name calling

Last week we again witnessed society’s growing sensitivity to name calling and identification. We watched the unrest in Baltimore. In reaction to the deep disturbance, both Pres. Obama and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake utilized the word “thug” to describe the protestors who were violent. After a negative reaction by some to the use of that word, the Mayor apologized, tweeting, “I wanted to clarify my comments on ‘thugs.’ When you speak out of frustration and anger, one can say things in a way that you don’t mean.”

The President, however, doubled-down on his words, with White House Press Sec. Josh Earnest reiterating after the outrage, “Whether it’s arson or the looting of a liquor store, those were thuggish acts.”

The definition of “thug” is as follows: “a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.” A “ruffian” (personally, I kind of like that word) equates to “a tough, lawless person; roughneck; bully.”

Not all protestors were violent; in fact, from the Intramuralist’s limited perspective, I believe the clear minority of protestors to be violent. Those who were violent, however, were cruel, vicious, and lawless. By definition they acted like “thugs.”

I realize that such identification carries with it a negative connotation. There’s a negative association with the word that makes many of us uncomfortable; we don’t like it; it speaks to something less than the ideal — something possibly negative. Obviously, if the violent protestors can be defined as vicious and lawless, that then diminishes the validity of their passion and point. No one wants their point or passion diminished.

The violent protestors and their defenders, no less, are merely practicing what much of society seems to have already, subtly accepted. We continue to avoid certain names or identifications — intentionally avoiding any implications or distinctions within the definition. We even go so far as to substitute other words, acting as if the identifications are equally accurate — and thus, equally good and true.

A further example is found in today’s seemingly, increasingly sensitive approach to identification found within organized religion. Many of us are uncomfortable with specific name calling, identification, or descriptions. Perhaps it’s why the White House has avoided the word “Islamic” or “Muslim” when describing the radical, violent terrorists. The majority of Muslims are not terrorists, but the current groups plaguing the world are Islamic; they don’t want any negative association tied to the religion.

We seem to have similar trouble discussing Christianity. We used to be more comfortable identifying a person who has placed their hope and faith in Jesus Christ as a “Christian.” Now, though, we often utilize the word “spiritual” instead for entire people groups — groups which sometimes have nothing to do with Jesus. We seem uncomfortable identifying any faith that might be perceived as lesser — as anything that may diminish the validity of the potential wisdom or truth.

I thus appreciated the words this week of The Daily Beast’s Barrett Holmes Pitner, who wrote that use of the word “thug” is “a way to diminish and thus disregard black life instead of respectfully exploring the experiences of black Americans.” I agree with the diminishing. The use of the word “thug” diminishes much; it diminishes the point the protestors are attempting to make. The reality is also true that if any person acts in such a vicious and lawless manner, their point will be diminished.

The problem with our words — and the associated identification, friends — isn’t the use of the words; it’s the intentional avoidance… and the avoidance due to what may or may not actually be true.

Respectfully… always…

AR