought into it.

I can't change that. But, in truth, I'm getting sick of people bending over backwards to excuse a section of American society from obligations to logic and integrity. If "flyover country" is a pejorative, why do the people in "flyover country" use the term, and often without sarcasm or rancor? That is, why not take your complaint to the people in "flyover country" who use the term?

I used to live in the Fremont district of Seattle, a self-proclaimed center of the Universe. Signs around the neighborhood, quite literally, read:

Welcome to FREMONT
The Center of the Universe
Please set your watch back five minutes.​

To the one, it always strikes me how many people take the signs seriously to the point that they are offended by the goddamn hippies in Fremont. To the other, most of the hippies in Fremont just shrug and say, "What do we expect? They're jealous, because we live at the Center of the Universe." (snick—ffffffft!—cough-cough-cough!)

If someone I don't like sneers at "The Center of the Universe", should I complain that he is putting a dis on people because of geography? Should I just shut up and take the lumps? Or should I maybe chuckle at the fact that someone actually takes the point so seriously as to get upset about it?

People sneer at the idea of "flyover country"—a.k.a. "middle America", "real America"—specifically because of its divisive value in politics. Remember, when it comes to politics, it's the folks in "flyover country" who claim to be the "real Americans", and the rest of us don't count because we're all liberal elitist snobs—even the folks with gun racks mounted on their gun racks.

Take those rancid politics out of the equation, and the term still exists.

I won't assert your political outlook, but I will wonder why you're buying into a lie. In terms of American liberal and conservative, people ought to know better by now.

And, certainly, I can try to tell you a few things about American perceptions of what you're referring to, but apparently that has no effect. It seems we're all supposed to kneel before the conservative lie, because anything else is dangerous.

And, well ... (chortle!)

 

um string chicago is actually where top chef's go to get really creative. its got the size to ensure steady clientelle but without the demanding expectation of NYC

 

I Fell for it? A Con?

So when you use the term you are purposely in on the "con".

All I said was I would feel insulted by the term, because of the intrinsic meaning of the phrase, not because some asshole like Rush Limbach and others commandeer it.

 

(Insert title here)

You'll have to explain how that works.

The intrinsic meaning you assign the phrase is entirely your own. Sure, it just happens to match that of conservatives trying to stir up regionalist animosity and, certainly, you're helping encourage that animosity, but it's entirely your own.

Some chuckle whenever allegedly independent minds recite conservative talking points. I know I do, and I'm not alone. And, indeed, we chuckle again when those independent minds insist that their intrinsic definitions are the only ones that apply. I recognize there are other ways to view the phrase; indeed, I spent the topic post discussing those facets, and thus far, your deepest response has been ... what, to write my argument for me? Or to insist that your "intrinsic definition" is the only correct one?

Is there a point to your lament other than the supremacy of your imagination?

I would ask again—and hope (again) for your honest answer:

If I introduce a term to the general lexicon in order to describe myself, can I complain that it is pejorative when someone else uses it?​

No, really, I would much appreciate an answer. It always strikes me as strange when someone turns reality on its head and then gets offended because everything looks upside-down.

 

ps: we are a Republic, not a Democracy.

As to the rest of your rant, :bugeye:

 

Well Tiassa, I don't believe the origins of the phrase were demican or republicrat. Some snooty Hollywood type flying New York to LA probably came up with it. I hope that answers your question.

 

In a true republic, there would be more states...hundreds of them...to fairly represent those local rural communities, and break up the unfair monopoly of the "city state".