Ship of Fools: Is cheekiness a quinessentially British attribute?

Thread: Is cheekiness a quinessentially British attribute? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026217

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

Prompted by this article.

"I asked several American friends if the term had a US equivalent, but some told me that the concept doesn't even exist in the same way ... "

I think she has a point. Britain acquired a great Empire, "won" two World Wars, lost the Empire & exports values such as democracy and education, music, entertainment & comedy. We have a sort of old uncle "been there done that" status in the modern World, we are not still trying to find ourselves, we can laugh at ourselves, and others.

Not that others can't learn the same trait. Idi Amin's 1973-74 "Save Britain Fund" for example.

[ 16. October 2013, 11:10: Message edited by: NJA ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I think, like most maxims, it has limitations. I would say, from my experience, cheekiness exists in America, but differently. Those who use cheek are more outside, more the exception.
Stephen Fry's American comedy v. British comedy leans towards why.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Australians are damn cheeky. We just don't tend to use that particular word.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Australia and Britain share culture more than Britain and America. ISTM. Not saying the same, of course. All the blood rushing to the head will affect...

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

We Americans don't use the word much either although we do have plenty of comedians whom would probably be called cheeky in the irreverent sense, (Jon Stewart laughs at Americans and the powerful people on "The Daily Show," daily.)

What you probably wouldn't hear many Americans say is that we were the only people in the world who can laugh at ourselves as we have a special been there done it all status. We wouldn't have the cheek. [Biased]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Australia and Britain share culture more than Britain and America. ISTM. Not saying the same, of course. All the blood rushing to the head will affect...

Agree with all of this except for your conception of the laws of physics.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I'd say 'yes' to the post question. I almost have to orient myself to talk to the English sometimes. I expect a different form of teasing, that is sort of pointier and less aimed at ensuring the other is also amused. Canadians tease all the time too (when they are not talking about the weather), but tend to ensure that what is said cannot be taken seriously or would offend. And of course we say sorry for everything.

I said English, because the Scots I've known have a different way about them, a way of getting to the nub of what they want to say it seems, and being a little more into the 'drye mock'.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

All that being said, however, cheekiness does exist in Canada. When I were a lad, my mother frequently called me a cheeky bugger. My late brother (deuce2) retained his cheekiness until the day he died.

The term is not unknown, no prophet notwithstanding.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Coincidentally, after checking out this thread, I found this news item, in which the writer uses "cheeky" to describe the attitude of a Quebec restaurant owner. (Mildly risque humour)

I'm assuming the writer is Canadian, but probably not French-Canadian.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Sass, spunk, moxie, chutzpah, True Grit?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

IMO those have some of the same elements, but the flavour is different.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

OK. Makes sense.

I, for the record, have moxie.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sass, spunk, moxie, chutzpah, True Grit?

The only one of those that could possibly get an airing here in Oz is 'spunk', and it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means...

'Sass' I can at least recognise, and I think also 'chutzpah', but we wouldn't use them here. I predict that 'moxie' would generate a blank stare from a polite Australian, and 'what the f***'s that?' from an Australian not attempting to put on airs for your benefit.

[ 17. October 2013, 02:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
OK. Makes sense.

I, for the record, have moxie.

Tried that once, it was horrid.

[ 17. October 2013, 02:31: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sass, spunk, moxie, chutzpah, True Grit?
The only one of those that could possibly get an airing here in Oz is 'spunk', and it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means...

'Sass' I can at least recognise, and I think also 'chutzpah', but we wouldn't use them here. I predict that 'moxie' would generate a blank stare from a polite Australian, and 'what the f***'s that?' from an Australian not attempting to put on airs for your benefit.

You don't know True Grit? Have you never watched John Wayne?

Ooops sorry,

¿ǝuʎɐʍ uɥoɾ pǝɥɔʇɐʍ ɹǝʌǝu noʎ ǝʌɐɥ

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sass, spunk, moxie, chutzpah, True Grit?
The only one of those that could possibly get an airing here in Oz is 'spunk', and it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means...

'Sass' I can at least recognise, and I think also 'chutzpah', but we wouldn't use them here. I predict that 'moxie' would generate a blank stare from a polite Australian, and 'what the f***'s that?' from an Australian not attempting to put on airs for your benefit.

No, "spunk" is that here, too, but it is also the other.

'Chutzpah' implies courageous smartassery, and "moxie" is a 1920s era term that suggests a cheerful sort of determination and social bravery.
The soda was named after the attribute. LilB-- and it does indeed taste like Cthulhu's piss.

"True Grit" is a frontier woman beating off a cougar with a hearth poker to save the cows.

[ 17. October 2013, 02:44: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Wow.

sass = "perky and perhaps empty headed"-- never heard it usesd that way. Sometimes "sass" for children's back-talk but I have never heard it used to mean empty headed.Empty-headed people don't have the wit for sass.

spunk = "unexpected energy (or the nasty)"Never heard it put that way. Ever. To tell someone "You have spunk" is to suggest they have spirit.

moxie = "inappropriate boldness"-- never heard it put that way. Ever. When you tell someone they have moxie, you are telling them they have acted when others would have held back. I have never heard this used as a scold. Never "inappropriate", but "much needed, but risky boldness."

chutzpah = "same as moxie"-- no this would be the word that implies pushing boundaries, and might be negative or positive.

true grit = "useful for scrubbing, like bathtub rings"--oh, I get it, you were just trying to come up with really negative spins on each word. Ah, silly me. [Biased]

(Note to reader-- I accidentally edited in my comments-- no prophet's original words are the ones in quotations. ..K.A., careless Admin.)

[ 17. October 2013, 04:08: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Oh shoot, I hit "edit" instead of "quote." Hate when that happens.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

India is one of the most stratified societies going, even if the bit we live in is about the most open, so cheek is a very necessary part of the structure - it is alive and well and living in at least Kerala, if not in the rest of the country as well.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Sass, spunk, moxie, chutzpah, True Grit?
The only one of those that could possibly get an airing here in Oz is 'spunk', and it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means...

'Sass' I can at least recognise, and I think also 'chutzpah', but we wouldn't use them here. I predict that 'moxie' would generate a blank stare from a polite Australian, and 'what the f***'s that?' from an Australian not attempting to put on airs for your benefit.
You don't know True Grit? Have you never watched John Wayne?

Ooops sorry,

¿ǝuʎɐʍ uɥoɾ pǝɥɔʇɐʍ ɹǝʌǝu noʎ ǝʌɐɥ

1. I've heard of the movie title, but the notion of using it is as a recognisable cultural reference in other contexts is a new notion.

2. How the blazes?...

(2A. That's cruel to a man with my current vision quality anyway. Read Hell. [Razz]

)

[ 17. October 2013, 08:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh shoot, I hit "edit" instead of "quote." Hate when that happens.

Admins these days.

jedijudy
Heaven Host

Would someone mind fetching my rolling eyes?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
India is one of the most stratified societies going, even if the bit we live in is about the most open, so cheek is a very necessary part of the structure - it is alive and well and living in at least Kerala, if not in the rest of the country as well.

I think that cheekiness thrives only in stratified societies. It consists of showing slight disrespect to someone you are supposed to defer to.

Moo

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What you probably wouldn't hear many Americans say is that we were the only people in the world who can laugh at ourselves as we have a special been there done it all status. We wouldn't have the cheek.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
oh, I get it, you were just trying to come up with really negative spins on each word. Ah, silly me.

(Note to reader-- I accidentally edited in my comments-- no prophet's original words are the ones in quotations. ..K.A., careless Admin.)

Actually not really, until I got to pot scrubbing. Moxie and sass particularly have a negative feel to them. Sass means essentially rude. I recall well in grade 2 when my teacher stood me up and lectured me about not being sassy.

re the edit error, hmmm, looks through icon list, where's the spanking smiley? Considers the need for upgrade of forum software.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... Stephen Fry's American comedy v. British comedy leans towards why.

Interesting though it steers away from accepted / common behaviour of people, as learned from youth to modern comedians who tend to push the envelope rather than safely reflect society.

Some of the comments below are interesting, one person makes the point that British films such as Mr Bean were Americanised. Certainly there were US versions of British "pop" music in the 80s.

(I missed a t in the thread title)

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
1. I've heard of the movie title, but the notion of using it is as a recognisable cultural reference in other contexts is a new notion.

Cart before the horse, etymologically.The expression existed before the movie title; indeed, the movie title was meant to express the theme of the movie. True Grit, as illustrated by the movie, would be personified in the little girl relentlessly pursuing justice for her father.

It was primarily used (for good reason) in the pioneer days, and was meant to describe the kind of characteristics a person would need to drag their covered wagon over a Dakota plain during a blizzard. Or to beat off cougars with a poker. [Big Grin]

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It was primarily used (for good reason) in the pioneer days, and was meant to describe the kind of characteristics a person would need to drag their covered wagon over a Dakota plain during a blizzard. Or to beat off cougars with a poker.

In my family it was a bobcat and a fence picket. At the age of 83.

But I think part of the lack of "cheekiness" in the US is simply that the word itself is not commonly used, rather than a significant difference in behavior. I couldn't have given you a precise definition for "cheeky" until I read this thread, but I've certainly given my bosses plenty of grief over the years (at least when they deserved it.) However, neither they nor I would have used the term "cheeky" to describe it.

There is also a difference in the expectations of deference involved. Other than managers at work I don't encounter a lot of situations where I am expected to be deferential to others (though I believe in being polite to everyone, and there certainly are some policemen who expect it.) This has to do with the stratification of society, or lack thereof, as someone mentioned earlier. I may still make humorous comments and observations, but it isn't cheeky in that context.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

moxie = "inappropriate boldness"-- never heard it put that way. Ever. When you tell someone they have moxie, you are telling them they have acted when others would have held back. I have never heard this used as a scold. Never "inappropriate", but "much needed, but risky boldness."

Obviously nothing to do with Steve Bell's "Freeman Moxy" - the Guardian cartoonist's phonetic rendering of George Bush's 'Freedom and Democracy'.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:

There is also a difference in the expectations of deference involved. Other than managers at work I don't encounter a lot of situations where I am expected to be deferential to others (though I believe in being polite to everyone, and there certainly are some policemen who expect it.) This has to do with the stratification of society, or lack thereof, as someone mentioned earlier. I may still make humorous comments and observations, but it isn't cheeky in that context.

And this I find odd. The expectation of deference in a country which is supposed to embody egalitarian concept and which never, supposedly, had a hereditary class. Though, perhaps, this is actually why. A noble has an inborn position and can therefore be more lax in observance where an executive has only his/her "earned" position which may be removed at any point. Therefore a perceived challenge is more of a threat.

Really auto correct? How on earth could any misspelling of executive result in ActiveX?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Re Americanisation of films, TV shows, etc: this is one of the more fascinating things about American culture for me.

We certainly do localised versions of formats like game shows or singing contests, but as far as I know it's pretty rare for us to 'Australianise' a drama or comedy show. But 'Americanisation' of shows from elsewhere seems to be a major source of material for Hollywood and the big American TV networks.

I can't quite figure out if it's because they think you won't understand it or because they think you'll understand it but just won't like it.

Types of humour certainly come into it, but then the attempts at 'converting' a style of humour often fall very flat. For every show that succeeds in making the transition (The Office, although I've never really watched much of the US or UK versions) there's usually a string of disasters. The most high profile Australian idea that's been converted in recent years was 'Kath and Kim', the original of which is very Australian in its humour, but to me it would have been better just to stick with that rather than trying to re-make it in US style. I gather the main problem with the remake is that it came across as a bit mean-spirited.

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...attempts at 'converting' a style of humour often fall very flat. For every show that succeeds in making the transition (The Office, ...

Here's Ricky gervais' 2p-worth on that transition.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

moxie = "inappropriate boldness"-- never heard it put that way. Ever. When you tell someone they have moxie, you are telling them they have acted when others would have held back. I have never heard this used as a scold. Never "inappropriate", but "much needed, but risky boldness."
Obviously nothing to do with Steve Bell's "Freeman Moxy" - the Guardian cartoonist's phonetic rendering of George Bush's 'Freedom and Democracy'.

Actually that translates well, as Bush is exactly the kind of self-important douche that would describe himself as having "moxie." [Big Grin]

[ETA: Yeah go ahead, kick me...]

[ 18. October 2013, 03:28: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Types of humour certainly come into it, but then the attempts at 'converting' a style of humour often fall very flat.

Hmmm, I think perhaps there is a problem on what needs converting. Take Steptoe and Son and its American reboot Sanford and Son. Much of what they have changed is surface. At the heart, they are very similar shows. The Americans copied very much, even the layout of the sets are similar. Steptoe is very Brit and Sanford very Yank, but I think they are very understood on either side of the pond.
Whilst I would not say the England and her children are all the same, I would say the differences are much exaggerated. And what differences there are can be sussed by a little exposure.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
The most high profile Australian idea that's been converted in recent years was 'Kath and Kim', the original of which is very Australian in its humour, but to me it would have been better just to stick with that rather than trying to re-make it in US style. [/QB]

Which of course they did in the UK - just stuck it on and assumed people would cope. But then, I do wonder sometimes whether "very Australian" humour is actually any different to British really.... There are certainly substantial crossovers, which is why say Spike Milligan worked in both. At the same time of course, I assume Neighbours is made for UK export because, whilst massive here, I'm informed by my Australian friends that no one actually watches it down there....?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:

There is also a difference in the expectations of deference involved. Other than managers at work I don't encounter a lot of situations where I am expected to be deferential to others (though I believe in being polite to everyone, and there certainly are some policemen who expect it.) This has to do with the stratification of society, or lack thereof, as someone mentioned earlier. I may still make humorous comments and observations, but it isn't cheeky in that context.
And this I find odd. The expectation of deference in a country which is supposed to embody egalitarian concept and which never, supposedly, had a hereditary class. Though, perhaps, this is actually why. A noble has an inborn position and can therefore be more lax in observance where an executive has only his/her "earned" position which may be removed at any point. Therefore a perceived challenge is more of a threat.

Really auto correct? How on earth could any misspelling of executive result in ActiveX?

I worked for a US company for nearly 15 years and if there is a significant difference in the amount of deference and stratification it goes the other way. Americans were rather more likely to show deference or use formal politeness at work than the Brits were. British ( and Australian and New Zealand and Irish) employees were at least superficially more egalitarian in some ways.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

In western Canada, deference is significantly rarer than in the east, and in most places I've visited. First names are the rule with your dentist, doctor, local politician etc. Teachers generally not as an exception. University professors, about 50-50. It is from the general orientation that "no-one is better than anyone else". Things like that attitude come of having to get out your car to push Mr. or Mrs. Fancypants out of a snowdrift or boost their battery, and them having to do the same for you, and the shared conversation that invariably begins with "cold enough for you?".

I think something I'm getting from this thread is that everyone teases, but it comes out in rather different ways depending on country.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:

There is also a difference in the expectations of deference involved. Other than managers at work I don't encounter a lot of situations where I am expected to be deferential to others (though I believe in being polite to everyone, and there certainly are some policemen who expect it.) This has to do with the stratification of society, or lack thereof, as someone mentioned earlier. I may still make humorous comments and observations, but it isn't cheeky in that context.
And this I find odd. The expectation of deference in a country which is supposed to embody egalitarian concept and which never, supposedly, had a hereditary class. Though, perhaps, this is actually why. A noble has an inborn position and can therefore be more lax in observance where an executive has only his/her "earned" position which may be removed at any point. Therefore a perceived challenge is more of a threat.

Really auto correct? How on earth could any misspelling of executive result in ActiveX?
I worked for a US company for nearly 15 years and if there is a significant difference in the amount of deference and stratification it goes the other way. Americans were rather more likely to show deference or use formal politeness at work than the Brits were. British ( and Australian and New Zealand and Irish) employees were at least superficially more egalitarian in some ways.

I thought this is what I did say, but I must have said it poorly. America should be more tolerant of cheek, but isn't.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I think something I'm getting from this thread is that everyone teases, but it comes out in rather different ways depending on country.

Well, yes and no. Different ways and different consequences.You might say a thing or use a tone in a British office which would cause you no problem, but would have you sacked in America.

An example would be the President vs. the Queen or PM. A joke about the queen or PM might well be from a supporter whilst an American making a joke about the president will almost always be against him.
Or Parliament v. Congress.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

This was exactly my thought on reading the description of ken's Americans-- maybe they are just being extra careful because, you know, they are not from there.

(Oh,and for the record, I have cheerfully referred to President Obama as "jugears," because, well, it's true. [Big Grin]

)

[ 19. October 2013, 02:43: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Chutzpah is a Yiddish word meaning temerity. The classic definition is a man who kills both his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

Grit implies a stubborn fortitude. Tangentially I do recommend the Coen Brothers remake of True Grit for the wonderful use of 19th century English.

Impudent is perhaps the closest to Cheeky in American Usage. It's a bit more formal and is rarely used.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Wow, chutzpah has a lot of nuance.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
An example would be the President vs. the Queen or PM. A joke about the queen or PM might well be from a supporter whilst an American making a joke about the president will almost always be against him.
Or Parliament v. Congress.

Reminds me of a (British) priest I know, who received what was to him a surprisingly frosty response when he enquired whether he should pray for "George our President".

But jokes about the Queen are quite a touchy issue. It isn't Thailand by any means, but there was the most almighty furore when Channel 4 broadcast some of those unfunny alleged comedians that TV executives seem to like being offensive about the Queen. A line had most definitely been crossed.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Didn't say there was no line or, indeed, that the line is at the same place for anyone.
Just stating there is a difference generally.
Seriously, watch a bit lawmaking to see the contrast.
Though I must place a warning here: Do not watch congressional precedents just before operating heavy equipment. Often prescribed as an off-label cure for insomnia.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

Impudent is perhaps the closest to Cheeky in American Usage. It's a bit more formal and is rarely used.

There is a difference, at least in British usage. You might tell a child off for being 'impudent', and be genuinely annoyed and expect them to apologise. If you were to say 'don't be cheeky', you would usually say it with a grin, effectively acknowledging that they were right to puncture your pomposity. But there is an overlap of course.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

The line between cheeky and impudent are very fuzzy in young childhood,as the child is taught how to behave. But an older child is able to get away with Don't be cheeky, as he ages.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Brazilians have something called jeitinho that is often about bending the rules in a humorous way. I don't think that it's the same as British ckeekiness though. There is a 'dryness' about British humour that Brazilians don't have.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

Must be because it's rather hot and humid in Brazil.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Wesley J: Must be because it's rather hot and humid in Brazil.

LOL, it's certainly hot and humid where I am right now. Unfortunatly, there are also regions in Brazil that are rather too dry.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Not necessarily a British trait either. It depends on which part of the UK you are from.

Cheekiness seems a better description for Cockneys or Liverpudlians than for people from Yorkshire.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

Cheekiness seems a better description for Cockneys or Liverpudlians than for people from Yorkshire.

Oh, I don't know. Have you seen Ryan in Educating Yorkshire? He's definitely cheeky ('are you going through the menopause, Miss?') but in a very Yorkshire way.

Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :

I don't have access to the book at the moment to check this anecdote, but I think it comes from Malcolm Gladwell's Blink.

Gladwell writes about a psychologist who studied facial expressions and their implication of underlying emotions or dishonesty. The psychologist tells the story of seeing Bill Clinton, early in his career, and detecting a frequently used facial expression of his which, to the psychologist, implied "Aw, I've been caught with my hand in the cookie jar, but I'm a cute little boy and mommy adores me and she'll forgive me if I grin like this."

The psychologist states that he offered Bill Clinton his services in order to improve his public image, but as this psychologist already had a reputation as an expert in how people mask their faces when telling lies, it was felt that his assistance might be detrimental to Clinton's campaign if the public found out.

Clinton did well, at least for a while - due to his cheekiness? Or was that peripheral to his other qualities?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

He and Reagan had charisma. Either side will deny this about the other, but both got away with saying/doing things others would not. Would certainly not describe Reagan as cheeky.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0