Mayor Bloomberg and words

It's never boring in NYC. I would say that Mayor Michael Bloomberg would agree with that more than most lately. The reason why is due to comments made by the mayor during the recent transit strike.

The week of Dec 19, 2005, transit workers for the city conducted a 3-day strike, which was illegal. The strike was due to a disagreement over pensions and a pay increase. Whether or not the pay increase is deserved, nor if the union responsible for the illegal strike should pay 1 million dollars for each day of the stike, what is in the news now is the fact that union leaders were said to be acting "thuggishly" by Mayor Bloomberg. This is where I start getting agitated.

It seems a civil rights lawyer, among others, feel that the term "thuggishly" is racial and should not have been used. Perhaps I've suddenly lost a couple of dozen points of IQ recently, but I don't see it. The question of racial motivation is always a 'hot' topic, and even moreso when in a city as divided and compressed as New York. So I thought to look up the meanning of thug to make sure it meant what I knew it to mean.

Thug, or Thugee in its orginal form, refers to a religious sect that killed the English in India and worshipped Kali. The term was later used to refer to hoodlums and/or gangsters especially if they were involved in violent acts. Neither definition directly applies to the meaning of the term used by Mayor Bloomberg. Yet the second, and more widely used definition does seem appropriate when it's common usage in American english is concerned. Sudden loss of services in the public mass transportation system, during the winter and shortly before a major national holiday, can be inferred as coercive and therefore "thuggishly" acting. Seems simple enough that anyone with the ability to pass high school with minimal grades should concede this definition.

Yet that is not the case. Individuals have seized upon the colliquial meaning of the term "thug" and are using that to claim a racial bias. I may be mistaken, but to my knowledge Mayor Bloomberg is hardly a hip-hop fan [derived from the word fanatic - but that is a different post]. I am unaware of his spontaneous use of American slang or more directly hip-hop slang in speeches or public announcements. So his use of this term, by itself and without other reference, under the colliquial meaning seems absurd.

But what does "thug" mean in this manner? Some men are known to claim to be this and some women want men of this character. For those not familiar, the term is based in gangsta (mainstream) rap. Coined by Tupac (possibly first) it means "persons who are ruthless and who will do whatever it takes to get ahead." In a less gentle, more honest and non-PC manner I feel it means a 'person who actively engages in criminal activity, violence and/or acts in a manner that takes no regard for the impact of their actions on other individuals or society. In addition violence is not only required but is praised and actively pursued in most every activity. And the treatment of women as only a means for sexual gratification is omnipresent.' Effectively a "thug" is a lifestlye choice more than anything else. Why anyone would like to, or be involved with any individual that aspires to, be regarded in such a manner is far beyond me. I can only attribute such thoughts to "Ignorance is Bliss." That is to say that without knowledge anything can seem right, even when it is considered absurdly wrong by those with any knowledge whatsoever.

So do the words of Mayor Bloomberg convey that he believed that the union leaders were acting in a criminal manner, without regard to the impact of their actions, with the implication of degrading women and causing direct viloence. I don't think so. The fact that a "thug" is more of a lifestlye choice makes it inapproriate for the term to be used in that manner. The further fact that a thug image is glorified and thought to be a positive attribute [if you doubt that look at any rap video, or listen to the songs, or watch a rapper-driven movie ect. or ask a kid into rap] would also make it unusual to be used to admonish an individual, let alone a group.

Considering these facts, and knowing that this is common knowledge especially for those in New York, how could the mayor's words be viewed racially. I am even more concerned that one of the outspoken propponents of this line of thinking is a civil rights attorney. I am left with one conclusion, that this is yet another attempt to create and use soundbite politics to promote the political agenda of a group. I hate soundbite driven agendas, as those who have read my previous posts know.

Even worse, and the cause of my irritation, is the fact that by trying to attribute a colliquial meaning to words used by the mayor the implication of its basis as being a enthnic (in this case black african american) term is cemented. It reinforces the validity of the argot [yes I looked that one up] usage. Words are power, and their use is the weilding of power. Why waste time and energy creating problems that don't exist, fueling tomorrows problems that shouldn't exist, rather than addressing real issues that do need to be addressed. Why not spend more time trying to ensure that the youth (and the not so young but uneducated) learn more and understand what they are saying rather than relying on created meanings for words that already exist. Perhaps removing the bliss of ignorance for the radiance of knowledge is a better pasttime?

This is what I think, what do you think?