I know that etymology isn't destiny, but do we understand that "thug" is derived from Thuggee. a Hindu sect known for strangling fellow travelers? So, at least by word origins, if there is a race toward whom the word should be directed, it isn't African-Americans. With that said, I don't think I ever use the word, with the possible exception of describing Putin.

Interesting....I'm a minority and have used the term "Thug" many times....not as a physical description for someone, but more for the behavior that someone engages in. I have never heard anyone use "Thug" as a racial term.

OldBlue1999;842557264 said:

---

This is BY FAR the most racist concept I've ever seen expressed on this website. If you truly feel this way I pity you.

---

Yikes! I'm not the poster that you're replying to, but I'll jump to his defense because the poster you're attacking is promoting a progressive message that is aimed at increasing thoughtful awareness.

The word "thug" originally had no racist undertones. Providing a dictionary definition is unhelpful because the dictionary definition is linked to this original usage. However, language grows and changes and this can happen quite suddenly. Because thug originally had no racist undertones is was able to be used publicly as a coded replacement for the N word by certain media figures. When you use the the word "thug" this is probably not your intent which is why this concept is hard to understand for most folks who have no conscious intent to be racist. However, the African American community has become sensitized to this word because many of its members are savvy to coded racial terms. So the original poster was saying that when you use the word "thug" you should be aware of how a black person might take it even if your conceptualization of the word is not a racist one.

The point being, if you don't want to accidentally offend someone, just be aware of the fact that the term "thug" has different meanings to different people and some people will see it as a coded racial term even if you don't.

Also, the hit in question was totally dirty! Screw that scumbag. Go bears!

Dave75;842557270 said:

---

I know that etymology isn't destiny, but do we understand that "thug" is derived from Thuggee. a Hindu sect known for strangling fellow travelers? So, at least by word origins, if there is a race toward whom the word should be directed, it isn't African-Americans. With that said, I don't think I ever use the word, with the possible exception of describing Putin.

---

This assumes - and I hate to go all anthro and sociology on you - that race is a fixed concept. It isn't. And it wasn't an "indian" word as much as it was a term coined by White imperialists toward something in their eyes foreign and alien and terrifying.

Fyght4Cal;842557200 said:

---

That all being said. I wish the OP hadn't used the word thug. I've heard white people, esp. fellow Christians use code words for blacks, gays, Jews, latinos, feminists, etc. I don't put up with it in my real life, and I don't countenance it in my virtual life either.

.

---

So a thread discussing an ugly football play becomes an opportunity for you to take a gratuitous shot at Christians? Too bad your finely-tuned sense of what is right and wrong doesn't extend to the common practice of vilifying Christians. Like everyone, Christians do and say things they shouldn't. However, according to you, Christians are "especially" guilty of this, and they needed to be singled out.

RighteousGoldenBear;842557271 said:

---

Interesting....I'm a minority and have used the term "Thug" many times....not as a physical description for someone, but more for the behavior that someone engages in. I have never heard anyone use "Thug" as a racial term.

---

http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-word-thug-was-uttered-625-times-on-tv-yesterday-1506098319

It has come to defending a Furd.

Why is Richard Sherman a Thug and Philips Rivers of all people would never be called that on TV? One word...and it rhymes with Tack.
(BTW - for those who don't get have the "joy" of watching the LA bolts play every week Rivers essentially trash talks from the moment he gets off the team bus till the end of the game. I guess it is just Philips being a funny good old boy from Tennessee...but when Sherman does it....)

And the thread is now dead. "Thug" whether people want to believe it has come to have racial connotations. Words have meaning and are interpreted in the context of the society that uses them in the here and now.

For those so persistent about being able to use the term "Thug", the only question is: do you want people to think you're using the term "Thug" in a racist context? Can you let go of your obvious need to use this specific word and instead use one of the hundreds of similar other words that don't potentially carry a charged racial context?

stivo;842557274 said:

---

Yikes! I'm not the poster that you're replying to, but I'll jump to his defense because the poster you're attacking is promoting a progressive message that is aimed at increasing thoughtful awareness.

---

No, he or she is not promoting progression. He or she is promoting the same kind of unfair, oppressive thinking that forms the basis of overt white racism, just in reverse. That's still racist. What we're striving for is a society where ALL people are equally accounted for in our standards, not one or some groups at the exclusion of others.

Yikes indeed.

In all of the history books I've read over the years, the descriptive of "thug" had been used quite a bit, and not once directed at an African American. If anything, such malicious behavior was against people of color. Mafioso types were often referred as such, and even though I'm of Italian ancestry, such conduct merited the term...

And that's the point, the conduct is being called into question, the act, nothing else. I suppose "this" would be deemed a worse situation if the receiver were let's say Aaron Austin or Patrick Worstell, which is truly unfortunate.

Cal89;842557288 said:

---

In all of the history books I've read over the years, the descriptive of "thug" had been used quite a bit, and not once directed at an African American. If anything, such malicious behavior was against people of color. Mafioso types were often referred as such, and even though I'm of Italian ancestry, such conduct merited the term...

And that's the point, the conduct is being called into question, the act, nothing else. I suppose "this" would be deemed a worse situation if the receiver were let's say Aaron Austin or Patrick Worstell, which is truly unfortunate.

---

NO. And the Mafia term is really instructive. Remember, "race" is fluid. It isn't surprising that Southern European Italians were being called "Thugs" by Americans of Northern European ancestry. Again, why is Richard Sherman a "thug" and one would rarely hear that said about Rivers. Or why (I couldn't find a link) Barry Bonds a "thug" and Mark McGuirre is not?

No one is calling anyone "racist". All we are trying to do is encourage people to take a second look at the word and how it has been (mis) appropriated in a way that has racial meaning.

OldBlue1999;842557282 said:

---

No, he or she is not promoting progression. He or she is promoting the same kind of unfair, oppressive thinking that forms the basis of overt white racism, just in reverse. That's still racist. What we're striving for is a society where ALL people are equally accounted for in our standards, not one or some groups at the exclusion of others.

Yikes indeed.

---

I have come to believe that isn't true. There are 2 things which too often we conflate. Prejudice or stereotyping is (sadly) too common and probably is something inherent in humans as a recently evolved primate. Social animals include and exclude so it isn't surprising that we tend toward doing that.

Racism is something very different. It is a social construct (for the best example of this see the "one drop" concept in the United States - which clearly is simply a social rather than biologic construct. For the second best see the shifting construction of "whiteness") that is married to political-social-economic structures of oppression and exploitation. I know that sounds WAY too Berkeley but I do think that if you step back that is the best way to think about race and racism and is the place to start for thinking about how to make a better place.

Holy crap! Are we not educated enough to look at the context in which the word was used and quickly know that it was in no way racist? Or is that too difficult?

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong...

BearlyClad;842557205 said:

---

Kenny is a class act, and retaliates only with his play - which speaks louder than the classless cheapshotters.

Even when clearly interfered with he does not waive his hands around or whine for a ref call.

---

Great young man. Takes accountability for mistakes, doesn't whine, doesn't preen. Proud.

socaltownie;842557293 said:

---

NO. And the Mafia term is really instructive. Remember, "race" is fluid. It isn't surprising that Southern European Italians were being called "Thugs" by Americans of Northern European ancestry. Again, why is Richard Sherman a "thug" and one would rarely hear that said about Rivers. Or why (I couldn't find a link) Barry Bonds a "thug" and Mark McGuirre is not?

No one is calling anyone "racist". All we are trying to do is encourage people to take a second look at the word and how it has been (mis) appropriated in a way that has racial meaning.

---

I agree that the word has racist connotations- a thug is used a lot for anyone who has tattoos and wears a hoodie- but thug is also a key part of rap vernacular where it often glorified so there is a boomerang effect

stivo;842557274 said:

---

Yikes! I'm not the poster that you're replying to, but I'll jump to his defense because the poster you're attacking is promoting a progressive message that is aimed at increasing thoughtful awareness.

The word "thug" originally had no racist undertones. Providing a dictionary definition is unhelpful because the dictionary definition is linked to this original usage. However, language grows and changes and this can happen quite suddenly. Because thug originally had no racist undertones is was able to be used publicly as a coded replacement for the N word by certain media figures. When you use the the word "thug" this is probably not your intent which is why this concept is hard to understand for most folks who have no conscious intent to be racist. However, the African American community has become sensitized to this word because many of its members are savvy to coded racial terms. So the original poster was saying that when you use the word "thug" you should be aware of how a black person might take it even if your conceptualization of the word is not a racist one.

The point being, if you don't want to accidentally offend someone, just be aware of the fact that the term "thug" has different meanings to different people and some people will see it as a coded racial term even if you don't.

Also, the hit in question was totally dirty! Screw that scumbag. Go bears!

---

Will everyone lighten up?! Gees! Ok this doesn't help but it is on point:

BearlyClad;842557205 said:

---

Kenny is a class act, and retaliates only with his play - which speaks louder than the classless cheapshotters.

Even when clearly interfered with he does not waive his hands around or whine for a ref call.

---

Yes, a real class act. That's the attitude that wins games, never dwell on the plays before, focus on the now.
And classy move by Dykes to work through the situation with a clear head and then submit it to the Pac 12. It's about accountability, not revenge. I'm sure the UW player wishes he could take that back and no way Petersen is ok with that kind of play. The way this was handled by the grownups means we can learn and grow from this.

Go Bears!!

Thug life 4ever!!!!!

The term "thug" now does in fact have some racial overtones to it in today's lexicon and I'm have no idea if the husky player is or isn't but I do know the shot he gave Lawmer was a cheap shot n he should have been flagged n tossed from the game.

isn't bastard more offensive

at least people want to be thugs

Dbearson;842557359 said:

---

isn't bastard more offensive

at least people want to be thugs

---

Unless you're ol' and dirty.

I think it is unfortunate in many ways that the term "thug" has been hijacked as a code for black man. I agree with those who are correct that it means (dictionary definition) someone who is criminally intimidating or who uses physical violence, etc. But words begin to morph in meaning, and while I fully believe that OP and others do NOT have racist intent, words can be misinterpreted. To take another example, "inner city" means the central part of an urban area, but does anyone seriously think that references to "people in the inner city" means anything other than African Americans?

stivo;842557274 said:

---

Yikes! I'm not the poster that you're replying to, but I'll jump to his defense because the poster you're attacking is promoting a progressive message that is aimed at increasing thoughtful awareness.

The word "thug" originally had no racist undertones. Providing a dictionary definition is unhelpful because the dictionary definition is linked to this original usage. However, language grows and changes and this can happen quite suddenly. Because thug originally had no racist undertones is was able to be used publicly as a coded replacement for the N word by certain media figures. When you use the the word "thug" this is probably not your intent which is why this concept is hard to understand for most folks who have no conscious intent to be racist. However, the African American community has become sensitized to this word because many of its members are savvy to coded racial terms. So the original poster was saying that when you use the word "thug" you should be aware of how a black person might take it even if your conceptualization of the word is not a racist one.

The point being, if you don't want to accidentally offend someone, just be aware of the fact that the term "thug" has different meanings to different people and some people will see it as a coded racial term even if you don't.

Also, the hit in question was totally dirty! Screw that scumbag. Go bears!

---

Sorry Stivo but I disagree.
We live in a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-lingual society. We all have to get along but we don't always pickup on the factors that trigger a feeling of insult and indignation in other members of our society.

Some of those triggers are obvious and of them selves are unmistakable. Certain words used to insult African Americans, Latinos, East Asian, Indians, Native Americans, Jew, Gays, women, etc. You all know the most obvious.
Others insulting items are symbols: the burning cross, the white pointy hood, the Confederate Battle flag.
Sometimes ordinary words (which are not universally understood to be insulting of any particular group) as are used in insulting tones or insulting contexts.
Sometimes those words have of themselves more force than other words.

I do not quibble whether some group may decide that a particular word (one that that has not historically been interpreted as denigrating a particular group) might have an insulting meaning toward that group.
I do not question the right of any member of that group to call out anyone who uses that word in a context where it is clearly insulting.
I do disagree with whether that group has the right to call challenge anyone else's use and meaning and intent in using such a word unless that word has a generally understood meaning (outside the group) as being insulting.

I will use an example. The word Perpetrator has a long history in the law. In recent years it has been shortened to "Perp". It may come to pass that this term becomes regularly (but not universally) used toward particular people of color. Will the use of that word be barred as insulting of that particular group of individuals. IMO no until it becomes almost universally understood to be derrogative of that particular group.

Otherwise we would be imposing on too many different speakers a burden of tip-toeing through the tulips in order not to hurt anyone's feeling. The words must be clear and unmistakeable.

BTW I am speaking as a very dark Latino male who has been called many insulting names and insulting terms in my many years.

BTW BTW, "criminal" does not convey the same message as "Thug" or "Goon" or any similar term. A bank embezzler (of whatever color) is a criminal but not a "thug" or "goon".

But I do agree with Stivo that the hit was a cheap shot.

Go Bears.

Why would you want him suspended now. Should just be noted so for the next time we meet, he'll get ejected if he does something else and they'll keep an eye on it.

Get suspended now makes no sense for us. You want that dude to play and play well against the rest of the Pac...esp in games against furd and oregon

Dbearson;842557359 said:

---

isn't bastard more offensive

at least people want to be thugs

---

Uh oh ... now you have done it, we gonna get another multi page continuation on whether this is socially acceptable or stereotypical to a particular race, religion, origin, or creed .....

My mom remarried when I was 10 years old, to an African American man who had 5 year old son, my brother. I and we dealt with quite a bit over the years, things done to us personally and to our home. I can assure you that I get it probably more than most "white" folks here. I experienced things, and my family that others in the neighborhood, including other families of color did not... I look at the scars on my knuckles that serve as a sad reminder of that time in my childhood. Now married to Taiwanese woman, I imagine that I'm about as colorblind as anyone posting here.

While I seem to recall Sherman being called a thug, I don't recall any aggression or unsavory hits to merit such a tag. And, if called thugs, I certainly don't remember Bonds or McGuirre doing anything that would fit the definition...

The last time I remember "thug" being used here was in relation to Shane Skov. It of course didn't elicit this type of response, from one or two, or more folks...

In the estimation of most if not all, the conduct of Skov and this player from UW is thug-like. The conduct fits the definition, which does not include ancestry, color of skin, etc.

A huge fan of Dr. Harry Edwards, he used the term to distinguish exactly that, despicable conduct of those in the community (of all colors), and the police. I actually brought my step-father and brother to a class of his (at Cal), and we talked quite a bit afterwards with Dr. Edwards. He was adamant that much change needs to happen, including on how African Americans view themselves from an entitlement perspective (he was disgusted with the attitude), and that energy should instead be focused within, demanding more within the Black community and of course greater society. I remember where we were on campus, walking with him during this conversation after class, him stupping-down to look into my brother's eyes... Dr. Edwards felt, and I imagine still feels that high accountability should be expected, not free passes, and exemptions. From his position, he felt the need to "police" the Black community, offering input and criticizing often. If someone acted foolishly, it should be called-out for what it is... That's all that is happening here - conduct being noted, with a word (thug) that is fitting according to its definition.

When I was growing-up, if asked about the word "thug", that I need to find one example that best fits the definition, I would have probably said the cowards wearing the white sheets. And, that still applies.

I'm quite certain this thread would exist no matter the skin color of the UW defender who acted wrongly. Working to become a more colorblind society requires effort not just by the majority, but minority as well, everyone.

I'm glad that some get it. My bottom-line point is that we hope that parents feel comfortable sending their young people to Cal. As a father, I would hope that my children would feel comfortable and respected in their campus environment. For instance, I will have a serious talk with my daughter the softball player about SEC schools that may recruit her.

As a community, we hope to attract talented student athletes. Let's be frank, many of these will be African American. The reason I don't use 'thug' is the same reason I don't use the term 'final solution'. According to the dictionary they are two perfectly innocent words. Except when they're not. Language, context and politeness matter.

It's important that each of us understand the issues that may sway a family one way or the other about Cal. No matter how you feel about the word thug, just remember that others we want to attract may feel differently, negatively. Perhaps you can respect our collective community and choose one of the dozen other words that will suffice. I mean c'mon you went to Cal. Use your SAT words.

As for any anti-Christian bias, I am baptized in the Blood of the Lamb. My Father & Grandfather were ministers of the Gospel. My point was that I've heard my brethren make anti-Semitic remarks when they thought it was safe. I don't allow it. I call them on their sh*t. Just because I'm not a member of a group doesn't mean I can't be sensitive to bias against said group. I would hope that goes for all of us.

Cal89;842557390 said:

---

My mom remarried when I was 10 years old, to an African American man who had 5 year old son, my brother. I and we dealt with quite a bit over the years, things done to us personally and to our home. I can assure you that I get it probably more than most "white" folks here. I experienced things, and my family that others in the neighborhood, including other families of color did not... I look at the scars on my knuckles that serve as a sad reminder of that time in my childhood. Now married to Taiwanese woman, I imagine that I'm about as colorblind as anyone posting here.

While I seem to recall Sherman being called a thug, I don't recall any aggression or unsavory hits to merit such a tag. And, if called thugs, I certainly don't remember Bonds or McGuirre doing anything that would fit the definition...
.

---

The term thug was used about Richard Sherman more than 600+ times in media stories during the 24 hours after the SB.

SMH

Also I might suggest reading Coates along with Edwards. There is an important intellectual traditional that Dr. Edwards is part of. A balanced view would also note that there are many African American scholars who reject the idea of "self policing" and "twice as hard" as both an effective remedy to racism.

socaltownie;842557398 said:

---

The term thug was used about Richard Sherman more than 600+ times in media stories during the 24 hours after the SB.

SMH

Also I might suggest reading Coates along with Edwards. There is an important intellectual traditional that Dr. Edwards is part of. A balanced view would also note that there are many African American scholars who reject the idea of "self policing" and "twice as hard" as both an effective remedy to racism.

---

socal, clearly not a proper use of the word, and that is very unfortunate. He's a damn good player and every time I've watched him, I don't recall any late hits or dirty play...

The word thug needs to get applied where applicable, universally; and if so, it won't be an overly-sensitive topic with any one group.

What's the full name for Coates?

I will end this discussion. Akeem Victor is a "dirty player." Dirty in the sense he took a cheap shot, an illegal shot, at Kenny. One designed to hurt a defenseless player after the play had ended. Thus, he committed an illegal act, one outlawed by the rules of college football. He should receive appropriate punishment for his conduct.

Zerk;842557363 said:

---

Unless you're ol' and dirty.

---

Shimmy Shimmy Ya

Cal89;842557406 said:

---

socal, clearly not a proper use of the word, and that is very unfortunate. He's a damn good player and every time I've watched him, I don't recall any late hits or dirty play...

The word thug needs to get applied where applicable, universally; and if so, it won't be an overly-sensitive topic with any one group.

What's the full name for Coates?

---

Ta-Nehisi Coates. He is a senior writer for the Atlantic and arguably his piece on reparations (which isn't REALLY about reparations but much more a discourse on how housing policy in the 40s through 60s is stark evidence about the social construction of race and institutional/structural racism and its effects) in the Atlantic is the most important writing about race in the past decade.

Now I do not buy all of TNC. Philosophically I find him a nihilist and without "hope". An important dialogue on that subject has emerged in response to both his recent second memoir (BEtween the world and me) and his latest Atlantic piece about mass incarceration. I also think he rejects a very important aspect of the AA experience - the role of the church - reflecting in large part his upbringing largely outside it.

But I think he gives the clearest, most articulate and best researched indictment of structural and institutional racism that we have seen in a generation. It really is REALLY important. A close reading of his work (especially his blogging on the Antebellum American, the Civil War and reconstruction a) gives testimony how race is a social construction - not rooted in biology or physical differences but developed by man....and in particular how that construct has been used for exploitation.

Again, I think that TNC's approach can, in fact, lead to paralysis. It is one of the biggest critiques leveled at him, for example, Cornel West who I think rightly noted that Coates ends his work often without answers/calls to action. I think that is as much a feature rather than a bug of his deep skepticism about racism in America and how much he thinks it is embedded institutionally. If there IS a call to action (and I think this thread is part of that) is that America be much more aware of its racist past and that we acknowledge our complicity in it (indeed, that is the central story of the first Atlantic piece - since almost all of us, absent AA, benefited from the unprecedented boom in housing values during the post war years - a boom AA were explicity excluded from by Federal policy).

socaltownie;842557430 said:

---

Ta-Nehisi Coates. He is a senior writer for the Atlantic and arguably his piece on reparations (which isn't REALLY about reparations but much more a discourse on how housing policy in the 40s through 60s is stark evidence about the social construction of race and institutional/structural racism and its effects) in the Atlantic is the most important writing about race in the past decade.

Now I do not buy all of TNC. Philosophically I find him a nihilist and without "hope". An important dialogue on that subject has emerged in response to both his recent second memoir (BEtween the world and me) and his latest Atlantic piece about mass incarceration. I also think he rejects a very important aspect of the AA experience - the role of the church - reflecting in large part his upbringing largely outside it.

But I think he gives the clearest, most articulate and best researched indictment of structural and institutional racism that we have seen in a generation. It really is REALLY important. A close reading of his work (especially his blogging on the Antebellum American, the Civil War and reconstruction a) gives testimony how race is a social construction - not rooted in biology or physical differences but developed by man....and in particular how that construct has been used for exploitation.

Again, I think that TNC's approach can, in fact, lead to paralysis. It is one of the biggest critiques leveled at him, for example, Cornel West who I think rightly noted that Coates ends his work often without answers/calls to action. I think that is as much a feature rather than a bug of his deep skepticism about racism in America and how much he thinks it is embedded institutionally. If there IS a call to action (and I think this thread is part of that) is that America be much more aware of its racist past and that we acknowledge our complicity in it (indeed, that is the central story of the first Atlantic piece - since almost all of us, absent AA, benefited from the unprecedented boom in housing values during the post war years - a boom AA were explicity excluded from by Federal policy).

---

Thanks socal. Just did a bit of reading on Coates. I see that he is from Baltimore, where my step-father is from actually. I'll make it point to find some of works and read... Thanks again.

Fyght your point about audience perspective is well taken. Where we depart is with your claim that the standard for measuring anything should be restricted to one point of view. People will always be people, prone to individual and group behavior that is grotesque, but imo we must always strive as a society to overcome those tendencies. Biased laws, rules and standards are bad no matter who they benefit and exploit. They must be fair and equal, at least in letter, if we have any hope of them ever being applied equally. We're nowhere near there yet, and that's both disappointing and discouraging, but I'm not ready to give up the fight.

As far as people being people and Cal recruiting, maybe your daughter will get recruited by Kentucky. Then you can explain to her all about how several years after Dr. King packed Sproul Plaza speaking to a diverse audience their idol to this day--the man the arena she would call home in Lexington is named after--hung an effigy of one of the first black SEC basketball players in an effort to intimidate him and an entire generation from integrating his sport. They seem to do ok with AA recruits, and I'm confident Cal compares favorably on social issues despite what you and others might infer from this thread.

OldBlue1999;842557512 said:

---

Fyght your point about audience perspective is well taken. Where we depart is with your claim that the standard for measuring anything should be restricted to one point of view. People will always be people, prone to individual and group behavior that is grotesque, but imo we must always strive as a society to overcome those tendencies. Biased laws, rules and standards are bad no matter who they benefit and exploit. They must be fair and equal, at least in letter, if we have any hope of them ever being applied equally. We're nowhere near there yet, and that's both disappointing and discouraging, but I'm not ready to give up the fight.

---

Well-written, thank you. De jure vs de facto equality, as I remember from my Legal Studies...

OldBlue1999;842557512 said:

---

As far as people being people and Cal recruiting, maybe your daughter will get recruited by Kentucky. Then you can explain to her all about how several years after Dr. King packed Sproul Plaza speaking to a diverse audience their idol to this day--the man the arena she would call home in Lexington is named after--hung an effigy of one of the first black SEC basketball players in an effort to intimidate him and an entire generation from integrating his sport. They seem to do ok with AA recruits, and I'm confident Cal compares favorably on social issues despite what you and others might infer from this thread.

---

Nothing like some relativity too...