Editor:

     Let’s be clear about gangs.  As you know, that term has been used a lot around these parts lately, and, quite frankly, I’m confused. 

            Webster’s defines “gang” as a “group of persons working together, or having informal and often social interaction.” There is a peripheral definition meaning “adolescents grouped for criminal activity,” and thus the use of the word gangster in modern culture. But the obsession with gangs mystifies me. 

            Didn’t a gang of young people all dressed alike back in the early 1940’s come together to defeat a power hungry dictator in Europe? Didn’t a similar gang of youth stymie the imperalistic yearnings of an Asian Emperor? A gang of a dozen or so followed a young Jewish rabbi in the Galilee and thought about things like peace and love. Another gang in the early 60’s fought for basic human and civil rights by defying provincial local laws that kept them out of certain businesses.

            A similar gang on college campuses helped put an end to an unpopular war being fought for questionable causes. A gang of youth, both men and women, are right now attempting to plant the seeds of democracy in the desert of the Middle East.  And a gang of young men, all adolescents, but of several races brought to our village the glory of a state football championship in 2005. I’m not sure what the fuss is all about. 

            Gang activity can literally move mountains. Gang activity may find a cure for cancer. Of course, I’m not unmindful of the opportunity that any institution or thing has of being used for improper purposes. 

            The TV, the Internet, food, cars, cigarettes, and booze can be deleterious when abused, and, so can gangs be. But, it is the illegal or immoral activity that we should be concerned with, not the gangs. Let’s get off the young peoples’ backs. Be vigilant when suspicious activity is afoot, but leave the gangs alone when it isn’t.  

Carl T. Cone, J.D.

Statesboro