http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/27/tonight-show-drummer-calling-rioters-thugs-is-code-for-ners/

Ahmir Khalib Thompson, better known as Questlove, did not appreciate Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, or anyone else, using the word “thugs” to describe rioters throwing bricks at police, looting businesses and burning buildings.

“It is very clear there is a difference between what we saw over the past week with the peaceful protests, those who wish to seek justice, those who wish to be heard, and want answers and the difference between those protests and the thugs who only want to incite violence and destroy our city,” Rawlings-Blake said at a press conference Monday. “I’m a life-long resident of Baltimore and too many people have spent generations building up this city for it to be destroyed by thugs who in a very senseless way are trying to tear down what so many have fought for.”

Questlove, drummer for The Roots, the house band for “The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon,” appears to have taken issue with this. On Twitter, Questlove cut to the chase:

https://twitter.com/questlove/status/592869780757082112

-->

This is why I posted it

https://youtu.be/AHOdPEFYUg4

I still associate the word "thug" with anyone from medieval characters with clubs who steal your coins, to Bebop & Rocksteady looking punk-dressing baddies who beat people up, to hockey players to people robbing corner stores and setting buildings on fire.

Thug is code for thug.

example: black NFL player gets arrested for marijuana possession. Old White guy on radio says "all these guys are thugs" in reference to the charge.

I see it in that context, for sure.

But Obeezy calling people looting and setting stores on fires "thugs" is him calling them the 'n' word?

Nah.


-->

they're not one's preferred flavor of black man. They dont like how thet dress or talk or the fact that they smoke weed or whatever. In those cases its used in much the same way as n-word.

But thugs and thuggery still exists, and these activities fall pretty squarely into that category.

>But thugs and thuggery still exists, and these activities fall
>pretty squarely into that category.

What's going in is that thier is RIOTING and CIVIL UNREST.

Do you think that people who listen to RockSteady music and beat people up join a lark have decided its time for a new dimension to their life? Like "I just slapped a guy around and took $260 bucks form him, I'll burn down a CVS for shits and giggles?"

Let's face it, when someone says "THUGS are rioting" you *KNOW* what they mean.

The mayor of Baltimore (or bum-shit Utah) didn't use the term when Cliven Bundy's "militia" pointed guns at the feds. Why not? Not black. (Or there was "one of the good ones" out there?) (I did call them redneck chicken fuck holes that need to fuck the fuck off, but I don't work for CNN.)

Are the kids in school uniforms throwing bricks THUGS? (Do they listen to bebop and enjoy arsony?)

Or are they RIOTERS?

They're labeled the people as THUGS so they can be dehumanized and ignored. Because they don't want to talk about the real issues that need to be addressed.

They'll CERTAINLY be consequences for the rioters, will there be any for the leadership of Baltimore?

As if listening to Dizzy Gillespie makes you a hoodlum

Everything else you said is assanine.

gimme some good Bird and I might flip some cars and burn down a couple of CVS's. The CVS's might go to elevator music. Or no music.

I hate CVS.

And Jon is right. If you came up in the 80's you're more likely to associate thugs with Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom.

>But Obeezy calling people looting and setting stores on fires
>"thugs" is him calling them the 'n' word?

every person involved here was black and not law abiding. not because they were prone to criminality but because they were black (lashing out from pain isnt considered a valid enough reason for politicians)

there's a word society has for "evil" black people and thug is the politically correct version

You are trying to find things where they don't exist.

Its very very simple. Cats were hurting ppl, destroying shit, looting, etc. The idea it was out of anger and not opportunism is far from unanimous. Most of the angry people in actual pain aren't doing that. If they were storming the police department, the prisons, the oligarch banks, thug would be the wrong word. They're stealing money from grammy, liquor from uncle Joe, and drugs from the corner store. And swinging at random ppl and throwing shit at random ppl.

You are parsing the shit out of hooligan behavior to try and fit your preference of everyone wanting to call them n-words.

as if we aren't smart enough to receive it the way we're meant to, when we're the daily subject of society's hate and mistreatment

good luck with that sort of entitlement

Black people aren't all lining up to agree with you on this point, first of all. Myriad of opinions here. Second, I'm not telling any particular group anything. I'm discussing a word like eveyone else here, but I'll tell anyone anywhere who purposefully chooses to take shit wrong to stop.

You're insisting on misinterpreting age-old language to fit your desired version of someone's thoughts. You desperately need everyone to be thinking racist shit so you can keep that mythology as leverage.

I've been consistent since the 80s when I learned the word thug. Thug wasn't a reference to black ppl growing up. Most of the time i personally use the word, its not black ppl. I call white ppl thugs regularly. Thugs, punks, hoodlums, crooks, and when ppl are getting really nasty: savages. The cops who are running around breaking necks, shooting people, thinking they're Rambo: savages. Cats showing up to take advantage of protest sentiments and start robbing and burning the necessities of innocent people, etc. Thugs. All kinds of ppl are thugs. I didn't even use that word about these kids until this thread, but I'm using it in here to make the point that it is an accurate use of the term as we all learned it pre-pac.

2pac didn't teach me English and I'm not about to change that shit for morons who don't know the difference between skin color and hurting innocent people.

we're telling you what racists mean when they say it

I haven't seen enough to think you may be racist, but if you still want to harp on semantics about the English language that's nothing but white entitlement

it only means that when racists mean that. You're saying people who say thug really mean that. At least that's what Questlove is saying and what we're debating. Whether or not thug = n-word

Understanding what words mean when people use them is not entitlement, its fundamental to any verbal communication.

when a white person says they love Bone Thugs N Harmony, I dont believe they mean "Bone Niggers N Harmony"

but by the same token when Calvin Butts said "we're not against rappers, but we are against those thugs"...maybe he meant niggers

but 'savages' DOES have a historical use associated with racism no? I was under the impression that it was used all the time in association with European colonialism and manifest destiny.

I agree with you on 'thug'...or at least I'm unaware of it's association with historical race issues. But my impression is that 'savages' certainly IS a racially loaded word and has been for a very long time.

Savages has been used in racist ways for eons absoly, but its not the entirety of the word. Savage, to my understanding, also means being violent/aggressive/nasty in a visceral "subhuman" manner. It conjurs up the idea of a single beast or pack of wolves frothing at the mouth itching to tear someone apart.

Accusations can be savage. Sentences intended to cut a person into pieces can be savage. Violent actions can be savage. People can be savage. Mobs can be savage ("crucify him" being the classic example)

Whenever a person is thirsting to see someone else destroyed or acting out in a bloodthirsty manner, its savage. IMHO, fight sport crowds are savage, and I used to be a big boxing fan. I was being savage. At school, when we'd all run and gather around 2 kids yelling "fight! fight!" we were savages.

But from personal experience.....I would never use the word 'savage' when the context has anything to do with race. I just avoid that word all together....right or wrong. I don't do this with the word 'thug'....right or wrong. (Lonesome D may have provided reasons for me to start doing so)

>I agree with you on 'thug'...or at least I'm unaware of it's
>association with historical race issues.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=thug

Not necessarily a racist association, but definitely one associated with race.

Actually, just looking for that etymology, looks like The Atlantic posted an article to this effect: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/04/thug/391682/

Because, nobody's talking about what a word used to mean in eons past when nobody today was alive. All words evolve and change meaning over time.

The problem is, "thug" has not truly evolved to the point where everyone uses it as a slur, yet people want to accuse anyone using it of meaning it as a slur.a

Most people over 25 learned a version of the language where thug meant your common hoodlum, hooligan or crook. This Indian cult reference origin would be news to Obama or the mayor. 2pac comes along, switches the word up, a cluster of jerks use it to be racist, and now we all pretend to forget the we grew up with.

that word origins are not germane to the appropriateness of contemporary usage in various contexts; 'It doesn't matter what it used to mean, it means something else now' ain't gonna cut it for a lot of words.

At any rate, the etymology was simply a response to denny's statement that he was unaware of any race-based connotations of the word thug; I wouldn't have felt it worth posting here otherwise.

If I see a native Canadian beat the shit outta someone.....I'm gonna avoid using the word 'savage' or the phrase 'savagely beat the guy'. I wouldn't be as careful to avoid using the term if it was a white guy beating someone up. It's not hard to do....and it ensures that someone doesn't ascribe any sort of racist intention to what I'm saying.

I suppose I could claim that I'm not using 'savage' in a racist way in a situation like that....but why create any doubt? After all....we say words to be heard....not for the sake of saying them. So it matters how other people interpret what we say regardless of our intentions.

>If I see a native Canadian beat the shit outta
>someone.....I'm gonna avoid using the word 'savage' or the
>phrase 'savagely beat the guy'. I wouldn't be as careful to
>avoid using the term if it was a white guy beating someone up.
> It's not hard to do....and it ensures that someone doesn't
>ascribe any sort of racist intention to what I'm saying.
>
>I suppose I could claim that I'm not using 'savage' in a
>racist way in a situation like that....but why create any
>doubt? After all....we say words to be heard....not for the
>sake of saying them. So it matters how other people interpret
>what we say regardless of our intentions.
:

Personally, given the reality of the way it is often interpreted in that instance, I also would try to avoid using it, so as not to be misunderstood. I do have to say, though, that when you're speaking on something you see someone doing, you're not always going to be thinking about their ethnicity in the moment. So while its "not hard" to pick another word, its also easy to forget to pick another word or to not really be as aware of the finer details of ethnic politics.

And to that point, while its the speakers job to do their best to be understood how they intend it, its also the listener's responsibility to not INSIST they meant the worse interpretation and to believe them when they say "I didn't mean x, I meant y".

Communication requires speaking as clearly as you can and hearing as fairly as you can

Etymology is never important. Shoot, I've bought books on the subject. I think overall the subject matters.

I just mean, when deciding whether or not a person (alive today who learned to speak before 2pac) meant something racial by thug, bringing up that it was long ago used for some people from India is a 100% red herring, since Obama etc clearly weren't talking about Hindu-ish cukt worshipers and probably don't even know of that version of the word.



>that word origins are not germane to the appropriateness of
>contemporary usage in various contexts; 'It doesn't matter
>what it used to mean, it means something else now' ain't gonna
>cut it for a lot of words.
>
>At any rate, the etymology was simply a response to denny's
>statement that he was unaware of any race-based connotations
>of the word thug; I wouldn't have felt it worth posting here
>otherwise.
>
>

___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

we can't allow thug's true definition to be swallowed by mis-use.

the fact that some ppl use 'thugs' as code for 'nigger' doesn't mean that's always the case. and here...he'd have something if the ppl being described couldn't be said to have exhibited 'thuggish' behavior (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thug). not that everyone has to agree the folks engaged in the violence have acted 'thuggishly'.

and now i wish they'd both just used adjectives and/or adverbs instead of the noun. the prez and the mayor would've been better off if they'd described the behavior as 'thuggish' and not labeled the ppl as 'thugs' w/o knowing more about them. b/c the folks engaged in the violence are mad and understandably so...but they may not actually be 'thugs'.

still...i disagree that they were using a code for 'nigger'.

but I don't agree that its usage is always code word for the "N" word - that's a pretty short-sighted and lazy generalization that doesn't really hold much weight.

Context is paramount, yet again. Also, as you stated - it's quite a reach to say that this is always the case - particularly in this context when the looters in question were in fact acting thuggish, by all conventional definitions of the term "thug."

Interestingly, I bet Quest would walk back the comment in the context of whether or not he thinks Obama was calling the rioters the "N" word - which sort of proves your point.


-->

especially in this event, just doesn't sit right with me.

these motherfuckers are products of academia, can they not find a
more eloquent way to express themselves? it's mighty coincidental
that they all use the same term. makes me cringe.

>especially in this event, just doesn't sit right with me.
>
>these motherfuckers are products of academia, can they not
>find a
> more eloquent way to express themselves? it's mighty
>coincidental
>that they all use the same term. makes me cringe.

See http://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug

I'm not a fan at all of McWhorter. I am old enough to remember
when Pac did one of several of the most asinine things in his
short lived career by defining for himself and his "Thug Life"
"movement" (which I feel many people who were thugs and
non-thugs alike misinterpreted) that to say one was a thug was
to not be the dictionary term for it (i.e. rapist, murderer,
etc.) and I feel like Hip Hop via its many artists that claim
to be inspired by 'Pac has done the true meaning of the term a
disservice as it has allowed people to bastardize the term.

I've argued many times w/my relatives that people forget that the term was reserved for followers of an Indian cult whose devotees worshipped Kali and brought the bodies of those they
murdered to her and I often wonder how in the Hell did thug
become anything other than its true meaning? I also remember when I was a kid/adolescent that in popular culture at the time "thug" had little to nothing to do with aggressive behavior in Black men and boys (or by extension, women, but we have just as many racist/sexist stereotypes about us: Jezebel, hoe, bitch, the asexual Mammy, gold digger, freak, dyke, etc.) but to have people say it is code for the
word nigger is reaching a bit as that is a word that can't be
substituted.

Rioters are "thugs."
Union organizers are "thugs."
The government doing something you don't agree with are "jack booted thugs."

Nigger in this context is anyone you consider less than human.

For riots it's blacks - followed closely by non-whites and then poor people regardless of race.

So when some calls someone else a thug - and they're not referring to an old school mafia guy, or an identified criminal they mean - nigger.

Next up: Inner city youths.

There is really no difference to the majority of white people. It's kind of a moot point.

Too much honestly in a term like that.

Now when you say THUGS you can say "I mean criminals!" but you didn't say "criminals" you said thugs.

The word itself isn't racist - it's the people who use it from a place of power.

Unless your dumb as rocks like Don Lemon.

More than 40% of whites consider black men to be violent and when you combine that with the fact that 75% of whites have little or no contact with black men-- I think it makes clear the reality that by and large we are viewed as animals or as something wild and unpredictable. Whether we are called black, thug, nigger, etc. doesn't matter since it all represents the same type of thinking.

It looks the same as it did 30 years ago.

>It looks the same as it did 30 years ago.

LOL

-->

I don't remember it having a racial connotation before Tupac.

That word has become so loaded now probably would've been best that Obama and the mayor not use it even if they are only describing people involved in criminal behavior.

..

Not only did this new connotation start with Pac, he also was the one who broadened the term thug beyond criminal. He connected it to how you carry yourself, present yourself, where you're from (from the gutter, etc). He wanted a wider range of ppl beyond criminals identifying with thug label and made big strides in that regard.

Revolutionary version of Pac would have deplored the destruction of ones own community and black owned shops etc, he constantly took issue with people labeling him a criminal while simultaneously labeling himself a thug, because thugs are "all of us who look this way, talk this way, relate to the gutter, etc"

I personally never bought into his redefinition of thug. I grew up with my own concept of the word and I stick to it. I understand his thinking but I don't rearrange my language over it. But obviously many other people followed his vocabulary lead.

Obama spent way too much time trying to appease the "real american" crowd in his speech, "thug" part included. Language is important and is a psychological tool used against us since day one.

Even if we took the racial context out, labeling them thugs for what they're doing is still heartbreakingly dismissive.


Bin was right, go green or dont vote at all.

Nobody is ONLY a crook. Nobody is suggesting these cats are worthless or have no salvageable wonderful potential qualities as human beings. Thugs are still whole human beings. But you loot Aunt Lilly, you're a thug. You burn down Grammy's handy neighborhood corner store, you're a thug. If your anger gives you a pass to destroy resources people depend on, and encourage the further militarization of cops in America, our anger gives us a pass to call you names. Especially accurate ones.

If your anger gives
>you a pass to destroy resources people depend on, and
>encourage the further militarization of cops in America, our
>anger gives us a pass to call you names. Especially accurate
>ones.

we have to call them something other than angry humans, they might get even more violent if we say nigger, let's replace it accordingly

you feeling black folks have to be labeled negatively for fucking shit up (especially given our historic treatment) is sort of troubling

that bit about these "thugs" being human is contradicted by your need to label them "accurately"

I dont even want to know what you think the right response to Freddie Gray's murder should have been, I fear you'll reference MLK Jr.

>we have to call them something other than angry humans, they
>might get even more violent if we say nigger, let's replace it
>accordingly
:
Uh no. N-word is an entirely different word with an entirely different collection of meanings that have nothing to do with whether a person is breaking shit, stealing shit, attacking ppl, burning shit. That's behavior is thuggery if any race does it.


>you feeling black folks have to be labeled negatively for
>fucking shit up (especially given our historic treatment) is
>sort of troubling
:
I don't feel *blacks* *have to* be labeled. I feel its disingenuous to accuse people of meaning the n-word if they call a violent shop-raiding, resource-burning mob of people thugs.



>that bit about these "thugs" being human is contradicted by
>your need to label them "accurately"
:
I don't NEED to, and that is demonstrze by the fact that I haven't. I'm making a point in here in defense of others who do choose to call them thugs. And there is no contradiction for people who can read the words I typed and not read shit I to it.


>I dont even want to know what you think the right response to
>Freddie Gray's murder should have been, I fear you'll
>reference MLK Jr.
:
You agent paying attention then.

but yes it holds weight

....that there is no reason to think this was directed at Obama?

Seems to me like an article taking his comments which have base and using them to take a shot at the Commander in Chief and/or take the power out of the argument that the word is loaded.

On the topic at hand though, in this instance.... if the word thug is directed at the looters/brick throwers, and not the protestors.... I ain't got no problem to be honest.

Quest is on friendly terms with the family, he wouldnt go at him directly. i think it was a general response to politicians and CNN

Good point

?uest wrote the tweet before the POTUS's speech this afternoon.

As far as the comments used by the Mayor and the Presidemt, they got their speeches 98% right and with both speeches involving a high degree of difficulty.

It's hard enough managing a crisis where people's lives are in danger. Doubly when dealing with social issues with literally generations of mistrust and neglect at the root on one side and mistrust and false morality on the other.

Both speeches needed to touch on the motives for the outbreaks of violence, and condemn the actions of the rioters while preserving their dignity.

Could their speeches been a little tighter in regards to their language? Probably. But they were speaking extemporaneously and in the Mayor's case didn't have time to prepare a statement.

I wish the population were open minded and educated enough so that a simple declarative statement could get the point across without progressive using coded language needed to counter the coded language of conservatives.

I think people are more motivated to change the wording than the conditions which prompted the use of the words in the first place.

-->

LOL

~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

The article only mentions Baltimore's mayor, but Quest's statement was a blanketed one. He said that anytime the word "thug" is being used in the context of black men - that it's code for the "N" word. The same day Quest makes this statement, Obama delivers a statement to the nation referring to the looters (black men) in Baltimore as thugs.

So - as basic logic would suggest - Quest is indirectly saying that Obama is using code language to describe the looters.

Quest didn't qualify the statement by saying "when white people use the word" - or "when it's used in this particular context."

He just said that whenever it's used, it's used as a code. So, I would like to challenge him on that w/ regards to if he actually thinks that Obama is using the word "thug" as code for the "N" word.


-->

-->

because I could tell it pissed people off to be beaten by someone they perceived as a black guy. this made it even easier to take money from them, on poker stars or full tilt poker they'd often type stuff in the chat box like "f**k u n****r, I can't believe a n****r took my money".

Non-black person as a thug, no matter what they were doing

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24417234

Can thugs be white black or whatever? Yup.

But guaranteed if you did grabbed a bunch of stories with the word 'thug' on them you're going to see interesting uses of them just like the Katrina meme with the looters vs survivors.

And lets not act like normally benign words haven't historically taken a racial connotation through use.

While obviously someone wants to separate those assholes from the regular protestors, when you find yourself on the side of the NyPost or Foxnews...

They would do it. That is exactly what they want to say.

hindu people who robbed white traders.
comes from the hundu word "thuggee."

I knew it had roots in India but did not know it was used primarily by white people to describe Indians who robbed them

>hindu people who robbed white traders.
>comes from the hundu word "thuggee."

You have learned the real truth about a word that has been racially coded from the beginning. I hate how Hip Hop has defined and redefined a word that, like the word nigger, is not endearing nor meant to be construed as such.

no such thing. Maybe someday it will complete the evolution into meaning n-word or "unsavory black people who talk and dress too __ for my taste"

But as it stands now, its way too early for that. Way too many of us still associate the word with our pre-tupac, pre-ja-rule, pre-justin-timberlake language formation.

like the two posters above you have pointed out.

Plenty of people alive today speak the language as it was before Thuuuug Life

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

unless thats just a oksports thing.

Technically, its correct if you connect the dots using logic though.

>unless thats just a oksports thing.
>
>Technically, its correct if you connect the dots using logic
>though.

That's only correct if you're the one making up the dots to support your logic.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

Fact 2: Obama calls rioters thugs

Conclusion: Questlove feels that Obama calling rioters thugs is code for nigger.

Valid conclusion imo

Fact 2: Questlove too issues with Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

Fact 3: The article is about Questloves feelings regarding Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and her comments

Conclusion: The OP is misleading


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

That doesn't seem specific to any one person to me. My conclusion is that Questlove feels that anyone who uses the word thug, means nigger.

If that ain't how he feels, he probably should revise that tweet.

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

>That doesn't seem specific to any one person to me. My
>conclusion is that Questlove feels that anyone who uses the
>word thug, means nigger.
>
>If that ain't how he feels, he probably should revise that
>tweet.

True but he made the tweet before Obama made his speech.

>True but he made the tweet before Obama made his speech.

If Obama's speech would make him change his opinion on that, then perhaps his opinion wasn't a sturdy one to stand on.

-->

That logic fails oksports 101

>If Obama's speech would make him change his opinion on that,
>then perhaps his opinion wasn't a sturdy one to stand on.
>
>-->

and now he's trying to make it fit into his created narrative.
.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

i've seen him make stuff up before. I don't think this was it lol. I immediately connected those dots. I'm surprised people really thought the inference was to obama. Quest got Obama in his twitter avatar lol.

>That logic fails oksports 101
>
>>If Obama's speech would make him change his opinion on that,
>>then perhaps his opinion wasn't a sturdy one to stand on.
>>
>>-->
>

Posting false information is a fail but you and your tag team partner can continue with the click bait

Cenario and Vex stay conspiring on the boards!

lol i'm dying.

-->

>
>>True but he made the tweet before Obama made his speech.
>
>If Obama's speech would make him change his opinion on that,
>then perhaps his opinion wasn't a sturdy one to stand on.
>
>-->

I'm not saying it should make him change his opinion but your OP is click bait at best.

>I'm not saying it should make him change his opinion but your
>OP is click bait at best.

I'm just applying Quest's logic.


-->

I can see the dancing to make it fix in this post now.




.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

and we don't even like each other.

OKP can surely do better.


-->

lol

-->

But you choose to come at me. Gotcha.

And No, the scientist didn't allow me to play with puzzles, because i was needed on the time machine project.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

That recollection is in context.

.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

anybody who is hip knows what he is saying,just like when fox news says it.

now i like Obama and respect him,however he been real softball about this legalize lynching going on with five 0. brother man needs to say something.

basically mean "yucky black person "

Obama didn't mean it that way. He meant it the way we all learned it as children.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/baltimore-mayor-apologizes-to-rioters-for-using-t-word/

As Baltimore burns, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake is turning the flip-flop into a high art form, to the point where she is now apologizing to the rioters for calling them “thugs.”

She stated early Monday that police were instructed to allow “those who wished to destroy space to do that.” By Monday evening, facing heavy criticism from residents and business owners, she walked back from those comments.

As the city was in flames Monday night, Rawlings-Blake spoke freely on CNN about “thugs” and “criminals” who were destroying what so many had worked so hard to build, even as Marxist professor Marc Lamont Hill said the rioters were just expressing “righteous rage” and should not be called thugs. Hill added that the situation in Baltimore was “not a riot” but “uprisings” in response to blacks “dying in the streets for months, years, decades, centuries.”

By Tuesday, the mayor again walked back from her previous comments.

“I wanted to say something that was on my heart … We don’t have thugs in Baltimore. Sometimes my little anger interpreter gets the best of me,” she said, pointing to her head. “We have a lot of kids that are acting out, a lot of people in our community that are acting out.”

The president of the Baltimore City Council, Jack Young, also apologized to rioters Tuesday for calling them “thugs.”

Standing side-by-side with avowed gang members at a press conference Tuesday, he called the rioter “misdirected” youths. He also retracted claims that gang members were targeting police.

“We are all Baltimoreans,” Young said.

Rawlings three days earlier, before the worst violence broke out, thanked the Nation of Islam for its efforts to help “keep calm and peace in our city.”

Say what you mean and mean what you say, particularly when you have hours and hours (after being invisible when the events were actually taking place) to put your words together.

Obviously this is a difficult situation, but it becomes even more difficult when leaders don't provide guidance and wisdom.

-->

i have no problem w/a leader admitting fault and offering an apology. i think it's dangerous for a leader or anyone to stick to a faulty position just b/c they want to show 'strength'. IMO it's stronger to admit fault and seek forgiveness.

but having to walk back comments twice over the course of a few days in response to such an important crisis doesn't reflect confidence and assertiveness to me. With regard to the "give them space to destroy" comment - all she had to say was "I misspoke" - but she blamed the media and claimed that she never said what she actually said. And the "thugs" comment seemed to be only walked back due to public pressure. So I question whether that she really feels that the word 'thug' was wrong or if she's caving to public pressure.




-->

The T-Word. If we have this much power, why can't we apply it to something more impactful, lasting and meaningful in out communities.

My God, things we fight for. SMH.


.
.
.
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." ~ 2 Tim 2:4

Based on that, I believe she is only speaking of a certain segment of rioters.

>Based on that, I believe she is only speaking of a certain
>segment of rioters.

True but if you are aware of how mass media spins news generalization is their forte.

http://www.colorlines.com/articles/no-thugs-scene-biker-gang-rumble

You've probably heard that yesterday afternoon, May 17, some 200 members of five biker gangs in Waco, Texas, had what one NBC News article quaintly describes as "a rumble" in a heavily populated mall.

Gang members were at the Twin Peaks Restaurant in the Central Texas Market Place mall for "a meeting" to "settle their differences," reports ABC News.

Waco police sergeant and spokesman Patrick Swanton didn't immediately name the gangs, the New York Times reports, because police were not "going to give them the privilege at this point of putting their names out there.”

Photographs of gang members arrested wore leather jackets emblazoned with "Bandidos," "Cossacks" and "Scimitars."

The lethal shootout began after rival gang members had a fist fight that exploded into the parking lot. Waco police told NBC News that gang members shot at one another and police. Other alleged gangsters stabbed one another with knives, kicked them, and beat them with clubs, chains and brass knuckles. Nine died, 18 were wounded and about 175 were arrested, mostly for participating in organized crime. No police officers or civilians were harmed. Here's more from the NBC article titled "Waco Shootout: Biker Brawl at Twin Peaks Leaves Nine Dead":

"It progressed very rapidly," Waco Police Sgt. Patrick Swanton said. Police — who had been expecting trouble from the gathering — were on the scene when fighting broke out, and they quickly called in reinforcements.
CBS News—which also refers to the deadly melee at a public retail establishment as "a rumble"—reports that "police were on heightened alert" because Twin Peaks hosts a Biker Night on Thursdays that draws rival gangs. According to CBS News, Swanson said police had "attempted to work with the local management of Twin Peaks to cut that back, but to no avail.

After yesterday's deadly shootout Swanson told The New York Times that "there were so many rounds fired from bad-guy weapons" he was amazed that innocent civilians weren't hurt.

“In 34 years of law enforcement, this is the worst crime scene — the most violent crime scene — that I have ever been involved in," he added. "There are dead people still there. There is blood everywhere.”

Despite the horrific official description, photos widely circulated in the aftermath of the gang violence are curiously placid.

For instance, a CBS News photo set shows about 40 unhandcuffed gang members sitting on what appears to be a bench with one officer in front of them; about five unhandcuffed Cossacks standing by a wall; an empty paddy wagon; a row of bikes toppled with a line of unhandcuffed gang members facing police in the background; a police officer walking in the parking lot with his semiautomatic weapon pointed toward the ground; more Cossacks standing around with their hands free; more bikes, this time upright and parked; gang members sitting on the ground surrounded by bottles of water; and an officer in riot gear staring at a burgundy sedan.

As I'm sure you do, I have a few niggling questions about this deadly melee:

Why are police and media calling this a "meeting" rather than, say, "a partnership to 'take out' police officers"?
If police didn't project a hologram of James Dean on the mall wall; didn't find any Sharks, Jets or Outsiders on the scene and didn't apprehend Danny from "Grease," why are they calling this murderous scene "a rumble"?
Why has major media failed to mention the socioeconomic level or race of the bikers?
Did any of the alleged gangsters make eye contact with police?
Police were already on the scene because they suspected there would be trouble. Why weren't any unarmed civilians shot to death?
Police were prepared for five gangs worth of violence. Why weren't they all wearing riot gear?
Do the bikers' poor education, lack of employment and lack of rec center membership heighten their tendency toward violence?
Do the bikers lack education, jobs or rec center membership?
Were Ace Hood, Bobby Smurda, Y.G., Chief Keef, T.I. or 1992-era Snoop Dogg at the shootout in Waco?
Were the bikers playing the music of Ace Hood, Bobby Smurda, Y.G., Chief Keef, T.I. or 1992-era Snoop Dogg during the deadly fight?
Was the violence "senseless"?
Was the violence the result of generations of criminality glorified in bikers' culture?
Did the bikers grow up with fathers in their homes?
Are the bikers married to women and leading households?
Was anybody "unauthorized" or "illegal"?
Was anyone a terrorist?
Was anyone a thug?
Was anyone not white?


Sources containing language and photos as of 5-18-15 at 12:08 EDT:

5-17-15: "Waco Shootout: Biker Brawl at Twin Peaks Leaves Nine Dead," NBC News; "9 Dead in Waco, Texas, Biker Gang Shooting, Cops Say," ABC News; "9 Are Killed in Biker Gang Shootout in Waco," New York Times. 5-18-15: "Waco police brace for any new biker gang violence," CBS News; 4-27-15: "Bloods and Crips Team Up to Protest Baltimore’s Cops," The Daily Beast.

and lol at the use of 'rumble'.

.......

I hate when people see media images of what happens and
agrees with what an elected official says about such group, I
was talking with a relative of my ethnicity and gender
and she mentioned about what Obama said about the
protesters being thugs and I was like "I'm not gonna pretend
to act like everything is alright when it ain't" and I say
this to say people need to stop with the peacefulness card as
there is not a race of people on Earth that have not dealt
with violent uprisings of any kind as America as a whole was
founded on violence. And I really hate when people act as if
the coded language we have collectively been called for 400+
years ain't damaging.