Pizzagirl, I encourage you to read over my statement.
Yes, like I said.
Yes, just like I said…
So exactly what you’re disagreeing with is beyond me. Considering, I blatantly said " I do not believe thug is the new n-word".
Perhaps, you should divert your concerns over the over-sensationalizing of the word “thug” to the poster who brought up the idea that “thug” is the new n-word.
Chamberlin comments did seem like derailing the topic to me but that doesn't excuse the rage attack from Grundy. Whoa, that woman has some issues. If Lord Commander is her "anger translator" it's not helping.
This statement has a bit of merit in it. Poster bias aside, the pathology does need to be looked into. Like I said earlier, I wish the root of the problems would be focused on such as poverty community divestment rather than playing into sensationalist topics.
Grundy’s actions on Facebook were vicious and unwarranted. She need to come to terms with her beliefs and how she can integrate them into the world of today. Attacking someone on the basis of their race, sexuality, etc is not to be praised or accepted. She needs to get to the real problem as to why she’s so hateful towards white people.
Another commenter on the article that got Chamberlin involved, which set Grundy off, alluded to the article as “race sensationalism” which I take to mean blowing an issue/incident out of proportion. Patricia Arquette’s rallying cry for equal pay for women seems like too minor a gaffe to bother writing a bunch of articles about or getting into online arguments over.
And Grundy’s over-the-top reaction is puzzling… why so much rage from someone who is apparently succeeding in a white-dominated profession? I get why so much anger from people living in Ferguson or West Baltimore but it’s harder to understand such rage from someone doing so well professionally, in position to grasp the brass ring in academia’s tight job market.
Why is BU doing nothing? Why can’t they fire her?
Let me raise my hand and point out that I quoted Richard Sherman, who was called a thug, as saying that thug has become, in a way, the new n-word.
I actually think that Sherman has a point.
Of course, the word has been in use in English since its origins in British India. But just recently it has been applied to black men in a way that I noticed, independently of Sherman’s statement, which I actually found because I was looking him up to make sure that I had the right guy.
There are lots of words out there that everyone knows but rarely use. All of a sudden, some phrase or term will be picked up, and it seems as if one hears and reads it everywhere. The media, especially the lazy bad tv media, has a tendency to pick up terms and apply them over and over, amplifying this. I first really noticed this back in the days of the Tylenol poisoning cases: they all used one term–I think it was “tainted” --to describe the bottles of pills that had been tampered with. No one used “poisoned,” or “adulterated,” or any other possible term. There are other examples of this that I can’t think of right now because I haven’t had enough coffee. Suddenly a word that everyone knows but not many people use starts spreading. You here it everywhere. I think this has happened with “thug.” I read something within the last few months in which a woman reported being started when a friend used the word “thug” in what was evidently supposed to be an affectionate manner to describe her baby boy, who was black.
I can think of another example. When I lived in England in the 1960s, one never heard the phrase “over the moon.” I mean never. When I returned circa 1980, this had become the stock phrase of interviewees to describe happiness.
It is my perception that this has happened with “thug.” (It also happens to have a very strong, satisfying sound, especially when expressing contempt.)
As for Grundy and the FB argument, I read the piece on Arquette’s speech that they were discussing. I really think that the author of the piece was wrong when she said that the actress was intentionally or unintentionally referring only to white women. I think she was reading something into it that wasn’t there. There is certainly a way in which the person’s comments could be viewed as derailing. If the conversation is about women of color suffering, there is something to be said for not saying, “Hey, I’ve suffered too!” Nevertheless, Grundy’s response was vicious. She went way over the top. It really seems that she has a hatred of all white people that is at a constant boil just under the surface.
I’ve never heard of thug being used to describe a (black) man who wasn’t already a criminal of some sort. If someone wants to call her baby boy thug in an affectionate fashion, that’s on her, but that doesn’t all of a sudden change the meaning of the word or make it a black-only insult.
Someone else called her baby boy a thug. Not the mother.
I’m telling you, it’s out there.
Richard Sherman is not a criminal.
I agree with you, Consolation, on how words gain traction through the media and everyday life and on how the Arquette piece was reading into something that wasn’t there.
If you replace the word “people” (gay people, people of color) with “men,” I think it conveys what she really intended. She probably used the word “people” so as not to offend any alternative gender people, and ended up conveying the wrong message to some who became offended by her attempt not to offend. Lol That was my take on it anyway, certainly not that she was referring only to white women. That seems like a ridiculous interpretation.
I seem to recall Trayvon Martin being referred to as a “thug,” but I think that was because of how he was dressed. he wore a hoodie sweatshirt with the hood up. Back then, I remember that look being considered “thuggish,” as I had an S near his age, and my S would occasionally wear his hood up for no reason (not raining or cold), which I did not like because I thought it looked thuggish.
There was an uproar about Martin’s hoodie defining him in such a way, and everyone started wearing them in protest.
So, I think “thug” can also refer to a certain look, like tats and piercings and wife beaters on white men.
In Trayvon Martin’s case, and strictly in reference to wearing a hoodie with a hood up, I think it’s silly for him to be labeled a thug for wearing a hood in the rain because “thuggish” people wear hoods when it’s not raining.
Overall, yes, words can refer to a certain look.
I don’t think most people knew it was raining during the incident, until later. It was only raining lightly, if I recall.
It does seem silly now, but that is because we don’t associate hoods up with thugs anymore, I don’t think.
It was my impression that the people who called Trayvon a “thug” due to his dress were the kind of people who would have called any young black man a thug, even if he were in suit and tie on his way to accept a college scholarship and he was stopping to rescue kittens from a tree and help little old ladies across the street . To me that was a “consider the source” type of thing. I didn’t find that people of good will called him a thug (though they might have said that his dress resembled that of a thug).
I thought Trayvon Martin was referred to as a thug because of the violence referenced on his Facebook page.
But I live in Mafiaville, and the descriptors of choice are punk, thug and thug when referring to those who are connected.
…and back to Saida Grundy.
Whoa. This woman has some serious issues. This may be the death knell of her professional career.
As well it should be. Why is BU doing nothing about her? Do they fear a lawsuit? Duke put this guy on leave: http://time.com/3882330/duke-professor-racist-comments/
Wow… BU’s HR office was not doing their job. Although she “paid her dues to the society” in 2009, many employers would think really hard before hiring a person with such anger and control issues to work with young adults, a vulnerable bunch.
That’s putting it lightly. Quite frankly, she just sounds like a grade A jerk, just an all 'round mean, nasty human being.