[Green_Monkey23]

Hey, im pretty new to the site, i havent really posted much on here but i kinda have one question that ive been wanting to know ever since ive been on these forums. I dont mean to rant but before i ask my question i kinda wanna give just a little background so you can understand my point of view i guess. So im a young black male from an urban neighborhood in durham nc, which is beside raleigh, chapel hill, cary etc so pretty city in my opinion. In my neighborhood, almost everyone has a "pit bull" so ive been around them my whole life and until this forum considered myself to be somewhat of a fancier which i use loosely, because i know i have tons to learn. Ive done a lot of reading on this site and other pit bull wed sites and whenever the discussion comes up about the downfall or bad reputation of the breed, someone points out "thugs" or what not. I personally am in no way a "thug" im currently a college with plans of going to grad school when i grad, but in apperence in some peoples eyes i may resemble a "thug" but maybe not, but in no way am i a thug. Now in my opinion i think that its the opposite away around, its not the dog fighters or thugs thats giving this breed its bad rep because if that were true then wouldnt the dogman of the past be labeled in that same category? Its not the thugs who take these dogs to the dog park and something happens, and majority of the time its not their dog who attacked someone else. Personally i hate any negitive press that gets attributed to breed, but i think that it comes from irresponsible owners. In a way i feel like a lot of people on these forums contradict themselves because they talk about not judging the breed as a whole but people judge a group as a whole(and im not talking about race but in some situations it applies). To make a long winded question short, why is that SOMETIMES people blame "THUGS" or used on another website "URBAN" for the bad rep that pit bull owners get when most of the people are going by looks and dont really know the person at all.

(Im not saying that everyone feels this way but a lot of people do, and im just looking for opinions bc its a stereotype that isnt deserved in my opinion)

[7HlBQS8j]

rioechhs
Thats a very good question and I can not honestly answer that. I have not read every post on this site but I do not remember anywhere that someone said that it was Thugs that caused the issues I do know its posted on here that taking Pitbulls to the dog park is a not a good idea by several members. I know I have made a Remark about the Gangster wannabes and the chaining of dogs in the front yard to look tough is part of the problem. but that is because where I live you have it and I see it. The dog is feed and watered and that is all. no training no real contact the animal is more of a lawn ornament and that is not a color issue it happens in all races. Most of the people on here actually put the blame where it lies and that is on irresponsible owners and irresponsible breeders to include and not limited to dog fighters and I have no use for them. people that are idiots and put the dogs in situations that can be controlled that the dog should not have been put into in the first place. Owners that do not take the time to learn about the breed so that they have an understanding of how to properly care for and raise a good dog. Back yard breeders. Most will agree that we need quality breeding to better the breed not quantity we have more dogs than homes. and I would hope that if thug was mentioned it was in reference to a thug because of who he was and not skin color.
I have read somewhere but I do not think it was this site that refereed to part of the issue being in the urban communities but if I remember correctly I believe that post really was about the number of Pitbulls running loose in some Urban communities

I do not think anyone on here is going to judge you on where you live or skin color. it will be more on your actions but you do have to understand that not everyones opinions are going to be the same and be tough skinned because someone is not going to agree with you on something sometime and is going to let you know about it. but that is one of the great things about it you get others opinions on things and and if presented properly and you take it as an opinion not as a attack on you. that person may make sense to you and change your way of thinking just like someone could present something to me or anyone on this site and make a change in the thinking process. Just so you know I am a firm believer that dog fighting is Wrong and I think anyone that participates in it is a piece of something and it aint gum and that is something that can get me a little wound tight at times but I do try and present my opinions in a civil manner may be harsh but do it with out attacking someone I am sure sometimes I fail at that but I do try.I think If people want to see two animals fight in a pit or ring what ever they want to call it they should climb in that ring and go to town beating the crap out of each other you have the ability to make that choice so I am more that willing to go watch it and maybe even place a bet or two. These animals are not given that choice we force it upon them and that is wrong.

[Green_Monkey23]

And i agree for the most part, but its more the assumption that because someone looks a certain way and has a pit bull thug or gangster(and i dont mean black). I actually think that a lot of people who think this way are black. I agree that not everyone is going to agree with me, i knew when posting this that i would have people disagree, and i have think skin in my opinion, i think if anyone has an opinion on the matter their open to share it, id personally like to hear it, that is why i asked. I just wanna s

[bloriMal]

This dude actually has a really good point.

He is saying that there is a stgma attached to pit bulls and young black men in urban areas.

And there is.

He is also saying that it's not those stigmatized people who's dogs are making the 6 o'clock news every day with attacks and maulings.

And he's right.

If you look at the news stories, most of them involve lower middle to upper middle class suburban white folk.

I think most of the stigma attached to "thugs" is that most small time dog fighters are preadolescent black males in urban areas. This does seem to be the case most of the time.

Also that it seems most every young black male must have a pit bull as a status symbol. However, this has turned into every young male of any race these days.

People are just as scared as thugged out (dressed) black males as they are of pit bulls. And since many of these guys have pit bulls, the stigma goes hand in hand.

Black men who dress in the hip hop style are suffereing from the exact same fear mongering as the pit bull itself is. "That black man is wearing baggy jeans, a loose white t-shirt, and gold chains...he must be a criminal! And he drives a nice car, he must be a drug dealer!

This is a society of fear and ignorance. "She wears all black, and dyes her hair black, and wears make up to make her look sickly...she must worship the Devil!" "He has a green mohawk, and tons of peircings and tattoos...he's probably addicted to heroin, and he'll rob you at knife point!" He has wild hair and a beard, wears a leather vest and drives a Harley...he's a murderer, and a rapist! He wears a cowboy hat, tight Levi's and cowboy boots...he's an ignorant, racist redneck!" Etc, etc, etc.

I for one, have learned not to judge on appearences. People are seldom what they seem at first glance.

[ffdfriendforurr]

Durham, Raleigh, etc... is hardly what I'll call an urban area. The word urban means city, not black. The world is full of stereotypes and that's never gonna change. As long as you know who you are and what you are not who cares how others see you?

[tabcdyop]

I live in mooresville nc. And there are pitbulls everywhere as well, That stigmas stupid. The only people I've had try to recruit me to fight my dog have been rednecks that have teeth like a jack-o-lantern. Maybe try to soften up his appearence a little bit, by putting a bandana on him. I'm not saying you would choose this, but stay away from a big heavy chain or padlock. That kinda has an intimidating look and isn't really good for the dogs neck. Other than that If people don't like it it's their problem for being ignorant.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

It's the human condition. Humans like to generalize. The smarter one's will make a conscious effort to judge a person based on their individual merits.
The rest, well, what can you do?

[tabcdyop]

it sux, but people are always going to judge based on appearance. There are good and bad people in all races. You can't judge someone just for their apperance, you'll have no idea what type of person they are until you talk to them or get to know them. And when I used the word redneck up there I wasn't using it in a bad way.....I have plenty of friends that are considered and consider themselfs rednecks. There are all different types races that fight dogs and gang members can be any color or race. I'm from california where there isn't as much racism and it seems to be much more diverse out there. I put a baby blue bandanna on my dog and take his spiked collar off when I walk him to soften up his appearence and people seem alittle more easy around him when I do that.

[Green_Monkey23]

I know what the word urban means, i meant it as city, but as well as black. My family is actually from Newark NJ (weekway), and i know that theres a diff between the two but regardless of the fact my point is still the same.

I think that gatorpit said it best "that there is a stigma attached to pit bulls and young black men in urban areas"

If you read a lot of post even on this website, gamedogs, gopitbull, etc theres always at least one post that referance "thugs" at dog shows and my point is, why is he a "thug". Its like because you look a certain way and have a pit bull people assume that your a thug and therefor you must be an irresponsible owner, you must participate in dog fighting or be a byb whatever. In some situations it may apply but not always, but to blame thugs as the problem to me is kind of idiotic because their dogs arnt the ones attacking people on the street or whose dog attacked a child. Everyone doesnt think like this ive met many people who have stopped crossed the street to come and meet my dog. im just a little confused on the matter as to why, i guess its kind of a rhetorical question, it just like people see the pit bull and assume that it must be unstable, that some people see young people dressed a certain way, with a certain type of dog then he must be a thug, and not know anything about the dog he has or history about it. I seem to have gotten back on race, but im trying to stay away from it because i dont believe in the "because im black" phrase but id be ignorant to believe that in some cases its not the case.

[voodoosdv]

Strange, maybe it's the area I'm from (SoCal, so plenty of black people here too) but the pitbull stigma is less about "black people" and more about "thugs" (which in these parts usually means black, brown and yellow). I also realize that in many other parts of the US, white guys will also fit that stigma. So I actually think it's less about the color of the people and rather the local flavor, if that makes sense.

But if we are simply wondering why the non-pitbull crowd might associate pitbulls with "thugs", why not look at the following things:

1. Why are most pitbull sites embedded with Olde English font? Haven't really noticed the local knitting club crocheting "Ole E" letters in their latest caps. I can tell you of one place that LOVES Olde E: prison.
2. Why are plenty of pitbull sites pumping hip hop and rap? No, HH and rap are NOT thuggish in and of themselves, but there seems to be a theme...
3. What's with the names of Gotti, Capone, Noriega, and all thug, criminal, dictator related monikers? Is it for a greater appreciation of world history?
4. Why are pits the only dogs portrayed in music videos as chained, human eating animals? I can name at least three rappers whose videos perpetuate the dog fighting look. Can't name a single country, R&B and slow jam singer whose video does the same.
5. Generally speaking, there's an irony from the "non-thuggish" crowd that continues to dress, speak, act and carry on like thugs whilst proclaiming "We're not thugs. But eff you if you think that". The old saying of looking, walking and quacking like a duck probably applies here...

Now, none of these things by themselves are "thugs", but honestly which of these things are NOT associated with "thugs"? The guy who shaves his head, grows a goatee, wears extra large pants, sags, wears white Cortez sneakers, uses a military belt, has sleeve tats, drives a lowered ride with dubs, mugs when taking pics, squats when taking pics, is liberal about weed smoking, can talk about the last 7 fights he's been in, did not go to college, doesn't hold a steady job, etc. Again, none of these things in and of themselves is "thuggish" but are people really supposed to believe these individuals are NOT trying to perpetuate the thuggish image. Puhlease.

Btw, please note that these descriptions don't necessarily apply to one race--we have plenty of black, white, brown and yellow sub groups that follow all of these things.

It's merely an attempt to explain WHY pits and thugs are almost always associated together.

[janeloveslifenow]

Excellent point / question, one I have thought about a lot too.

On this forum I have seen the reference to "street thugs" many times. It is always used in a very specific context, in debates about dogfighting. The line usually goes like this (quotation marks mine): The "dogmen" did it "right," unlike the "street thugs" today.

So, the comparison is being made not between pit bull owners, but specifically between presumed different "types" of dogfighters: The "dogmen" or "dogmen of the past" who presumably fought dogs "the right way," and the "thugs" or "street thugs" who presumably fight dogs "the wrong way."

This comparison (made over and over) brings up tons of connotations if one wants to read between the lines. White versus black or Hispanic? Southern versus yankee? Rural versus urban? Old versus young?

Giving people the benefit of doubt I believe they are mostly referring to the past versus the present, when dogfighting used to be a respected (by many) sport which was (presumably) done more "humanely" than today.

But I often wonder what the purpose is behind the choice of term "thug" or especially "street thug" to describe dogfighters who "do it wrong." Those are very loaded terms.

[IdomeoreTew]

Um, when I say "thugs" I'm clearly talking about those who break the law, being violent, breeding poorly tempered "pit bulls" and condoning their HA because "pit bulls are tough dogs". Well, pretty much also anyone who purposely breeds a dog who should be gentle to be HA I also have to put in there. After all, upstanding citizens don't go around breeding an otherwise nice dog breed to be human aggressive, they have no reason or desire to create liabilities.
Those with drugs or money to protect, or who feel the need to have a "pit bull" to make themselves look tough also...

Young men (and women) who are within the law, and don't try to sick their pit bull terriers on people or use them as attack dogs or deal drugs or purposely breed man-eaters (untrained, aggressive beasts, not police dogs!) certainly aren't "thugs", no matter what color they are, or where they come from.

[Green_Monkey23]

I actually dont agree with some of that statement, i might have misinterpreted some what you said so correct me if im wrong, but i dont think most people if any breed pit bulls to be human aggressive. The thugs you are talking about who break the law, most likely participate in dog fighting and as everyone on this forum know "dogs breed to fight cannot show ha or they would be killed" right or wrong? Now there are people who bred dogs to be ha, hense the doberman, or any protection dog for that matter. I dont think someone can be classified as a "thug" bc he's a byb, hes just a byb or irresponsible owner. I of course can understand someone breaking the being considered a thug but upstanding citizens dog bred dogs to be human aggressive? Again the doberman was created by a mailman, which i hope by your standards would be considered an upstanding citizen. Would you put him in that category?

Now im going to quote you one this, you said that when I say "thugs" I'm clearly talking about those who break the law, being violent, breeding poorly tempered "pit bulls" and condoning their HA because "pit bulls are tough dogs". so its safe to assume that you have made that comment before, and when you said it was attribute the bad press of pit bulls to "thugs". im not saying it doesnt play a part but to totally place blame on them is ridiculous. Its not their dogs attacking other dogs at the dog park, and blame should also be placed on the people who buy from byb, what market thrives without any buyers?

[NEWyear]

Dobermans were developed by a tax collector. Few would deem them an upstanding citizen. Thats beside the point. Everything is about image. If someone wants to turn up trying to look hard, then labelling them a thug is not out of line. If you ever attended a show around my way you would see the extent of the problem. Most of the traditionalists won't attend now because its such a bad image for the breed and there is enough heat on them as it is.

[Green_Monkey23]

I actually just read a new thread that was above mine that titled "American Bulldogs being called pit bulls in attack?" A 3 year old girl was killed by her own dogs in there kennel, i doubt very seriously that the mother was "thug" prob far from it but it proves my point exactly that most people you hear or see on the news with dogs attacks arnt owned by thugs. She made a very costly mistake, but it happens, which leads to bad press therefor a bad rep for APBT, even though they were AB's, the public really cant tell the difference.

[NEWyear]

The image projected by "undesireable" elements of society do their harm in turning most people against the breed and then the stories reinforce people's fears. If they didn't have the bad image to begin with, people probably wouldn't pay much heed to these dog attacks. But everything is speculative. They have always been prepared to attack people. Many of the best dogs of history have bitten people. For the purposes of their cause, many choose to believe it wasn't the case. The breed really needs to be accepted by owners, warts and all.

[blogwado]

I think the term, thug, is a bit of a catch-all that people use, probably not the best idea, but it happens. I don't think they necessarily mean "all urban black" people.

From what I have read and heard, "thugs" and "white trash" have added a lot of problems to the breed, because they have disregarded the rules of dog fighting, and just thrown any two dogs together, and are your general idiots that give the "fight to death" rule. However, yes, people who ignore what this breed is about and go to dog parks, or stuff like that help add to BSL big time.

From what I have read there were some great Black Dogmen, so, I don't think the majority are saying "Urban blacks" make this breed bad. I think they just mean the scum (whether black, whites, Mexican, etc).

[Green_Monkey23]

I agree in a way, i personally havent been to any ambully shows, and in a way i guess that for lack of a better word people would use thug, but do you think that somene who has bad impression of the breed would go to a show like that? People who go to those already love the breed, yea i can see how "fanciers" would be disappointed but the people who believe the propaganda about pit bull dont know what goes on their. They get their beliefs about pit bulls from the media, movies, rap videos portray people looking tough with pit bulls, and more time then not that person is generally a minority, therefor any minority that walks and talks a certain way is labeled as being a "gangster" "wannabe thug" or "thug", and im pretty sure that it goes for whites as well but i think that even people on these pit bull websites sometimes reinforce that stereotype whether intentionally or unintentionally.

[blogwado]

There are many stereotypes associated with this breed, and some the general public see as "negative", which some of us may not see as a negative. For example, they think if you ride a motorcycle and/or have tattoos and own an APBT, you must want to think of yourself as a bad ass, when in reality, people just enjoy riding motorcycles, and love the art of tattoos, and enjoy a great breed of dog.

[bloriMal]

I actually dont agree with some of that statement, i might have misinterpreted some what you said so correct me if im wrong, but i dont think most people if any breed pit bulls to be human aggressive. The thugs you are talking about who break the law, most likely participate in dog fighting and as everyone on this forum know "dogs breed to fight cannot show ha or they would be killed" right or wrong?

Right and wrong.

If a dog fighter is using the cajun rules and matching dogs the classic way, and is adhering to the code, then you are correct.

However most dogfighting today is not at all like it was then. Now people just throw two dogs together until one dies.

There's no turns, or pick ups, no scratches, there's no one in the ring reffereeing. Dogs aren't conditioned by good diet and exercise to be in top fighting form. Now they're beaten and starved to make them "mean". They're fed gunpowder to make them crazy with pain. They're allowed to maul small animals for "practice".

Sometimes they'll trap two aggressive dogs in the trunk of a car until theres no more noise, open it up, and see who's still alive at the end of the fight. This is called "trunking".

This is the "thug" method of dogfighting. They aren't trying to perfect a breed that exemplifies courage by testing it's skills in the pit...they are simply enjoying watching dogs fight to the death.

I hear people all the time talking about how "mean" their pit is. I've seen kennels advertising how viscious there dogs are...and I don't mean in regards to other dogs.

People are breeding HA pit bulls now, and they're doing it on purpose.

Just as the methods of training a fighting dog and the actual act of fighting dogs has been changed by the lies and misinformation spread by the media (in a large part the HSUS), so too has the perceived "correct" temperment.

Here's what happened: In the late 70's through early 80's, HSUS decided to use dogfighting as a way to get their orginization more attention. They started spreading lies that dogmen trained fighting dogs by beating, starving, feeding stolen poodles and gunpowder, etc. They started showing pictures of riled up pit bulls. Articles in news papers and magazines talking about how viscious fighting dogs were.

Every little punk out their decided they wanted a scary fighting pit bull. So they got one (before the pit bull rotties and dobies were the tough guy dogs of choice). They learned how to train their dogs by what the tv and newspaper told them.

The media told them that pit bulls are supposed to be viscious...so they teach them to be viscious, and breed the meanest to the meanest.

That is why "thugs" are often considerd the downfall of the breed. In this case "thug" doesn't mean hip hop black male youth, it means anyone who gets these dogs in order to look tough, trains the dog to act violently in order to look cool, breeds these dogs to create meaner dogs, or abuses and fight these dogs just for the sick thrill of watching something die.

People who do these things beleive that that's how it's supposed to be done.