Is it wrong to ever call a criminal a thug?

[Archae]

I'm not talking about somebody who has been busted for grabbing a charity box, or doing dope.

I mean violent criminals.

In Milwaukee, there is an increase in the "smash and grab" robberies, where groups of criminals drive a car into a car dealership late at night, through windows and doors, grab keys hanging on the wall and then drive off with other cars, that end up used in other of those type of robberies, including at little Mom and Pop stores.

[Lizzie Poppet]

1. Absolutely not.

Sure, some racist assclowns have used the term as a dog whistle. So fucking what? I refuse to let idiots like that take possession of a perfectly applicable and useful word.

[Warpy]

30. Thank you. I'm sick of prissy word jumpers

who seemingly want to rid the English language of negative descriptors on the theory that they might be used incorrectly by morons and offend someone out there.

Most of them here at DU are on my ignore list.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. Agree 100% n/t

[Brickbat]

2. I think it's possible to remember people's humanity while still ensuring they face appropriate

consequences for whatever they've done. Dehumanizing someone is the path to barbarity.

[Igel]

23. Calling a criminal a "criminal" does it to no lesser extent.

Like "illegal immigrant" isn't "an illegal person who immigrates", so a criminal isn't an "illegal person who did something."

"Thug" applies a specific connotation to what amounts to an objectionally violent person.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

3. No, but in Wisconsin, the serious thugs ...

... are in the Republican party.

A "smash & grab" is small potatoes compared to the damage done by Republicans.

edit to add: Not a slam against Wisconsin. In my state (MI), the Republicans are just as thuggish.

[randys1]

6. I am a huge fan of YOU from now on. Best response in weeks.

[luvspeas]

4. ummm...

[Recursion]

5. "Thug" is an ethnic slur invented by the East India Company to justify the murder of South Asians

I know it also has particular problems in the current day with African Americans, but its history is enough to warrant its being abandoned, IMO.

"Thug" was a term adopted from Marathi and used literally to kill thousands of Indians. It should absolutely be banished from our lexicon.

[Archae]

17. Death cults did, and still do exist.

I don't dispute that the British may be exaggerating the numbers killed by the Thugees.

But I'm sure they did actually exist, just as Aum Shuriko still exists.

[Recursion]

19. Archae! No, they really don't!

There's no such thing and never has been. I'm literally living at Ground Zero of where the British came up with this canard.

There has never been a single attested incident of "thuggee" human sacrifice in India, despite decades of nearly brain-numbing cataloging of every other aspect of religion here.

Not just Bombay, but literally this exact part of Bombay is literally exactly where the British confronted the Thuggee and defeated them before they could take over the dockyards in 1682.

I absolutely know you don't mean any harm: I just want to point out that the word "thug" has a murderous, awful history.

[panader0]

29. Thug-from "Thugee" Wiki:

Years active
At least 450 years

Territory
India

Ethnicity
Indian

Criminal activities
Murder, robbery

Thuggee or tuggee (Hindi: Nepali ठग्गी ṭhagī; Urdu: ٹھگ?; Sanskrit: sthaga; Sindhi: ٺوڳي، ٺڳ?; Kannada: ಠಕ್ಕ thakka) refers to the acts of Thugs, an organized gang of professional assassins.

The Thugs travelled in groups across India for six hundred years.[1] Although the Thugs traced their origin to seven Muslim tribes, Hindus appear to have been associated with them at an early period. They were first mentioned in Ẓiyā-ud-Dīn Baranī's History of Fīrūz Shāh dated around 1356.[2] In the 1830s they were targeted for eradication by William Bentinck, Governor-General of India, and his chief captain William Henry Sleeman. The Thugs were seemingly destroyed by this effort.[1][3]

The Thugs would join travelers and gain their confidence. This would allow them to then surprise and strangle their victims by pulling a handkerchief or noose tight around their necks. They would then rob their victims of valuables and bury their bodies. This led them to also be called Phansigar (English: using a noose), a term more commonly used in southern India.[4] The term Thuggee is derived from the Hindi word ठग, or ṭhag, which means "deceiver". Related words are the verb thugna, "to deceive", from Sanskrit स्थग sthaga "cunning, sly, fraudulent", from स्थगति sthagati "he conceals".[5] This term for a particular kind of murder and robbery of travellers is popular in South Asia and particularly in India.

[Rex]

7. This is interesting, didn't know this.

Thug - a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s.

[Recursion]

10. The cult never existed. It was entirely an East India Company PR job

Seriously. "Thug" is at least in India about like the n-word in the US. It absolutely shouldn't be used.

[Rex]

16. Some more on the term.

Amazing history.

Thug

ETHNONYMS: Dacoo, Dacoit; formerly called Phansigar or Phanseegur, meaning "strangler"

The term "Thug" comes from thag, meaning "cheat, swindler, robber," and it refers to professional highwaymen who for centuries were the scourge of wealthier travelers throughout India. These men worked swiftly to win the confidence of their victims, then strangled them with a scarf or noose and robbed the bodies, which they immediately buried to avoid detection. They formed gangs of 10-200 men, organized into a sort of confederacy. Thugee, as this "trade" was called, was not simply a profitable criminal activity—it was a traditional calling. By wearing religious garb the Thug maintained an air of respectability. Under most Hindu and Muslim rulers this was regarded as a regular profession, and Thugs paid city taxes. Thugs believed that their crimes did honor to the goddess Kali (the Hindu goddess of destruction) whom they worshiped before each attempt to befriend and then kill travelers. Consecration of the pickax and the offering of sugar were important prior to an assassination, and after the deed some of the gains were set aside as a reward for Kali. In turn, the goddess expressed her wishes to Thugs through a complicated system of omens.

The earliest authentic reference to Thugs dates to about AD. 1290, and India's Thugee and Dacoity Department was closed down only in 1904. Thugee was finally brought under control for the British administration of India around 1848 by Sir William Sleeman. Like organized crime elsewhere, the confederacy of Thugs persisted for so long because of its superior organization, secrecy, and the security offered everywhere by "retired" elderly Thugs, who continued to operate as spies or cooks. In his book, Ramaseeana (1836), Sleeman recorded the peculiar argot used by Thugs to maintain the secrecy of their intentions, and thus he introduced the word thug to English dictionaries. The crime of dacoity, however, still continues in some remote areas of South Asia. Now it is defined simply as brigandage committed by armed gangs of robbers, called dacoits or dacoos. By law there must be five or more in a gang for the robbery to be considered dacoity. Both thugee and dacoity were usually punished by hanging or banishment for life. Some of the criminals repented and converted to Christianity.

[jonno99]

27. I disagree. If one east Indian refers to another as a thug It is a matter for them to resolve.

If someone in the west refers to an east Indian as a thug, the Indian might have a case to be made in calling out the westerner as a racist if: 1) the westerner understood the history 2) the Indian were not acting "thuggishly".

In the case of westerners using the word "thug" (most of whom have no clue as to it's history), I would argue that the obscure eastern etymology of the term renders the idea of racial content moot.

In other words, thug is just another word with a curious history. Feel free to be offended, but I would argue that there are bigger battles to fight then in this "arena of the obscure"...

[ryan_cats]

8. We

We thuggees need better press:

[backscatter712]

11. D'oh! You beat me to it!

Oh, well. I posted the video below...

[Recursion]

12. Jesus Christ don't get me started on that movie

For one thing, those "giant vampire bats" are entirely fruit eaters. About a dozen of them live in my apartment complex. They are gorgeous.

[backscatter712]

9. It's all in the context...

Using the term to refer to cops that commit acts of police brutality is just fine.

Or are you referring to these thugs?

[Recursion]

13. The movie aside, the word must absolutely go

The East India Company invented the "thuggee sect" and used it as an excuse to lynch thousands of Indian men and women who got in their way in one way or another.

The word "thug" should absolutely be excluded from modern usage.

[Igel]

24. usage =/= history

It's tempting to import history into the modern meaning of a word, especially when the reason based on modern usage is weak or controverted. We find all kinds of specious arguments to buttress what we Firmly Know to Be So.

This is one such instance.

[Rex]

32. If I can see some original source on the posters claims, I would give it some thought.

As is, poster is creating some other history that happened on another earth. I just want the actual facts.

[Rex]

31. Please cite where you get this alernative reality of history from.

Everyone else can read the facts, but you seem to know something that nobody else does. Link or slink.

[NaturalHigh]

14. No, it's not wrong.

[ileus]

15. Nope...

[Tipperary]

18. It is a perfectly good word in my opinion. That criminal cop in SC who beat up the student is a thug

if I have ever seen one.

[bigwillq]

20. No (nt)

[B Calm]

21. Hell no!

[Nye Bevan]

22. George Zimmerman is the prototypical "thug".

I think the word is perfectly fine.

[Brother Buzz]

25. I'm totally fine using the word thug

Although I would suggest NOT using the word in Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman's presence.

[Jim Beard]

26. It is not wrong to call a thug a thug

especially if that thug is a criminal or has a very low respect for others.

[David__77]

28. I would not call someone that word. I also don't necessarily consider doing so, in itself, wrong.

...

[melman]

33. Of course not

Don't let word redefinition police get in your head like that.

[loyalsister]

34. As okay as it is to use "urban youth" to describe teenagers who live in the city

Both have become loaded terms that conjur an image of a person of color. When I hear people deny that, I am reminded of people who seem to resent not feeling socially comfortable using the n-word.

[U4ikLefty]

36. These days it's most commonly used against black men, and not necessarily criminals

see Stanford-educated Richard Sherman as a case-study.

The clever online bigots will use the term first against one or two white criminals to insulate themselves against calls of racism.

We see them on DU from time to time. Hell, one of two may even be posting on this tread.

[jonno99]

37. Are there racists out there? You bet. Do I need a "Stanford educated" guy to point them out to me?

Last edited Sat Oct 31, 2015, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

No, I'm quite capable of identifying the racists when I see them. And some of them don't use the word "thug" at all.

Go figure...

[U4ikLefty]

40. What the hell are you talking about?

Are there racists out there? You bet.

No shit Sherlock. Thanks for pointing out that racist indeed exist.

Do I need a "Sanford educated" guy to point them out to me? No, I'm quite capable of identifying the racists when I see them.

"Sanford educated"? Perhaps a Freudian slip? You can't identify the point of my post, so I doubt your ability to detect bigots who use "thug" as a term to describe a scary black man.

And some of them don't use the word "thug" at all.
Go figure...

Correct, some of them come DU and post snark on race-related threads. Go figure.

[jonno99]

45. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the supposed correlation between racists and

the use of the word "thug". Just because someone noticed (e.g.) that the jokers over at Fox were using the word "thugs" doesn't mean that for EVERYONE else the word should now be verboten.

What are we going to do when Fox starts using "punks", or "rough-looking"? Are we then supposed to remove those words too from our lexicon of "approved" words - else we'll be deemed racist?

Perhaps we need a DU volunteer to frequent all the racists/hate sites and keep a running list of words that the "other guys" are using, and make sure that we remove those words from our vocabulary. Otherwise, who knows who we might inadvertently offend on any given day by using an "incorrect" word or phrase...

[U4ikLefty]

47. Ha-ha you edited your post.

First off, you can stop the pearl clutching & false narrative about Fox.

Second, are you denying that the word thug is most commonly used to describe "scary" minorities? We're not in the 1930's where people are talking about Al Capone, we're in 2015 where people refer to people like Richard Sherman as a thug for talking smack like many athletes. Here's a post on DU...look for people defending the word in a similar way to your screed: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026159105

Third, nobody is going to jail you for using thug, so why use the word "verboten" like Nazis are trying to control your language...give me a fucking break!!!

[jonno99]

48. Thanks for pointing out my typo ('Ha-ha'? what, are you 12?).

1. There is a false narrative here - see if you can spot it.
2. Yes, I'm denying "that the word thug is most commonly used to describe "scary" minorities" ". As always, the word is commonly used to to describe the thuggish behavior - of any individual - of any race. That you might find a few racists who use it - so what? I don't let racists define the language for me.
3. I will. Just as soon as you stop trying to control the language, along with presuming that those who disagree with you are racists.

[U4ikLefty]

49. Old enough to know BS when I read it.

I notice lately what I hear from fellow nice white folk when they talk about minorities. Today, thug is used (rarely) for only the worst kind of white dude , whereas thug can be used on "Sanford educated" Richard Sherman for talking smack (just one example). Today, the word thug is often used as a substitute for a more bigoted word. The fact you don't see it, that is your problem.

Oh yeah add a straw man to your list of goodies. I never tried to "control the language", nor was I "presuming that those who disagree with you are racists". What I DID do is point out the paradigm shift in the use of the word thug by many as a substitute for less acceptable slurs. You replied with snark.

You will gain no ground in this discussion, because your only point is outrage at some invisible force trying to take your precious.

BTW, if you didn't care about the Freudian typo why did you correct...insecure much?

I'm bored with you.

[jonno99]

70. "I'm bored with you". Well, I'm rather amused with you at the thought that you

assume there is any "outrage" in my feelings on the subject. Believe it or not I'm merely trying to help correct what I see is an error in your thinking.

To wit, you seem to expend a lot of energy pointing out the faux pas of others (typos) and/or attempting to "root out" suspected racism (use of the word 'thug').

The fact is there has been no paradigm shift in the use of the word thug- there simply hasn't. The vast, vast, majority of folks use the word as they always have.

And speaking of Freud, I would advise to to follow his more relevant maxim (paraphrased): "some times a word (or a typo), is just a word..."

[FrodosPet]

55. Bone ***** N Harmony - Crossroads

Is it OK to star out the word? Or should we just quit listening to this amazing musical group?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

38. The criminal element where I grew up was white trash and Vietnamese

They were described as thugs.

[Iggo]

39. Yeah, but what if...?

Ugh!

[Bradical79]

41. I don't use the word anymore

Being a sports fan, it's unfortunately taken on racial connotations for too many people. Kind of hard not to associate it with racism now.

[Snobblevitch]

42. I don't care about the origins of the word.

There are 'thugs' who are criminals (of all races), there are thugs who are LEO, there are thugs who are domestic abusers (of all races and both genders), there are all kinds of thugs. I do not believe the word should be allowed to be co-opted by some who use the term in a racially offensive manner.

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. Agreed.

[GummyBearz]

68. I agree with your post and applaud you on your efforts

But, that is just too much common sense for this..

Your post will have to be ignored by others in this thread who want to travel back 600 years in time to india and whine about the word's origination. And others who want to redefine/avoid certain words just because some rightwing asshole used the word... such myopic little worlds they want to confine themselves to.

[Takket]

44. no, its not. Thug is a recognized word with a definite meaning

the fact some people pervert it doesn't make it less of a word.

[BigDemVoter]

46. I think of a thug as somebody who physically assaults another person.

Language evolves over time, and perhaps "thug" has taken on a more racial connotation. I'm not sure.

I guess if I heard that somebody was prowling around the neighborhood, assaulting old men and women, the word might come to my mind.

[Archae]

50. What about vandals?

Like the bunch in Milwaukee who broke into a special-needs school and trashed it?

[BigDemVoter]

63. Honestly, FOR ME, "thug" wouldn't come to mind in a case of vandalism.

I wouldn't find it the appropriate word to use. I associate "thug" with "assault" and/or violence.

I don't think that the actual word, "thug", is inherently a racially charged word in and of itself, but this is an interesting discussion, as the usage of words can carry quite a bit of baggage.

[Archae]

64. What about those who use violence to gain money?

Even if it's only violence against property, like the "smash and grab" robbers I mention in the OP.

They leave behind smashed windows and doors, damaged interiors and demolished vehicles they had stolen earlier.

[BigDemVoter]

69. I guess I would use the word, "thief" or "thieves"?

If it were simply a case of property destruction, "vandalism" would do. . . .

[JustAnotherGen]

53. I call the Zimpig that

As an alternative to punk and Zimpig all the time. What's wrong with that? He's a pig from hell and he deserves it.

[gollygee]

54. Whether or not it started out as a racial slur, it is one now

and there are other words to say what you mean to say. Why would anyone feel a strong need to use a word that is now being used in the way "thug" is?

[FrodosPet]

56. What's a good replacement word?

The thing about **** was that it was a simple word with a simple definition. Back in the day it was only racial by adding a racial pejorative. The word itself was colorless.

But then, some African Americans took it on as a label of pride. They self described as ****, and "**** Life" became a common catch phrase.

So even though it is frequently used by many as a descriptor of action and character as opposed to identity, is that why it cannot be used for its common usage?

[FrodosPet]

57. Bone ****s n Harmony - ****gish Ruggish Bone

Somebody needs to get busy with the beeps on this one!

[Lizzie Poppet]

58. Not to most, I'd argue.

It's certainly not how anyone I know personally uses it, nor have I ever heard anyone object to it IRL. So nope...not going to let the bigots commandeer a perfectly good word.

[B Calm]

59. Please tell us the alternative word for thug that is PC.

[Nye Bevan]

60. "Brute" should be fairly uncontroversial, no? (nt)

[B Calm]

61. LOL, okay Brute from now on equals THUG!

Al Capone was a brute.

[Archae]

65. Except when I hear "brute" nowadays...

I automatically think of the guy in "Blazing Saddles" who yells "You brute!" repeatedly, and then cries.

[B Calm]

66. LOL

[Orrex]

67. By Faberge?

[rollin74]

62. No. There's nothing wrong with using it to describe a violent criminal

[eridani]

71. It is never necessary to use words with a racialized subtext n/t