Too little and will I pique anyone's interest, will people get bored and wander away from the blog and I lose potential interest in the eventual book itself? A difficult balance to strike. I shall attempt to straddle the issue without losing my balance. Which could be painful.
An important consideration... how much should I publish on the blog? A difficult call this one. Too much and no bugger will need to buy the book, or someone reading might pick up and beat me to the punch ( there is some very interesting stuff here ). I've been stung on that one before on my former research.
Too little and will I pique anyone's interest, will people get bored and wander away from the blog and I lose potential interest in the eventual book itself? A difficult balance to strike. I shall attempt to straddle the issue without losing my balance. Which could be painful.
0 Comments
So which is it Chris? Glad you asked. Looking at the length of time the term appeared for, and its acceptance as 'common parlance', it is likely the term was originally an old name. The celtic derivation of Fen Dweller, or Bog Man( dighe samhadhe) is particularly pertinent to Abercromby Square, as the area used to be Moss Lake (a peat bog), but the whole area surrounding Liverpool used to be heathland and fenland, and a derivation of the original ( back then, pre 1700, trade was primarily with Ireland) is quite possible as a joking term. Partlicularly from fellow Lancastrians, who looked down on this minor port and its commerce, or lack of it, at the time (despite relying on the then Town for the Irish trade itself).
The links to America, and creation of the 'Uncle Sam' moniker ( allegedly after a New York meat dealer) might naturally have brought up the similarity in nicknames as networks grew. It is certainly true that the close links between Liverpool and America would have encouraged the overlap in terms, and it was certainly claimed wholeheartedly and proudly by Liverpolitans. Outside Liverpool, it was used as a term of insult for exactly the same reason. Just as a 'dickey' is a fake shirt, inhabitants were seen as wannabe Americans by some of the London merchants, hence 'Dicky Sam' as a term both of affection and derision. So where does Dickie Sam ( or Dicky Sam) come from? Most commonly descriptions say it is after Dicky Sam's, public house at the pierhead, but this is putting the Sam before the Dickie. The pub was named after the term (which pre-dates it) rather than the other way around The most popular justifications are from lancashire dialect as a way of putting the inhabitants down, the transatlantic trade links ( being the poorer relation of Uncle Sam), or a linguistic quirk from the celtic for 'bog dweller'. Regardless of the truth, it was adopted proudly within the city and elsewhere, and was common parlance about someone from these parts. I'll be exploring this more in my book of course, which you'll have to buy to get all the nuts and bolts. The spelling by the way, does vary in different accounts. Which is 'correct' would depend on the real derivation of the term, which we will never definitively know. But as I like you, I'll give you a hint as to my interpretation tomorrow. What do you call someone from Liverpool? We'll ignore the joke answers, but until relatively recently, it wouldn't have been Scouse or Scouser. These terms only gained initial popularity in the forties, and only wider popularity in sixties (Alf Garnett and The Monkees shouldering some of the blame for that). Earlier in the century the derogatory 'Wacker' was common, but in the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries it would have been a Dickie Liver, or more commonly, a 'Dickie Sam'.
In the 1800s and 1900s, most inhabitants of the city wouldn't have been able to claim ancestry here, the melting port of the growing port, influx of Irish, Scots and Lancastrians meant most families were fairly 'new' to the area. The 'Dickie Sam' was therefore the character of a Liverpudlian (or Liverpolitan as it would more commonly have been known), rather than birthright. There are several possibly attributions, and as is often the way, the most common is the most unlikely. Tune in tomorrow to find out about Dickie... ... and not talking thunderstorms. Despite the unheralded bed at 9.30pm last night and 12 hour sleep I'm shattered and achy. So this is all you get today I'm afraid. I shall be tucked up with my 'Memorials of Liverpool' book, and possibly watching a dvd of Just Good Friends to cheer myself up. Not research related but I'm allowed time off for good behaviour I think.
I’m currently reading up on details of general Liverpool background, and I’m very tempted to save myself a lot of typing and begin:
Chp 1 – Liverpool up to 1800 Look, just save us both a lot of time and go and read Sir James Picton’s ‘Memorials of Liverpool’. Pretty much every good Liverpool history book of the last hundred years just copies it anyway, often verbatim, because it’s so good ( it really is ). I’ll see you for Chapter 2 when you’re done. Would this be bad academic practice? Or good sense? Oops, I now see hordes of angry Liverpool historians on the horizons with pitchforks, displeased I’ve let the cat out of the bag… Who to include? People I find most interesting ( publish and be damned ) or those I think readers might find most interesting, people with nothing ( or very little ) written about them before or the biggest names regardless of what is known, as many as possible with the details I have on them or just the select few in more comprehensive detail?
|
Archives
March 2024
Categories |