Democratic lawmaker hits justice as ‘Uncle Thomas’

[ChezC3]

If that politician wrote "Thomas is a shameless sell-out who identifies so much with the rich and powerful, mostly white, elites that he is willing to make decisions that harm his own oppressed people" would there be as much outrage?

It seems to me that calling him an Uncle Tom is essentially short hand for the exact same sentiment. Although I agree that it is not appropriate for a white guy to used the term, there was no racist intent.

I think virtually everyone knows that, but conservatives are playing a "gotcha" game to create the impression that Democrats/liberals are as racist as many conservatives. In other words they are trying to use the race card to justify their own racist policies. (I can believe that many conservatives are not really conscious of the real intent of this ploy and are being sincere.) This controversy is most akin to the uproar over a politician's proper use of the word "niggardly."

As a white man who grew up as a minority in his neighborhood for the better part of his formative years, who has more black friends to this day than of any other demographic, who people whom I speak with think I have a southern accent despite not having lived for any significant period of time any more south than the South Suburbs of Chicago, who feels he has a good take on the "pulse" of the black community -- I can say without any reservation, that the term Uncle Tom and House N**** are synonymous. They actually are used in tandem redundantly.

Usually the phrase would go "House N***** Uncle Tom!"

I can't tell you how many times I have heard this. Too many to count and while I understand completely anecdotal evidence is just that, my opinion remains firm in the fact that the term "Uncle Tom" does have racial implications.

As I had said before, far less was said than this and it ended careers or opportunities for people. But that was different it seems because it was a white Conservative speaking. Now the wagons circle, the parsing of words begins, the ludicrous justifications come out all in an attempt by the dealers of race cards to not look completely hypocritical.

If you don't find it to be a racial term than why on God's green earth would you find it inappropriate for a "white guy" to use it?




As a post script; I wasn't giving bona fides in an authoritative manner, only providing background to allow others an understanding of where I am coming from and to expunge the notion that I'm playing "gotcha games" in the context presented. Like this is a tit for tat type of deal. It isn't If I am playing "gotcha" it's more like "Gotcha hypocrite! You wouldn't let the opposition get away with this. What do you have to say for yourself?"

 

[ChezC3]

Exactly. The rightwing meme is to characterize criticism of racism as racist for mentioning race. It's pitiful. But it's all they got.

No, they got most of the land, money, and power too...

you a soprano? mememememe...

 

[Hard Truth]

Is anyone going to claim that the intent of calling Thomas an Uncle Tom was anything other than: "Thomas is a shameless sell-out who identifies so much with the rich and powerful, mostly white, elites that he is willing to make decisions that harm his own oppressed people."

If so, what do you think he actually meant?

 

[ChezC3]

Is anyone going to claim that the intent of calling Thomas an Uncle Tom was anything other than: "Thomas is a shameless sell-out who identifies so much with the rich and powerful, mostly white, elites that he is willing to make decisions that harm his own oppressed people."

If so, what do you think he actually meant?

That's OK, I'll reiterate...

"...Now the wagons circle, the parsing of words begins, the ludicrous justifications..."

 

[ChezC3]

The image most would conjure especially a Harvard educated man when they hear the term "Uncle Tom"




To say anything different is to simply be dishonest.

 

[Hard Truth]

Its interesting that no one defending Thomas' honor will answer the question:

What was the politician actually trying to say when he called Thomas an Uncle Tom?

I say his intent was: "Thomas is a shameless sell-out who identifies so much with the rich and powerful, mostly white, elites that he is willing to make decisions that harm his own oppressed people." Which is not racist, only political.

 

[apdst]

Its interesting that no one defending Thomas' honor will answer the question:

What was the politician actually trying to say when he called Thomas an Uncle Tom?

I say his intent was: "Thomas is a shameless sell-out who identifies so much with the rich and powerful, mostly white, elites that he is willing to make decisions that harm his own oppressed people." Which is not racist, only political.

It's racism, because the system supports racist actions--institutionalized racism--against blacks who don't tow the party line.

 

[Hard Truth]

It's racism, because the system supports racist actions--institutionalized racism--against blacks who don't tow the party line.

You didn't answer the question. What was the speaker trying to say?

 

[apdst]

You didn't answer the question. What was the speaker trying to say?

Obviously, he was calling Thomas a sell out to his race.

 

[Hard Truth]

Obviously, he was calling Thomas a sell out to his race.

I agree. And that is not racist, just an opinion on what is best for that race. (It was arrogant, but not racist, for that white politican to say what is best for other people.)

 

[apdst]

I agree. And that is not racist, just an opinion on what is best for that race. (It was arrogant, but not racist, for that white politican to say what is best for other people.)

By that logic, it's ok to call someone a nigger, because not all blacks are niggers.

 

[rcart76]

Oh really? Why don't you give me examples. Please show me the last time a white Republican called a highly respected member of the government an "uncle Tom."

Do you even know what the term Uncle Tom means? If you did then you would know that it would be highly unlikely a republican reference someone as a Uncle Tom when majority of the time any black that is considered a Uncle Tom are conservative.

 

[rcart76]

Not at all. The point isn't even that he called him an Uncle Tom. The point was as of my OP no major news coverage had picked up on it. Being that the current climate is so hyper-sensitive, when everything is about race, when you have dimwits on MSNBC equating the IRS scandal to the GOP calling Obama a N-word -- yeah I am gonna make a fuss.

If you going call out MSNBC for over selling racism then please acknowledge fox news as well. Glen Beck himself said that Obama had a deep hatred for white people. And I will not even start on Hannity. The point is both networks have their extreme personalities. Also, both side play the race card.

 

[rocket88]

Glen Beck himself said that Obama had a deep hatred for white people.

Which is ludicrous when you think about it. Obama had a deep hatred for his mother? That must be why he was so affected by her death....

 

[ReformCollege]

Do you even know what the term Uncle Tom means? If you did then you would know that it would be highly unlikely a republican reference someone as a Uncle Tom when majority of the time any black that is considered a Uncle Tom are conservative.

No **** sherlock? Its a derogatory comment with the intentions of quelling dissent against the approved ideology. Don't agree with what the man says? Call him an uncle Tom and tell the rest of the black community to pay him no mind.

 

[ChezC3]

If you going call out MSNBC for over selling racism then please acknowledge fox news as well. Glen Beck himself said that Obama had a deep hatred for white people. And I will not even start on Hannity. The point is both networks have their extreme personalities. Also, both side play the race card.

I think it would be patently absurd to say Obama had or has a deep hatred for white people. He does have white blood running through his veins after all, no?

Having a hatred and exploiting the hatred in others are two separate things though. There is a difference between the white man and The White Man as well. Having known many many minorities to have nothing but love for the white man, the man in their same condition, who embraces them with friendship. These minorities will go on to tell that white friend their hatred and disgust for The White Man. The wealthy, well to do, persons of power, of separation, who want nothing to do with these minorities. With some their motives are race fueled, while others merely being that they aren't in their circles.

It is The White Man that Rev. Wright was railing against, who Obama did sit and listen to. It is this hatred for The White Man, not white men, that Obama and his minions are exploiting.

People by nature are prejudice. This prejudice, this relating and attraction to your own kind brings about a reaction when their own, those they identify with are attacked. The distinction I've shown is hardly ever made if it's even realized.

Now, when a person goes on the tele and equates righteous indignation for the purposeful targeting of opposition groups by the sitting administration, the wronged party is dismissed as racists for crying out against what can only be viewed as an illegal and egregious abuse of governmental power -- what do you think that is?

When a black man has risen through the ranks, has raised himself up, has attained the pinnacle of position, who can for all intents and purposes be considered a member of The White Man's inner circle, for him to be called an Uncle Tom?

Not praised for his success, but torn down for not staying in the muck with the rest of "his people" Not praised for doing what is right, for what was proper, for what was legal, nah, call him a race traitor, call him an Uncle Tom for not sticking with "his people".

That is what the Democrats do, that's what this whole thing was about. Screw individual achievement, what matters is the hive.

 

[pbrauer]

I think it would be patently absurd to say Obama had or has a deep hatred for white people. He does have white blood running through his veins after all, no?

Having a hatred and exploiting the hatred in others are two separate things though. There is a difference between the white man and The White Man as well. Having known many many minorities to have nothing but love for the white man, the man in their same condition, who embraces them with friendship. These minorities will go on to tell that white friend their hatred and disgust for The White Man. The wealthy, well to do, persons of power, of separation, who want nothing to do with these minorities. With some their motives are race fueled, while others merely being that they aren't in their circles.

It is The White Man that Rev. Wright was railing against, who Obama did sit and listen to. It is this hatred for The White Man, not white men, that Obama and his minions are exploiting.

People by nature are prejudice. This prejudice, this relating and attraction to your own kind brings about a reaction when their own, those they identify with are attacked. The distinction I've shown is hardly ever made if it's even realized.

Now, when a person goes on the tele and equates righteous indignation for the purposeful targeting of opposition groups by the sitting administration, the wronged party is dismissed as racists for crying out against what can only be viewed as an illegal and egregious abuse of governmental power -- what do you think that is?

When a black man has risen through the ranks, has raised himself up, has attained the pinnacle of position, who can for all intents and purposes be considered a member of The White Man's inner circle, for him to be called an Uncle Tom?

Not praised for his success, but torn down for not staying in the muck with the rest of "his people" Not praised for doing what is right, for what was proper, for what was legal, nah, call him a race traitor, call him an Uncle Tom for not sticking with "his people".

That is what the Democrats do, that's what this whole thing was about. Screw individual achievement, what matters is the hive.

Trivial compared to these Tea Party signs:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...67.7j6.13.0...0.0.0..1ac.1.17.img.-kSfQFp_Nb8

 

[ChezC3]

Trivial compared to these Tea Party signs:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...67.7j6.13.0...0.0.0..1ac.1.17.img.-kSfQFp_Nb8

First, a demonstration of a few hundred or even a few thousand vs. hundreds of thousands or millions of TV viewers and instigated by the POTUS

Hardly.

Second by your "everyone is doing it" response you're implicitly condoning this divisive behavior, this race baiting, this, racism.

I am not.

Third, your display does nothing to counter anything I've said. It only provides an affirmation that you believe race is an acceptable weapon to use when attacking your opponent.

I do not.

Fourth, by saying something is trivial in compared to -- what you are doing is quantifying racism. You're saying this or that is MORE racist. This is ridiculous, what's more, it's disturbing.

Racism is racism.

 

[rcart76]

First, a demonstration of a few hundred or even a few thousand vs. hundreds of thousands or millions of TV viewers and instigated by the POTUS

Hardly.

Second by your "everyone is doing it" response you're implicitly condoning this divisive behavior, this race baiting, this, racism.

I am not.

Third, your display does nothing to counter anything I've said. It only provides an affirmation that you believe race is an acceptable weapon to use when attacking your opponent.

I do not.

Fourth, by saying something is trivial in compared to -- what you are doing is quantifying racism. You're saying this or that is MORE racist. This is ridiculous, what's more, it's disturbing.

Racism is racism.

With all respect, I'm trying to understand the point you are making. What is instigated by the POTUS?