Monday, July 21, 2008

Were They Thugs?

It's not a big leap from calling them names like thug.


Dad29 said...

Time to get back on your meds regime.

Billiam said...

Yes. The people who lynched them were THUGS. Don't you think this is getting ridiculous?

Other Side said...

I would have expected to see you in that crowd, daddio (back then, at least).

I don't agree, Bill, and that's exactly the issue with this word. It's thrown around too casually.

But back to Holloway for a moment. Regardless of what Holloway may have done previously, Eggleston's use of the word was completely wrong. The context had nothing to do with past behaviour, it had everything to do with two fatcs: He didn't like Holloway's political stance and Holloway was black. Period!

Billiam said...

I can think of many thrown around by the left as well, Tim. And comparing it to a lynching is flat out wrong.

Aaron said...

While they may have been accused of rape, murder, or extortion I'm supposing that these individuals have not been caught doing any of the above. I also suspect that they would not give the appearance of any wrong-doing to a thoughtful person. That, at least, is your premise.

I'm a little annoyed at your analogy because it implies two things I wholeheartedly disgree with:

1. Societal racism is still the norm and is accepted. It takes a narrow view to believe that "everyone" is a racist, especially in the way that this photo depicts.

2. People who identify a bad behavior, no matter what it is, and want it stopped, are racist if the person committing the act is of the correct skin color relative to them. Of course the direction of the name-calling is also relevant, which is why it's important to note the skin color of the accusor and the accused.