Mahler the Racist

[FlyinM]

Marykaa - it has someting to do with this thread...... Essentially you are referring to one word word that has 2 two different meanings. It causes confusion to those who do not share the same meaning. Exactly what the discussion here is all about.

[Marykaa]

That's sort of how I mean't it.. as I see it from the outside.. maybe some of it is just a linguisics problem.. (but never all of it.. it IS people who use words.)

[Mahler]

Originally posted by kuri:
Among some segments of our society "thug" has a positive connotation.

So does "nigga" but only when used between persons who share a mutual understanding.

I'm not saying Mahler is wrong but these words carry baggage and so one has to expect possible negative reactions no matter the intention.

Kuri,
If certain words carry baggage with them, and there are many, it still amazes me that a person who uses a word correctly must be the one to guard his speech, while those with all the baggage cry foul.

To me that makes the negative reaction as prejudiced as any other. Political correctness has been a detriment to the cause of equality and fairness in this country. Instead of fostering understanding, it has sensitized people to find wrong where none is intended and hatred where it does not exist.

In chosing my vocabulary, I will continue to make every effort to be correct, but not politically correct.

It's like arriving at a destination. As soon as you drop the baggage you are free to shake hands.

Mahler

[duff beer]

Originally posted by bond007:
I've read in this thread and others regarding this issue that many postulate that "thug" may have become slang among certain groups BECAUSE of said group, not because of society in general. So, if a particular group starts using a word, such as "thug", with negative connotations among themselves, does that mean everyone outside that group should also follow suit?? Absolutely not.

Just my .02 cents. [/QB]

My folks used to call someone who was drunk "stoned" until about 10 years ago... I finally told them that "stoned" has a whole new meaning these days. They had no idea.

[kuri]

If certain words carry baggage with them, and there are many, it still amazes me that a person who uses a word correctly must be the one to guard his speech, while those with all the baggage cry foul.

I find nothing wrong with the intent of your original usage Mahler, and if any of those on the MH board were to meet you in person and discuss the issue I doubt they would find anything wrong within that context. The trouble arises because they may not know you or where your coming from. An internet forum is a difficult medium by which to convey intention. (except the CE board of course )

That said, using a word "correctly" in this case means little to many people for which certain words have very specific meanings within their world.

In L.A. where I live the word "thug" has a specific meaning that refers to black gangstas (or wannabes). If I use the word to friends here they know I'm not referring to a criminal of any race.

[diamondpete]

A few years ago collocates begain to gain recognition as an important tool in linguistics and in lexical works (i.e. dictionaries) in particular. Simply defined a collocate is a pair or group of words that are "found together" more frequently than chance or random frequency. These words are "linked" together in meaning and usage more so than other words. This is quite easy to see with a collocate pair such as master chef, maiden voyage, freedom fighter. (please note that collates do NOT need to be adjacent).

So what is the point? Well if you look at for example master and many of its other collacates, master swordsman, master craftsman, etc (but not bator- sorry couldn't resist) you get an understanding of the current usage of master something and its connotations. Connotations not only in that the meanings are positive but by search for the related collocates you can see the in usage they are generally positive. (This is VERY clear in gender loaded language such as businessman and businesswoman, where BM is usually either positive or neutral and BW is more often negative or neutral than positive- hence the move towards gender free language)

Now I am sure that most people would agree that master something is positive and BW can ofyen have a negative connotation. Again what is the point? Well with new lexical databases, almost every written word is collected and then collocates can be searched for which gives you the current (very up to date) usage. You can of course narrow the search and limit to say publications for youth, etc. (currently there are projects to collect all spoken recorded materials to try and develop and database of spoken language) It is actually a very exciting thing in linguistics.

Again what is the point? By looking at how a work collocate syou can see beyond the "dictionary definition" (which incidently is usually at least 10 years old) , and you no longer need "Strunks ".

Currently I do not have access to a database (it is about $1000 per year) since I am not affiliated wth a uni now, so I cannot run a search. But I did a google on "thug" and found that a lot of the links were to "gansta" like sites. I searched "black thug" and this got me Gay Porn of African Americans. Then White thug which while also turned up some GP sites, turned up a lot of white "gansta" type sites. This leads me to think that: There is some basis to believe that among certain groups "thug" could be a similar term to gansta. Clearly this is limited, to the US I woud think, and to a narrow demographic.

So I think this gentleman jrgens had a legitimate concern based upon his linguistic experience. I furthermore think that Mahler's response was very appropriate. jrgens, I thought was mature enough to accept Mahler that he was incorrect about mahler's intent.

However, it brings up an interesting point. Does Mahler (or anyone) need to be careful? Is this a PC issue? an education issue?

I think this is more an issue of culture and linguistics. Though both (presumeably Americans) Mahler and jrgens are culturally and linguistically seperated. However, both were/are sufficiently civilized to come to a negotiated agreement (linguistically speaking: pragmatics and semantics ). Now the funny this about this (to me anyway) is that the "cultural/linguistic divide" between mahler and jrgen, both Americans, is greater than the divide between mahler and I (Canadian living in a non-english speaking country).

Finally, my conclusion on this is that sometimes we need to be linguisticaslly sensitive (No I am not suggesting that Mahler should have used a word other than THUG) within our own language (English) because there are many "kinds" of Englishes out there and there is linguistic seperation. How would people have felt about jrgens's comment if he was from some other country where THUG did mean black person? Well apparently he is from a sub-culture where it does.

Anyway sorry for the long post, I just found this exchange very interesting and wanted to share my thoughts.

peter

[vandamme]

"In L.A. where I live the word "thug" has a specific meaning that refers to black gangstas (or wannabes). If I use the word to friends here they know I'm not referring to a criminal of any race."

the word "gangsta" usally refers to someone who is a criminal actually so that seems like a oxymoron to me.
yes today there are lots of adolecents who try to protray that image not the behavior but to real gangstas not the wannabes generally do or have part taken in illigal actions.

the origin of the word is from a real gangster or criminal and people newdays throw it around like its a cool nickname especially amoung the hip hop culture.
I live in NYC and I feel like black and mexican people in the city actually seperated themselves from coccasions (sp?). I walk down the street even around my school dorm and kids black and white dressed like "gangstas" will come limping towards and walk through me if I dont move aside. which actually really pisses me off. I see it happen a lot here. I also noticed the other day in a magazine store they actually have a black womens magazine and a black mans magazines. WTF is that? I mean I don't see magazines that are named WhiteMen or something.

I don't understand why if another race makes such a big deal out of having a different colored skin makes such a point to seperate themselves as black people. I constently hear people in my school or have african american talking about how white people this or that. I'm not racist and i have a lot of friends from many differetn cultures and races but I honestly feel like the majority of black people I know and see make a point of being black.

for example my secrity guard in my dorm will say "whats up nigga" to black students coming into the building and not even ask for ID but she always asks me even though i've lived here in the same building for over a year. I honestly dont understand it and feel like any culture or race that seperates themselves as much as I see is looking for confrentation I don't know any white people in talk about blacks or any other race or say your black you are not allowed to say this word or that and if they do say it they are racist or this or that but black people speak about other races like its nothing and its ok.

I feel like races and cultures seperate themselves. i think cultures and races should have their own backgrounds and history but should't dweal on it and act in a way that will associate negativity towards that culture or race. look at what is going on in Paris right now between arabs and french.
its rediculous imo.

[poopy pants]

you cant say anything these days without "offending" someone in some way

fuck 'em

no one is dying because of it

[Jean-Paul]

I have to say that I had NO idea that thug was somehow linguistically connected to the "black experience." In fact, I commonly regard some of the bare knuckle tactics of the Bush administration to be acts of thuggery, so when I think of the word, the image that pops into my head is Dick Cheney!

TS, I hope you never take my side in an argument, or I would wonder if I really did say something offensive. You obviously have some pent up anger about "political correctness"... Were you forced to take anger management classes or something?

[Trainer One]

I think the main point is this:

If you say something, regardless of your intent, and someone takes offense - then you need to apologize.

I hate to belabor the issue but a comment was made about Alwyn (thanks Horse!) and Scottish people being overly "frugal" [img]smile.gif[/img] If a Scottish person found this to be offensive, then we're wrong. Period.

In this case Mahler used a term that TO HIM was not in any way shape or form intended to have the meaning that it seemed to have.

It upset jrgens. He raised his points. Mahler re-assured him that he did not mean it as a racist term. Case closed.

The key point to take home I think is that regardless of your intent - if you upset someone - you apologize.

The other point to take home is that Mahler is NOT a racist.

[castufari]

What a bunch of oversensitive nancies.

I read that for what it was...at this time kids are putting "thugs" on pedestals. 20 years ago things were different, 80 years ago things were different. Times change, the meaning doesn't change but the person who is *cough* targeted *cough* does.

I grew up in RI in a rough part of Providence. Thugs when I was a kid were those playground bullies who came from families were dad was likely a bully. Ghetto? It surely wasn't black, I've lived in some slummy Italian areas (I'm italian and don't find it offensive).

Funny how that when you call it like it is you piss people off.

Mahler, keep it up and ignore the trolls.

[Deserve]

There is no way that anyone should apologize for the use of the word thug! This is simply a matter of being able to understand words in the context of the sentence they are used and being able discern a meaning. This is an arguement about simple language skills that we all learned in kindergarten. Can it relate to the black experience...sure but it can also be a pattern of behavior. The rest of the words in the sentence will tell you the probability of which meaning is appropriate.

By automatically relating to being black is putting a meaning to it without looking at the context clues.

[Mahler]

Originally posted by Trainer One:
I think the main point is this:

If you say something, regardless of your intent, and someone takes offense - then you need to apologize.

I hate to belabor the issue but a comment was made about Alwyn (thanks Horse!) and Scottish people being overly "frugal" [img]smile.gif[/img] If a Scottish person found this to be offensive, then we're wrong. Period.

In this case Mahler used a term that TO HIM was not in any way shape or form intended to have the meaning that it seemed to have.

It upset jrgens. He raised his points. Mahler re-assured him that he did not mean it as a racist term. Case closed.

The key point to take home I think is that regardless of your intent - if you upset someone - you apologize.

The other point to take home is that Mahler is NOT a racist.

Two points.

1)
"If you say something, regardless of your intent, and someone takes offense - then you need to apologize."
This is what causes many of the problems in the first place. We look for the negative in people and their words and not the positive. No one should have to apologize for something that was never intended in the first place. I heartily disagree. If questioned about their intent, they explain, as I did. But apologies? I don't think so. There is a big difference between, "I'm sorry I said that" and "I'm sorry you misunderstood me. Let me explain."

The comment about Alwyn and the Scottish reference is different because it is a known "ethnic" joke, slur or whatever you chose to call it. Said in jest as a good natured rib it may be acceptable as almost a parody of itself. Often times, in our twisted sense of humor, such things are said to affirm that we like or respect the person who is the butt of the joke. But, if offense is taken, then apologies are in order.

2) "Mahler is not a racist."
Yes, I am. Everyone is, to a certain degree. Anyone who says they are not is deluding themselves or is primed for sainthood. It is a matter of degree and of desire that is not be so. It is like the ship that travels the ocean, covering half the remaining distance each day. It gets closer and closer to the shore but never quite makes it. I fervently hope that I am less prejudiced today than I was 10 years ago or even yesterday and I work hard to be less prejudiced tomorrow. My journey becomes more challenging when the destination I am headed for recedes into the distance by virtue of its own prejudices, but I am confident that we will someday be close enough to grasp hands and pull each to the other.

Mahler

PS:
Before this goes even further, I would like to say that this has been one of the most stimulating threads ever, for me. The discussion has been lively and intelligent. I truly think we are all learning and growing from what has been said thus far. Thanks to all for contributing.

[Chris Correia]

Originally posted by Mahler:

PS:
"b. your'e Mahler"

I love it. I suddenly feel like I should be on a mountaintop dispensing wisdom.

LOL. Or Mahler, retired, dispensing towels in the mens room at the club. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

(Hey, at least I didn't say, "Dispensing weinies on crackers at the kiosk in aisle 6 at the grocery story." )

On topic: although we need to be responsible for/with our words, we can't be held responsible for not being aware of deviant uses of words (i.e., deviant from historically widely-common use). Dialogue can easily get shut down when we don't give the other guy a break or the benfit of the doubt.


Trainerone:
Just curious: As an African-American, do you feel it is not right for African-Americans to use the term nigga/nigger with each other in a familiar way or, perhaps, teasing way? I ask because, as you noted, if someone is familiar with someone (such as Lou & Alwyn), then a tease or joke such as the Scotsman comment can be said with the target not being offended. However, I take it from your remarks that you feel everyone should refrain from comments, assessments and humor originating from stereotypes. If that is the case, I tend to disagree, only because that starts to run us down roads of political correctness that are, of themselves, problematic. I think the dynamic can be OK is there is relationship, and people are reasonably careful about what they say to whom, and are willing to give the other person a break or benefit of the doubt. (BTW, I think this is actually a bit of a tangential issue to the original post, since the Scots comment is a joke/tease based on a stereotype, whereas the use of the word thug is a linguistic-cultural matter.)

One of my taekwondo students, who is that 58 yr old dad of three other of my students, has praised our school for its good spirit and respectful environment. He told me that his prior experience with the martial arts on the east coast was negative, that the people running that school were a bunch of thugs. I know he didn't mean a bunch of blacks or hip-hoppers or whatever.

"Like it or not, thug does mean/connotate black" (to paraphrase your post, Trainerone). I agree, it does to some people. But not the majority of people, nor the dominant culture. I'd venture to say most people over 40 (and perhaps younger) wouldn't pick up on that exact use. So, does it REALLY mean/connotate that? I'm not debating you, just commenting/reflecting/discussi ng. I only raise that point because it is an interesting point to ponder, the notion of one's responsibility for knowledge and use of words. I go back to my original point; we've got to be reasonably sensitive about our audience, and we've got to be willing to cut the other guy a break.

[Mahler]

This is getting worse. Now I am a deviant.

LOL

Mahler

[TrainingGirl]

Originally posted by Mahler:
This is getting worse. Now I am a deviant.

LOL

Mahler

Then I really MUST have you LOL!