[QUOTE=Miscue]
I see your point, but at the same time I think I’d be a bit insulted if anyone were to refer to me as a ‘politician’. The first thing that would come to my mind would be all the common traits of a politician that you didn’t list.
I could in theory say it’s a matter of perspective whether or not you should be insulted if I were to say you were ‘straight-up serial!’, like a serial killer, because I find you to be a fastidious, goal-oriented, methodical person. Those are positive traits, but before choosing the mascot of a serial killer I would consider seriously what peoples’ reaction to the term might be. I expect rational people would not feel the need to dig below the surface of what they know a serial killer to be, looking for his good sides. Why did the hip hop community not consider the same with so violent a term as Gangsta/gangster? I suspect because it espouses violence, and anyone white or black who does that is someone who will not get any respect from me. The concept that I should look for the good in a gangster reminds me of the T-shirt that says ‘Yeah, but what about all the *good *things Hitler did!’. I mean, does it really make sense?
[/QUOTE]
I think mswas draws it up nicely in the previous post.
I’d just add this. What if we use the term “warrior” instead? Because they’re basically interchangeable. And it’s not as if these people are just picking on weaker people. I would argue that such behavior makes you a bully. But someone who stands up to authority (like the police) and doesn’t take their shit, someone who demands to be treated with respect and as an equal, would get this kind of rep.
Gangsta behavior is ruthless and driven. It often includes violence but not necessarily. To use an example, Ice-T is highly regarded as a gangsta - an O.G., original gangsta. He was probably involved in some criminal activity when he was younger, but AFAIK, as long as he’s been an MC/actor, the guy has never been arrested, nor has he ever had a run-in with the law. His hustle is making money and projecting an image. He doesn’t have to go around smacking people to earn cred; he already has it.
GWB easily has more blood on his hands than any two-bit hustler in the hood, but somehow people see his positive attributes and rationalize the violence. Same thing with gangstas. People are drawn to the Robin Hood aspect and glamorize it, whilst ignoring the ugly side. It’s what we do more or less to any heroes in our society. If someone said, “I really admire this president,” you probably wouldn’t look at them with any sort of incredulity. Presidents are often the most admired people in polls, etc. But in the day-to-day dealings a president can bomb a village of civilians, fire workers in an entire industry (think Reagan dispatching the air traffic controllers), grant clemency to criminals… the list goes on. But there’s a lot of rationalization to defend the “bad” actions of the president.
The last point I will make refers to the fact that in low-income communities, there is often a profound lack of “order.” Social services aren’t efficient or in existence. Things that middle-class folks do, like call the police when a crime takes place, aren’t always done in the same way. When I call the police in my middle class neighborhood, they are prompt and friendly. In some communities, they show up when they feel like it, and they treat the people like shit. So if the goal is to prevent crime or secure one’s property, they might go about it in a different way, but the ultimate goal is the same.