When I was growing up Spanish was normally spoken at home, and the Spanish language has different forms of address depending on the relationship between speaker and listener. For strangers, the formal title “Usted” (oo-STED), abbreviated “Vd.” was used, which translates to the English “You”. The plural is “Ustedes” or the Southern “y’all”.

For friends, close acquaintances, children and family members the informal “tu” was substituted. In a situation where you would normally be expected to extend courtesy and respect to someone else, you would say Senor, or Senora, (Sir or Ma’am). “Senor, sabe Vd. la hora.? (Sir, do you have the time)” To a familiar the question would be asked in informal language , “Tu sabes que hora es?” It is important to point out that the formal and informal forms of address were not meant to be subservient or fawning, or as a sign of social status. For example, a boss would be expected to address an employee, or an aristocrat a retainer, as “Usted”. A teacher would also address a student with formality, and even a military officer would use Usted when talking to a subordinate.. On the other hand, I remember once being spoken to quite sternly by my grandfather when I mistakenly used the formal address to him. “We are family, in the future you will address me and your parents as “tu”.

These little linguistic gimmicks probably have ancient social, historical or regional origins, but they are part of the language and culture is all about language. I can’t think of analogues to these terms in English, but similar cultural quirks do exist. I was raised in the South and I remember being astonished when my playmates addressed their own parents as “Sir” or “Ma’am”. I was perfectly aware that I owed these respects to them, and my little friends owed these courtesies to MY adult family members, but that they were expected to speak to their OWN parents with such deference I found profoundly disorienting.

There were other aspects of Anglo culture related to these purely linguistic taboos that I soon picked up on. Most disturbing was what I will call the leader principle, or the deference and respect that is due to those in authority. Of course, all societies have hierarchies, in schools, families, the workplace, the military and so on, that goes without saying. But I found Anglo culture to justify, even glory in, the right of the person in charge to be tough and almost brutal when exercising his authority. “The teachers in this school don’t take no shit from the students.” That sentence could be translated into Spanish, but I can’t imagine any Spanish speaker actually using it. In fact, that wonderful colloquialism “take no shit” seems to be quite popular in our everyday speech. We admire persons who “take no shit”, who “kick ass and take names”. We respect those who refuse to take shit (from those below them in the hierarchy, at any rate). We expect people in authority to feel that way. So do Spanish speakers, of course, they just don’t feel the need to have a language phrase for that concept. American culture, which so much praises the rugged individualist, feels the need to be subservient to those who “take no shit”.

The way the tough leader acts and conducts himself is not only recognized in our culture, it is referred to lovingly, usually with a wink and a nod of reassurance, as if this tough guy were the sole line of defense against anarchy and chaos. As if we needed bullies to keep the riff-raff in line. We all bask in the warm memory of that drill instructor that routinely slapped us around in boot camp. We all admiringly lionize the tough coach that whips (literally) his team into shape. We describe as “dynamic” the CEO who bellows “I don’t care how you get it done, I just want to see that report on my desk by morning!” Its an old cliche, often perpetuated by Hollywood, but it is real. “No excuses, soldier, have your squad take out that machine gun nest or there will be hell to pay.” I was taught as a child that there where times when I would be expected to take orders and follow them, even though it might be unpleasant or even dangerous. But I was never taught to look forward to it.

These situations arise in all cultures, with responsibility comes authority, and someone has to take charge and intimidate subordinates into carrying out unpleasant or even dangerous tasks. But I suspect that in American culture we tend to admire and respect those who really enjoy doing this, rather than treat them with the caution and suspicion they deserve. Its as if the authority absolves them of the need for humanity. Its ok to be bullied about by someone who don’t take no shit.

Judge Judy don’t take no shit. Sheriff Joe Arapaio don’t take no shit. The tough boss, mean teacher, hard-ass school principle, the tough warden, don’t take no shit. We find these people reassuring. We take their shit and we’re glad of it.

And now we have a President who don’t take no shit. And if it turns out that he’s a spineless wimp who can’t get anything accomplished no matter how much he blusters, his followers are going to insist he don’t take no more shit. They’re used to taking shit from people who don’t take no shit. They expect it.