fot
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: a bit of history?

To: "Baxter Culver" <peyote222@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: a bit of history?
From: "jonmac" <jonmac@ndirect.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 22:35:57 +0100
>While the woman shrieked and screamed, demanding that someone defend her
and
>chastise the soldier, an English gentleman sitting across the aisle spoke
>up,  "You know sir, you Americans do seem to have penchant for doing the
>wrong thing.  You eat holding the fork in the wrong hand, you drive your
>autos on the wrong side of the road, and now, sir, you've thrown the wrong
>bitch out of the window."


Not bad for a first attempt, Baxter - not bad. We'll forgive you for a few
inaccuracies as there are important inconsistencies in language, nay
mannerisms as well.

If he was a true English gentleman, and before addressing the soldier, I
think he would have stood up to raise his hat, then plug a monocle into a
bloodshot eye-socket. At that point, he would have moved across to the
soldier and spent some time just looking down at him in an almost vertical
posture - and in silence. This is a sound strategic move, as the soldier
would not have known what was about to be said and it would have helped to
make him feel inferior. You prolong this for as long as you can. THEN you
speak. I suspect the wording would have been something along these lines,
stained heavily with sarcasm.

"Sir," long pause, "Americans periodically demonstrate preclivities and act
in error. Your table manners are odd to say the least, you drive your
motor-cars on the wrong side of the road - and now, Sir - NOW you have made
a serious error of judgement and mistaken the appropriate victim. I'm sure I
make myself clear?"

Only fairly recently has 'bitch' entered our regular usage. We use it to
describe a female dog and even now it's quite a strong word to use in the
company of women. 'Sonofabitch' just isn't in our usage either, so you can
keep that one all to yourself. He would never have used such strong
language - though he might well have thought it.

Another small point concerns the occupancy of the train itself. Tedious in
detail perhaps, but crucially important, because we're talking here of class
within our social structure - as it once was. On the assumption the
gentleman and the lady with her dog were of good stock, they would have been
travelling in First Class - possibly Second Class and certainly not Third
Class. There again, we have to consider the soldier himself. If he was an
NCO, he would have been issued with a Third Class Rail Warrant. If an
Officer, and depending on his actual rank, First Class might have been a
possibility - but certainly not if he was anything below the rank of a full
Colonel. The Railway Company (then privately owned and run) would have seen
to that. Majors, Captains and Lieutenants would have travelled Second Class
and all Other Ranks would have gone Third.

But, in spite of all this, a capital effort, quite capital. You show
promise, Sir - and give us reason to believe that better things could be
just around the corner - don't y'know.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>