Tuesday, September 17, 2013

The "thug" question

There's racism and then there's racism.

In the previous post, I linked to a rather vile website called The Mad Jewess, run by someone so hate-filled as to make Pam Geller seem like Mary Poppins. Here, once again, is an excerpt from a recent post covering the shootings ascribed to Aaron Alexis:
Black Thug Aaron Alexis Identified as Gunman in Washington Navy Yard Shooting

Is he also a Muslim?

We are brainwashed to believe that only white, right-wing extremists are the perps of these type mass murders. Even though most all domestic terror is carried out by leftists: Facts About #Communist Leftists

There are also many mass killings perp’d by blacks: Black Serial/Mass/Spree Killer List.
There is much to dislike here. For the moment, let's focus on the headline: "Black Thug Aaron Alexis."

An obvious question presents itself: Is it ever permissible to speak of a "Jewish Thug" -- as in (say) "Jewish Thug Meyer Lansky"? (I use the term "permissible" in the social sense, not the legal sense.)

Nearly everyone reading these words will answer: "No." Most of you will go on to say: "One shouldn't use the term 'black thug' either."

I agree with both answers (with just one exception, as specified below). But let's face facts -- in our culture, usage of the term "black thug" causes less shock and instant revulsion than does usage of the term "Jewish thug."

If you Google the term "black thug" in quotation marks (thereby searching for that exact phrase), you'll be presented with over 1.6 million results. The opening page of results will give you links not to openly racist sites, but to conservative sites which hope to be taken seriously by a mainstream audience. The proprietors of those sites would deny any charge of racism. World Net Daily is a prime example. (There are also results from liberal sites which use the term "black thug" to characterize, perhaps unfairly, the views espoused on conservative sites. Of course, hip-hop sites figure heavily here; they use the term in a specialized, and usually ironic, fashion.)

As you scan the Google returns, an attitude becomes clear: Although the term "Black thug" is considered vulgar, it remains "kind of, sort of" acceptable.

If you type in the phase "Jewish thug" (in quotes), Google gives you all of 3,720 results. Many of the sites in that list use the term in a satiric mode; there are people who consider it humorous to identify themselves as "Jewish thugs." The websites using the term in a serious sense all tend to be cesspools like Stormfront. These sites are openly racist and make no pretense of appealing to a mainstream audience.

My question is simple. Why is "black thug" considered a mere social no-no while "Jewish thug" is considered unspeakable and horrifying?

For what it's worth: If forced to describe David Ben Moshe -- the self-described specialist on "black on white racial/hate crimes" who wrote the piece excerpted above -- I would have no problem using the term "Jewish thug." I don't mean to imply that he is a thug because he is Jewish, and I don't want to give the impression that I would feel comfortable using that phrase to describe anyone else. But it seems indisputable that the man happens to be both Jewish and a thug. It is also indisputable that if you want to dish it out, you had better be willing to take it.
Comments:
Just as Father Lawlor didn't represent Catholics, Moshe and Jewess hardly represent Judaism. Cheney was black, but Schwerner and Goodman were Jewish. In fact, Jewish activism in the civil rights movement far exceeded our expected participation based on population. There is a certain amount of self preservation in our support. of civil rights. Haters tend to be equal opportunity. The KKK didn't limit itself to blacks, Jews and Catholics were also on their list.
 
Just as Father Lawlor, this Moshe fellow and whoever Jewess is hardly represent Judaism. Cheney was black, but Schwerner and Goodman were Jewish. In fact, Jewish activism in support of the civil rights movement far exceeded our expected participation based on population. Of course, there is some degree of self interest there. Haters tend to be equal opportunity. The KKK didn't only have blacks on their list, Jews and Catholics were there as well.
 
One other thing. I'm going to guess that I read Jewish and Israili blogs far more often that most here. I have seen criticism of Obama on numerous occasions, unfair in my opinion, but I have never seen even subtle racist posts on any I read.
 
i think it is a good observation you've made recognizing a hypocritical approach, or a politically correct approach to how we use words culturally.. i think this is why some folks talk about the 'holocaust industry' this observation you've made being a direct consequence of that industry to always have everything swing back to how the jews were persecuted and that we can't let that happen again.. in the meantime certain topics or phrases must be out of bounds..
 
Actually, anon, I have no problem with the way Jewish writers have made phrases like "Jewish thug" out of bounds. What bugs me is the fact that the phrase "black thug" is WITHIN bounds, or just on the boundary.

Either both should be acceptable or both should be verboten. I vote for the latter course.
 
Black men are meant ot be thugs, JEws are meant to be underhanded a Machiavellian and control the media. Jews are not stereotypically for the Thug Life.
 
those phrases are racial profiling in a negative context either way, so i agree with you it is better to remove the label of race in them.. muslim terrorist, or just terrorist? we live in a culture where the main stream media is doing this kind of thing regularly..
 
An as yet unanswered question here:
Just what did Aaron Alexis do for this contracting firm he worked for?
 
The story boils down, yet again, to mental illness. The RI Police warned the Navy police, just recently, that Aaron came to them complaining of hearing voices and people trying to control his body with microwaves.

Whether or not he was severely impaired, or just faking in order to get more disability (and then acting out in anger when he was denied) this wasn't someone who should've been ignored, let alone allowed to retain his clearance. He needed to be evaluated and he was seeking help.
 
Zee, I've been threatened myself by someone who "heard voices." This is not a condition to take lightly.

You may be familiar with the story of Charles Guiteau.
 
An obvious question presents itself: Is it ever permissible to speak of a "Jewish Thug" -- as in (say) "Jewish Thug Meyer Lansky"? (I use the term "permissible" in the social sense, not the legal sense.)

I dunno - is it more permissible to call Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, or John Gotti a "Catholic thug"?
 
Prop, if we lived in Chicago in 1929 and you asked me if it was permissible to call Al Capone a "Catholic thug," I would tell you this: "You can call Al whatever you like, as far as I'm concerned. But HE may have a very different idea of what is permissible."
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?






























FeedWind












FeedWind