Is ‘Thug’ Racial?

In his haste to appear outraged over the recent transit strike, Mayor Bloomberg last week referred to the TWU leaders who organized the walkout as “thuggish.” Some have said the term is racially charged and stereotypical since the union is predominantly minority.
I agree the term is inappropriate, since the strike – although illegal and very arguably unecessary – was a peaceful demonstration and did not call for or in any way lead to violence. Webster defines thug as a cutthroat, ruffian or gangster, all violent people.
If we were to define all conduct which could be construed as bullying or imposing as thuggish, might that also include spending $75 million in a political campaign to drown out a rival’s message, while wooing away possible contributors to the cash-strapped rival? The term is without question hyperbolic in either usage.
But is it racially charged in the case of the strikers? To answer that, let’s not forget that while whatever number of the striking workers may belong to minority groups, so too do an equal or larger number of those inconvenienced by the strike, and the good mayor was trying to vent his spleen on their behalf. Two weeks prior, in a completely different context, the head of the police union, Patrick Lynch, referred to a cop shooting suspect on two occasions as a “skel” and a “mutt.” Lynch is white, the suspect black. There was no outrage. Probably because the victim, on whose behalf he was rightly indignant, was black as well. Context, after all, is everything.