Author Topic: DUmp poll: Is the term "thug" racist?  (Read 4672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GOBUCKS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24186
  • Reputation: +1812/-339
  • All in all, not bad, not bad at all
Re: DUmp poll: Is the term "thug" racist?
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2014, 04:29:30 PM »
Doesn't that just plonk your kerfunkle?

Au cntrainere.

Offline Aristotelian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1589
  • Reputation: +167/-10
Re: DUmp poll: Is the term "thug" racist?
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2014, 05:41:18 PM »
I didn't read the whole thread, did anyone ever go back and look up the etymology? Here it is for anybody with any interest in what the words we use every day actually started out meaning:

Etymology of Thug



thug (n.) Look up thug at Dictionary.com
    1810, "member of a gang of murderers and robbers in India who strangled their victims," from Marathi thag, thak "cheat, swindler," Hindi thag, perhaps from Sanskrit sthaga-s "cunning, fraudulent," possibly from sthagayati "(he) covers, conceals," from PIE root *(s)teg- "cover" (see stegosaurus). Transferred sense of "ruffian, cutthroat" first recorded 1839. The more correct Indian name is phanseegur, and the activity was described in English as far back as c.1665. Rigorously prosecuted by the British from 1831, they were driven from existence, but the process extended over the rest of the 19c.

The original thugs used to strangle their victims with handkerchiefs - I think that as well as lobbying for gun-control, the DUmmies should demand a handkerchief registry and licensing system.