Monday, August 24, 2009
GENTILITY AND BREEDING
Having just seen and heard a promo from an Oklahoma City television station for its news anchor saying that he was “born and bred” in Oklahoma, one pauses to ponder just what that means.
The first reaction, even from an Oklahoma native, might be: “Oh, my gosh, I hope he is not advertising himself as a red-neck.” To many, even natives, bragging about being a “born and bred” Oklahoman, or a Texan, has come to mean that the person eschews culture in any classic sense, and that he/she espouses a rural, cowboy, rough and ready, independent, hard living, anti-intellectual, anti-academic, uncouth life style of one who thinks it is fun to butcher the English, sprinkle in epithets and four letter words, and lift his middle finger and bully any who cross him. Too bad. Hope not.
Historically, in polite circles of the middle class, such behaviors were thought to show a lack of gentility and breeding. Gentlemanly conduct was highly encouraged in middle and upper class families, and the lack of such thought to indicate “poor breeding.”
Nobody in this writer’s family tree was an aristocrat. One governor of Texas 75 years ago doesn’t count. But I was once lectured in the kitchen of my grandfather’s house by an uncle. He told me that the families from whence I sprung were considered to be “good stock.” That meant that they were honest, reliable, respected people, not given to excesses. Family members were expected to by ladylike or gentlemanly in speech and conduct.
Now, how is it that anyone could conjure up that other kind of image from just a simple statement of being “born and bred” in Oklahoma? If we don’t know, we ought to try to figure that one out. That image, right or wrong, has been holding Oklahoma back for decades.
But we Oklahomans are somewhat schizophrenic, i.e. we have a communal split personality. Some of us are quick to invoke the reputation of our Dean McGee Eye Institute or the success of our Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation. Others rarely get past their infatuation with Toby Keith and/or the Sooner football team.
Too infrequently do we rise above the latter.
However, the rowdy conduct and bad behavior demonstrated around the country in recent “town meetings” must quickly lead us to the defense of Oklahomans. Rude and boorish conduct is common across the nation. Nobody has the right to look down on us. Rather, we may well be considered polite and gentile by comparison. That’s good.
We remember well Governor Dewey Bartlett’s efforts to remake the image of “Okie” into something positive. He tried hard. This writer has a couple of his personally awarded “Okie” certificates and pins for forgotten accomplishments. During all his days as Lieutenant Governor, George Nigh took as his goal the remake of the popular conception of Oklahoma into a positive image, and he continued that effort as chief executive. Even though having limited success, both should be commended.
But, again, has anyone taken a look at our congressional delegation lately? These are the people we chose to represent us. What style of Oklahoman do they represent? Of course, they would tell us that it is the hardworking taxpayers of the state. Is that so? Take a look at their positions on issues affecting the common people.
Indeed they do appeal to our everyday working folks, yet they represent the interests of the economically elite. If challenged, they will quickly come out with the argument that these businesses create jobs. They forget to mention many are at low wage, non-union levels. But then, heck, jobs are jobs, aren’t they?
Then who does represent the interests of the common person, whom we like to characterize ourselves to be? We would be ashamed to find that it is often those effete, intellectually elite Eastern liberals that we so readily condemn. But while indeed those may hold up for the rights of the working class, to which most Oklahomans belong, they often do not represent our geographic and economic interests.
The challenge to Oklahomans is to put people in Congress who are the brightest and most knowledgeable among us. We must choose for intelligence and grasp of depth of issues, and stop choosing those who ply us with worn-out clichés about family values and such, yet behave no better than anyone else, and know little of the issues except to mutter simple party slogans over and over.
Our two senators are often the butt of national humor. Not good. Probably the most able and politically savvy of our delegation is Rep. Tom Cole.
We need to choose people who will represent the interests of the voting class, rather than the donor class. Those best representing the common people have often come from the privileged classes economically and socially. Acting and talking like most of us doesn’t necessarily qualify one to represent Oklahoma, nor does repetition of the clichés of the religious right.
While our representatives may be “one of us,” they should be more able than most of us.
Oklahoma was better served by national oratorical and debate champions like Senator Josh Lee and Speaker Carl Albert. We were well represented by Rhodes Scholars like David Boren. Congressmen Jim Jones and Mike Monroney were tops in their profession. Senator Robert S. Kerr was a successful businessman, but also a populist in his beliefs. Nationally, the Roosevelts and the Kennedys have been good examples of the elite with a social conscience.
Oklahoma can do better than it has been doing lately.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The first reaction, even from an Oklahoma native, might be: “Oh, my gosh, I hope he is not advertising himself as a red-neck.” To many, even natives, bragging about being a “born and bred” Oklahoman, or a Texan, has come to mean that the person eschews culture in any classic sense, and that he/she espouses a rural, cowboy, rough and ready, independent, hard living, anti-intellectual, anti-academic, uncouth life style of one who thinks it is fun to butcher the English, sprinkle in epithets and four letter words, and lift his middle finger and bully any who cross him. Too bad. Hope not.
Historically, in polite circles of the middle class, such behaviors were thought to show a lack of gentility and breeding. Gentlemanly conduct was highly encouraged in middle and upper class families, and the lack of such thought to indicate “poor breeding.”
Nobody in this writer’s family tree was an aristocrat. One governor of Texas 75 years ago doesn’t count. But I was once lectured in the kitchen of my grandfather’s house by an uncle. He told me that the families from whence I sprung were considered to be “good stock.” That meant that they were honest, reliable, respected people, not given to excesses. Family members were expected to by ladylike or gentlemanly in speech and conduct.
Now, how is it that anyone could conjure up that other kind of image from just a simple statement of being “born and bred” in Oklahoma? If we don’t know, we ought to try to figure that one out. That image, right or wrong, has been holding Oklahoma back for decades.
But we Oklahomans are somewhat schizophrenic, i.e. we have a communal split personality. Some of us are quick to invoke the reputation of our Dean McGee Eye Institute or the success of our Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation. Others rarely get past their infatuation with Toby Keith and/or the Sooner football team.
Too infrequently do we rise above the latter.
However, the rowdy conduct and bad behavior demonstrated around the country in recent “town meetings” must quickly lead us to the defense of Oklahomans. Rude and boorish conduct is common across the nation. Nobody has the right to look down on us. Rather, we may well be considered polite and gentile by comparison. That’s good.
We remember well Governor Dewey Bartlett’s efforts to remake the image of “Okie” into something positive. He tried hard. This writer has a couple of his personally awarded “Okie” certificates and pins for forgotten accomplishments. During all his days as Lieutenant Governor, George Nigh took as his goal the remake of the popular conception of Oklahoma into a positive image, and he continued that effort as chief executive. Even though having limited success, both should be commended.
But, again, has anyone taken a look at our congressional delegation lately? These are the people we chose to represent us. What style of Oklahoman do they represent? Of course, they would tell us that it is the hardworking taxpayers of the state. Is that so? Take a look at their positions on issues affecting the common people.
Indeed they do appeal to our everyday working folks, yet they represent the interests of the economically elite. If challenged, they will quickly come out with the argument that these businesses create jobs. They forget to mention many are at low wage, non-union levels. But then, heck, jobs are jobs, aren’t they?
Then who does represent the interests of the common person, whom we like to characterize ourselves to be? We would be ashamed to find that it is often those effete, intellectually elite Eastern liberals that we so readily condemn. But while indeed those may hold up for the rights of the working class, to which most Oklahomans belong, they often do not represent our geographic and economic interests.
The challenge to Oklahomans is to put people in Congress who are the brightest and most knowledgeable among us. We must choose for intelligence and grasp of depth of issues, and stop choosing those who ply us with worn-out clichés about family values and such, yet behave no better than anyone else, and know little of the issues except to mutter simple party slogans over and over.
Our two senators are often the butt of national humor. Not good. Probably the most able and politically savvy of our delegation is Rep. Tom Cole.
We need to choose people who will represent the interests of the voting class, rather than the donor class. Those best representing the common people have often come from the privileged classes economically and socially. Acting and talking like most of us doesn’t necessarily qualify one to represent Oklahoma, nor does repetition of the clichés of the religious right.
While our representatives may be “one of us,” they should be more able than most of us.
Oklahoma was better served by national oratorical and debate champions like Senator Josh Lee and Speaker Carl Albert. We were well represented by Rhodes Scholars like David Boren. Congressmen Jim Jones and Mike Monroney were tops in their profession. Senator Robert S. Kerr was a successful businessman, but also a populist in his beliefs. Nationally, the Roosevelts and the Kennedys have been good examples of the elite with a social conscience.
Oklahoma can do better than it has been doing lately.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
