BP’s “small people”
As if the public’s anger at BP wasn’t already strong enough, the company’s chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, put his foot into another pile of steaming doo-doo when he said:
[Obama’s] frustrated because he cares about the small people, and we care about the small people. I hear comments that sometimes large oil companies are greedy companies that don’t care. But that is not the case with BP. We care about the small people.
But ordinary Americans don’t like being called “small people”—as opposed to what, giants like Obama and Svanberg and Hayward?
Of course, Svanberg can’t be expected to know that. He’s a European (Swedish), and Europeans (and, I suspect, Obama, who has a European sensibility) really do think in those noblesse oblige terms. Svanberg may speak English, but he doesn’t speak American, and he let slip a Europeanism. That part of the world has traditionally been, and still is, far more hierarchical and class-ridden than we in this country.
When I heard the phrase, I recalled that the book They Thought They Were Free, by Milton Mayer (I’ve written at length about the work before, here and here) featured a discussion of a similar expression (“little men”) common in post-WWII Germany. I think it’s of some interest:
These ten men [whom Mayer interviewed in Germany after WWII] were “little men”…And when I say “little men,” I mean not only the men for whom the mass media and the campaign speeches are everywhere designed but, specifically in sharply stratified societies like Germany, the men who think of themselves in that way. Every one of my ten Nazi friends…spoke again and again during our discussions of “wir kleine Leute, we little people.”
This self-consciousness is nonexistent—or repressed—in America. European students of our culture have all cited our egalitarianism as an affectation and an expensive one, producing a national leadership indistinguishable from its constituency. If everybody is little, nobody is little. But the rise of National Socialism involved both the elitist and servile impulses. When “big men,” Hindenburgs, Neuraths, Schachts, and even Hohenzollerns, accepted Nazism, little men had good and sufficient reason to accept it…
Foreigners speaking of the “National Socialist Party” miss the point, said the younger Schwenke [one of Mayer’s German interviewees]; it was the National Socialist German Workers Party, “the party of the little men like me. The only other was the Communist.” Emperor and Fuhrer both
required the consciousness of littleness in the Germans, but Fuhrer, bringing bigness down, lifted littleness up.
No man—or woman—is little in America, although we may feel that way sometimes.
.
Obama: Look here Henric, this oil spill is about impressions me and you give the people. The press is gonna help us, we just have to go overboard on how much we care about these fishermen and such.
Henric: We love small people
LOL
We should thank George Washington, our Constitution, and, perhaps, the legend of Daniel Boone for America’s freedom from worshipping aristrocracy.
English cannot be this man’s native tongue.
Bad translation was all it is
when we use elite we should be just as offended if what he says was offensive.
its funny, but if our politicians say they are looking out for the little guy, we dont get offended.
Common man = Little guy
The Economist’s new language blog Johnson chalks up Svanberg’s unfortunate wording to his lack of fluency in English, suggesting that he “may have heard a venerable American phrase, ‘the little guy,’ and tried to use it, simply misremembering slightly.” On Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall speculates that “the small people” was the result of a “phrase in Swedish he might have been carrying over into English.” And indeed, BP spokesman Toby Odone told the Associated Press that “it is clear that what he means is that he cares about local businesses and local people. This was a slip in translation.”
Around the blogosphere, Swedish speakers have further explained “the small people” as a translation of the phrase “den lilla mé¤nniskan.” There’s a bit of disagreement, however, about how condescending that phrase might be in Swedish.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2389
But aren’t all of Odumbos initiatives about helping us small people as we are too dumb to look after ourselves and need the supervision of ivy-leagued educated elite?
As was said by my old sergeant, someone should tap these people on the shoulder and explain things.
Tragically, if the Messiah is successful in retaining Obamacare we will be the small people, and we’ll have it coming.
Yes, the Europeans are much more class conscious than we. My wife and I stayed a few days in the Dolomites of Italy. The inn where we stayed was a favorite of upperclass German and Austrian tourists. We were objects of curiosity because we showed none of the affectations of the “big people” who stayed there. I think we were much too informal and probably offended the sense of propriety for some.
The owner, in a burst of curiosity, asked me, “Why did you pick my hotel? We never get Americans here.” He could not believe we were just wandering around the Dolomites and decided to stop at his hotel. It was out of the normal order of things and there is a distinct tendency toward order and a normal way of doing things in that part of the world. They are used to seeing themselves as belonging to certain classes (tribes) and people don’t stray across the boundaries much.
That’s why Svanberg’s use of “small people” didn’t surprise me nor offend me. It’s also possible that Obama had mentioned all the small business people affected and Svanberg merely omitted the word, business, in his phraseology. I doubt he would be used to that phrase. All that said, it sure did not go over with the average American. None of us thinks of ourselves as inconsequential or without possibilities of rising higher on the totem pole. And that is part of the strength of this country.
When I heard him use the phrase yesterday I had to stop and listen just to make sure I heard it right.
Then I looked at wifey, who had an expression that was just this side of livid.
Two thoughts popped into my head immediately….
First thought had to do with the idea that perhaps he had misspoke, as English was clearly not his native language.
The second thought, if it was not an innocent language issue, was where had he heard that particular description being used before?
Then I realized he had just stepped out of a meeting with Obama and his minions……
If you think about carbon taxes and such, you are really talking about separating the upper from the middle. After all, they are designed to drive down consumption by driving up cost. But who will have to cut back on consumption? They might subsidize the poor to offset some extra cost for higher energy and buy their votes. The rich can afford to pay more for energy and still maintain the same relative lifestyle. Its the middle they are really after.
Im just saying, the progressives seem to want to drive us to be more like old Feudal Europe in some ways-especially as it relates to having a smaller middle class.
Accidental or not, from ignorance or not, what this Swede said reminds me of a lot of Eurosneer attitudes towards the Amis: condescending towards the US and not as knowledgeable about the US as they believe.
The default mode for many Europeans of the self-styled intellectual class IS condescension towards Amis. Most Europeans who condescend towards Amis flaunt it.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t an error of someone who wasn’t fluent in English. There are a lot of Euros who think they know a lot more about the US than they actually know. “I’ve been to Disney World.” “I saw a John Wayne movie.” “”I read in Der Spiegel.” Etc.
What verbal faux pas a BP executive from Sweden may make does not loom large in the scheme of things. There were American BP employees who made some pretty stupid decisions in the Gulf of Mexico and/or at a land-based office. (As a former engineer in oil drilling services, I cannot underemphasize “stupid.” )
Slightly off topic but still discussing the oil spill.This is a blog normally covering the manosphere yet there is some knowledgeable information being written:
All the actions and few tid bits of information all lead to one inescapable conclusion. The well pipes below the sea floor are broken and leaking. Now you have some real data of how BP’s actions are evidence of that, as well as some murky statement from “BP officials” confirming the same….
…they will never cap the gusher after the wellhead. They cannot…the more they try and restrict the oil gushing out the bop?…the more it will transfer to the leaks below. Just like a leaky garden hose with a nozzle on it. When you open up the nozzle?…it doesn’t leak so bad, you close the nozzle?…it leaks real bad, same dynamics….
Perhaps our Swedish bigwig was referring to leprechauns; after all, the EU granted the “little people” a protected zone in Louth just this past March: “Any wandering Leprechauns should head to County Louth, as the EU has now granted them a protected zone on Cooley Mountains.
Locals in Carlingford who have been campaigning for the designated area for eight years say it’s the only part of the country where the ‘little people’ have been seen.
There is an official hunt for the mischievous folk and their pots of gold in the town this afternoon, with proceeds going to local charities.”
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eu-grants-leprechauns-protected-zone-in-louth-451760.html
Aunt Eller in “Oklahoma!” summed up what I think every American’s position should be: “I ain’t sayin’ that I’m better than nobody, but I’ll be danged if I ain’t just as good.’
Eric Hoffer once remarked that one reason intellectuals, European and American, dislike the United States is taht we are a mass society that caters to the wishes and needs of the common people–what they actually want and not what their betters think they should want.
I, personally, think in pure context of the speech, it wasn’t a bad statement. It was a bad translation and could have been stated in such a way to not make people mad.
He, assuming what he said was true then it was a perfectly fine statement. They are accused of caring only for the rich, that is wrong they care about everyone is all he was saying. While there is some argument about if the statement in his own language had negative connotations, that argument seems to come from non-swedes mostly. We have “rich”, “middle-class”, and “poor” – I’m certain that we could easily translate “I’m for the betterment of the middle-class” into something bad. We can’t take that statement as we would from an English speaking person, it doesn’t show *anything* (as someone with most of his friends being foreign – if I took offense at similar things I wouldn’t have them as friends).
The real problem was that after a long series of gaffes the speech intended to make us feel better had a …. gaffe in it. In the whole context of the oil spill it was bad. Like a great deal of their decisions it shows a general lack of thinking things through and putting resources where needed. After not even being able to get small details correct, and given how badly they have screwed up major ones – how does this make us feel any better?
It doesn’t really show how they think of us, it shows how much we can count on them to check everything to make sure it is correct.
strcpy
Excellent point. As you point out, this came from the company that didn’t follow established drilling procedures -which resulted in loss of the well.
This supports the perception that not checking everything “to make sure it is correct” is unfortunately embedded in BP corporate culture.
We were objects of curiosity because we showed none of the affectations of the “big people” who stayed there. I think we were much too informal and probably offended the sense of propriety for some.
i would suggest:
Ruggles of Red Gap (1935)
Charles Laughton, Zasu Pitts, Mary Boland, Charles Ruggles (who doesnt play a ruggle).
Personally i think Laughton’s speech on the stair is great.
Anyway. if you do get to see the film, you will understand why i recommended it to you in terms of what you said. because your description fit how the Americans were compared to Europeans, and how it rubs off. 🙂
I’m inclined to cut the guy a break. It’s obvious that English isn’t his first language, and he seemed to mean well.
As earlier commenters alluded, the Democrat Party has amassed untold millions of votes over the last 70 years or so based on the risible notion that they are “the party of the little guy”.
The real BP villain is the person who gave the order for the drilling mud to be replaced with seawater. Practically every oil industry person I know on the internet (I don’t know any in real life) has had a WTF? reaction to that.
Add to that BP’s rather chummy relationships with various governments, as well as their acquiescence to Obama’s Chicago/Chavez-style shakedown, which has some dark fascist undertones. Not to mention their support of cap & trade.
Compared to all that, the “small people” statement is small potatoes.
“what their betters think they should want….”
Ahem. What their soi-disant betters think they should want.
And while we’re on the sujet, the constant use of the term “elite” for lefty p*ssants has always irked the tar outta me.
I’m singularly lacking in the servile impulse. My folks have been Americans since the Jamestown days. [Bronx cheer here!]
On a more serious note, if the drilling column and the sediments surrounding it are as compromised as we’re beginning to hear they are, we are in deep fertilizer, folks. The only way to relieve the pressure and perhaps slow the leak will then be to drill other well[s] into the deposit.
If the 60 Minutes piece was correct, the jackass who authorized the initial shortcuts was doing so because it would save BP $1 million/day.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings will not be denied.
Upon learning that the speaker was Swedish, I was inclined to give him some slack – as someone said above, I think he meant to say `the little guy’, or `Joe Lunchpail’ or whatever.
English is easy to learn, but hard to master.
Coming from Canada, there are many here (mainly but not restricted to French-speakers) who use English in an awkward way. They simply aren’t aware of the subtleties of everyday language use.
It may, but not necessarily, imply a condescending attitude toward those affected by the oil spill.
What the guy needs is someone to do his talking for him, it’s clear.
I wanted to note on neo-neo’s quoting of the book about Nazi rank-and-file, in regard to the `little people’ –
Hitler and the rest of his henchmen were also `little people’ who made it big. The Nazis were despised by the nobility (such as former general Hindenburg, the president who later appointed Hitler to power) when they first came on the scene. The latter believed, completely falsely, that they could control Hitler for their own ends. Of course, they couldn’t have been more wrong…
Beverly
IMHO, 60 Minutes got this right. The well was over schedule and over budget. The decision maker(s) had either forgotten or never learned the old oil field adage that you don’t cut costs downhole.
What is even more maddening is that the idiots in charge didn’t by pass just one procedure, but four or five different procedures to check on cement integrity and influx of formation fluids.
I too agree — we’re making way too much of all this. It’s possible that condescension was intended, but it’s unlikely under the circumstances, and we shouldn’t start out assuming bad intentions.
Frankly, I’ve started to have some sympathy for BP. Yes, they screwed up, big time, and the responsibility is theirs. On the other hand, they had the misfortune to screw up right when a floundering President was desperately looking for a scapegoat. They didn’t deserve to be demonized the way they have been. As many have already said, we should let them fix the problem, offering any help we can, and THEN lay into them as necessary, LATER, when the crisis is over. (Demonizing them now — and threatening them with bankruptcy — doesn’t give them huge incentives to do their best work, does it?)
I’m also sorry that it takes a disaster of this magnitude to get us to pay attention to the engineering miracles we do routinely now. They found a rich oil deposit more than THREE MILES down under the seabed — under a mile of water! — and successfully drilled into it, and were pumping up large quantities of oil from it? That’s just amazing. I find it even more amazing to contemplate that 5,000 feet of water is far too deep to send divers down, or even most submersibles; EVERYTHING had to be done remotely.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
“we should let them fix the problem,”
This is not totally correct – this is partly why we are still arguing over this. They also made an early decision to try and stop it in ways that would leave the well viable figuring that it would save them more than it would cost them in the long run – exactly the attitude that caused the break in the first place.
What our govt is set up to do in disasters – be they oil spills or hurricanes – is to provide resources, not leadership. This is by statute and DHS is the primary provider of resources now (FEMA is paperwork).
What should have happened – again by statute and it is one of the few good statutes the govt has come up with – is the Coast Guard zoom in and oversee. DHS has money, physical resources, access to experts BP doesn’t have, and many many other things. It is the feds job in cases such as this to make sure that *our* interests are looked after, BP’s main interest is itself.
There are hundreds of thousands of miles of barriers sitting in warehouses and more than one company with the ability to produce 100,000 feet per day. We have regulators that are quite capable of noting that BP wasn’t really trying to contain the oil that leaked or tried to stop the flow that *should* have been there. Dispersants were readily available as oil came closer to our beaches. That is only the tip of the iceberg of what we could have had going.
I can’t say we wouldn’t still be watching a growing disaster but I can assure you that we would be MUCH further down the road with respect to what we have tried to stop it with and the spill would not be covering such a large area. The disaster will end up with a significantly larger impact one way or another now because of it.
Instead we let BP go about it business while the president played golf. BP stayed true to what they had done in the past – play PR damage control while trying to do the cheap (for them) thing. They didn’t move into a real disaster avoidance mode until it was too late and the feds *still* have not done so.
Once the fallout of this is fully explored I do not think Obama is going to have a political life left.. I think it is a such a betrayal of even his very inner core that all but the true “yellow dog” democrats are going to jump ship. I also suspect that the gulf coast states will *not* vote for Obama in the next election either. BP will most likely go the way of Exxon after the Valdez – have a fairly large corporate shakeup (at least in terms of focus) or risk massive stock losses.
Thought this was hilarious rather than insulting (although I can certainly see how many would take it that way).
Clearly this Swedish guy sat through some meetings or phone calls in which Americans (like Obama) tried to hammer home the importance of showing (faking?) concern for the “little guy” or “the little people.” That’s a fairly common expression (one that Leona Helmsley was fond of also, as I recall).
So the Swedish guy dutifully follows his talking points and it comes out “we care about the SMALL people.”
Classic. You can’t make this stuff up.
Are these “small” people bitter and clingy as well?
Svanberg is going to care about the small people quite a lot when they sue BP out of existence or at least demand BP be banned from further US EEZ offshore oil operations.