Talk:Tar baby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Origin of Racial Connotation? 2 Claims vs. what we know 3 Wikipedia (in)famous for lists, so ... 4 Vandalism 5 Kerry Quote 6 Number of quotes 7 Evolution of term 8 African American 9 Racist? 10 Virginia Buckingham 11 Too many quotes

[edit] Origin of Racial Connotation?

Critics allege that this a racist term, but the reader can't evaluate the validity of that claim because no explanation of its origin is given. Were there racist overtones in the tale of Br-er Rabbitt (as there are in much of early twentieth-century American pop culture)? Is the mere link between tar and black skin the problem? Did it take on racist connotations through other quotes that aren't provided in the article?

(moved from Talk:Tar Baby)

Shouldn't the metaphor/racial term be under Tar baby, with a dab page at Tar Baby pointing to three places (Tar baby, the novel, and Brer Rabbit)? | Mr. Darcy talk 17:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think so, although I really see no reason to list Br'er Rabbit. The info on tar baby can be removed from that page since it is in the main tb article. And tar baby is not another name for Br'er Rabbit. Unless I'm somehow mistaken?--Rockero 17:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a remnant; Tar Baby was a redirect to Br'er Rabbit before the article on the Toni Morrison novel existed. If we're going to delete that reference, then we could make Tar Baby about the novel with a dab line pointing to the term, and Tar baby about the term with a dab line pointing to the novel. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I was the anon that did the main changes yesterday (see [1]). I think that "Tar baby" would be a better name for the article but it is a minor issue. I think that doing a disambiguation is a bit overboard -- the see macros at the top of the page should be good enough for literature with the same name. I think that the Br'er Rabbit reference can be within article rather than at the top. I would leave the novel at the "Tar Baby (novel)" location. There is also another novel called "Tar Baby" besides the Morrison one -- although I don't know the best name for that. (There was a bit of an edit conflict previously) --Deodar 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a mess--Tar baby (lowercase "b") has a history and so must be deleted. However, there is also some salvageable information there, so it is going to take some time. I think a dablink to the Toni Morrison novel should suffice, which would render a disambiguation page unnecessary. It needs cleanup, so I can't do it now, but if nobody gets around to it, I can probably do it later on tonight or tomorrow.--Rockero 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to just cut-and-paste the content from "Tar Baby" to "Tar baby"? I do not understand why you want to delete "Tar baby" first. That's what I would do, unless there is some guidelines against it. -ben

I've completed the ugly page move via just copying things around and addressing the various directs. It all looks good to me now. --Deodar 03:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to spend way too much emphasis on the disputed 'racial' connotations. Surely it's enough to just mention them rather than give details. DJ Clayworth 17:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the racial connotations are important, because someone unaware of them can get into trouble, as Gov. Romney did. Also, I don't think the racial meaning is "disputed". What is disputed is whether the word should be banned from polite discourse because one of its meanings is offensive. For an analogous situation, see the "porch monkey" dispute in Clerks 2.

As a non-native English speaker, I disagree... I didn't have a clear idea on how the term has been used until I saw the examples... Demf 23:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the trouble is that you may actually be getting a false impression of the usage. I'm not American, but I had certainly never heard 'tar baby' meaning anything other than a 'mess you can't get out of'. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claims vs. what we know

I'm reverting back one sentence to reflect what we know rather that what public figures using "tar baby" have claimed. We don't know that Mitt Romney, et al. didn't know prior to their employment of the term that it had (slight or great) racial connotations. We only know that they asserted this ignorance after the utterance. Also, why is one necessarily "surprised" that public figures occassionally speak in such fashion? --Patchyreynolds 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In cases like Romney, the mere fact that he used the term is strong evidence that he did not know the racial connotations. A self-interested politician of his background and ambitions avoids any language which he knows may give racial offense. The utterance itself indicates he was ignorant that some people would take offense. Gojomo 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Had Romney been giving a scripted televised address in front of a mass audeince, yes, I would agree. Two factors about this use give me, at least, pause. First, demographically speaking, his Iowa Republicans audience was probably overwhelmingly white. Quite often, off-hand slurs tend to slip out during inadvertant "it's-just-us" moments, something true of sexist remarks, classist remarks, homophobic remarks, etc. I'm not saying Gov. Romney would be consciously racist in front of a predominantly white crowd, just that his guard would have been higher in front of one that differed in racial composition than the one he likely faced. Second, while I agree that Gov. Romney (or his aides) would never knowingly insert a racist remark in a public Q%A period, this remark was unscripted. What an incipient presidential candidate would do if left to plot out a course in advance might be very different than what happens at the spur of the moment. For instance, I don't think Muskie meant to cry on camera in '72 but it nonetheless happened (unless one buys the "melting snowflakes" theory). I agree with your assertion that "self-interested" politicians (is there any other kind?) would be loathe to make the remark openly, yet history tells us they do so all the time. We just can't know, making it, I think, a "claim" left to the reader's inference. --Patchyreynolds 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But Romney wasn't talking about people. He used 'tar baby' in its original (and in my experience, overwhelmingly more common) usage, as a non-racial term, to describe a sticky matter that's hard to drop once touched. Many people (esp. old white Northerners/Westerners like Romney) have probably heard the tern used non-racially hundreds of times, and may not have heard it used as an racial term ever. (For example: searching the NYTimes archives finds dozens of innocuous uses of 'tar baby' in all kinds of news coverage over the past 25 years.) So even if the term has a racial meaning to some people, Romney's particular *usage* in context wasn't any sort of "it's just us" slur. 'Tar baby' does appear to be moving on a sort-of euphemism treadmill towards being a taboo term where it once wasn't. But in such a case, speakers being surprised by its taboo status is exactly the expected, common scenario -- not a manufactured excuse. (In fact, without the surprise and ensuing scold-storm, the news that the term is now taboo would not spread and the treadmill would stop.) Think of it this way: if I'm walking down the street, trip over a tree root hurting myself, and then say "I didn't see it", is it more accurate to say "he tripped over a root he didn't see" or "he tripped over a tree root he claims he didn't see"? The second, rather than being more accurate, actually injects a judgement of insincerity for which there is no evidence or even reasonable motive. Gojomo 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well made. Thanks. --Patchyreynolds 22:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia (in)famous for lists, so ...

I'm afraid that the article at Political correctness doesn't address the phenomenom of people getting dressed down for words they didn't know were going to be found to be racially offensive. For instance, PC doesn't mention the 'niggardly' episode. And the "water buffalo" 'investigation' blows my mind. So... where is the article that describes the mine field that is English, and points to all the words you shouldn't use? Shenme 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Should the repeated POV changes to the "Notable Recent Usages" section be considered vandalism?

After seeing what he is doing on the Mitt Romney page, I think it is safe to refer to his actions as vandalism. -71.216.165.231 23:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerry Quote

The example Kerry quote should stay. He wasn't quoting anyone in particular, he was paraphrasing the advice of "everybody on my staff, everybody I knew." Surely, they didn't all use the term 'tar baby'. To the extent any of them did, Kerry (another Massachusetts statewide officeholder) felt the term appropriate to reuse to summarize all their advice. It's also a good example of changing perception over the years; clearly the tendency to find offense in the term has grown since 1992. Gojomo 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of quotes

It seems as if the page is now suffering from the sheer weight of quotes, one that has actually buried the rather succinct definition of the term. Are all noteworthy? Can we remove some of these? Are folks in favor of keeping an ideological balance (Ivins and Kerry + Will and Romney), listing the most recent, etc. ?--Patchyreynolds 16:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest keeping the Romney and Snow quotes (as recent examples where someone was criticized for the use) and Kerry and Ivins quotes (as other examples where the use went unremarked), plus note that there hae been many other innocuous uses that generated no controversy in mainstream media coverage over the years (NYTimes, Boston Herald, Boston Globe, Time magazine, etc.) Gojomo 06:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Such lack of controversy is remarkable in itself. I put up the recent quote up by Andrew J. Bacevich that was deleted (as well as the Kerry quote that's still there). Perhaps I should have mentioned then that it's not just the Bacevich quote that's noteworthy, but the fact that the Boston Globe published it as written, with no apparent outcry. Yet the same paper took Romney to task on their front page for extemporaneously using the word during a stand up Q&A session. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? In other words, why should we trust the front page gatekeepers to tell us what "controversial usage" is when they've already shown their lack of impartiality? Maybe there needs to be another short section to address the hypocrisy involved.

[edit] Evolution of term

I tightened up the quotes along the lines mentioned in a previous post, but did want to raise a question about the dates of usage. I guess I'm wondering precisely when the term began to assume racial connotations. It it was only recently it would seem to millitate against inclusion of older quotes, if only because the speaker would have to be clairvoyant to foresee a later etymological development. Like many, however, I only know the term in its "Brer Rabbit" usage until lately. Anyone have any information on this? --Patchyreynolds 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African American

It is not clear in this article whether the term African American is intended to refer specifically to Americans of African descent or to blacks or people of color generally. Since the Wikipedia is available world-wide, not only in the U.S., I suggest that unless a reference to people of color is specific to American POC, it would be better to use another term: POC, Black, whatever. 24.199.88.57 13:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racist?

Can anybody provide an explanation of why "tar baby" is considered a racial slur at all -- aside from obvious conclusions that one could draw from the denotative definition? Or examples where it *was* used in a racist context? I've never heard it used in such a way that it suggested any kind of racial bias, and I can't find any proof that it generally carries any. MMZach 07:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question..... is it because a tar baby is a human figure covered in tar and tar is black? Can anybody find an internet source that does not reference current news sources? 68.190.48.20 14:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But there are two separate issues at hand: 1) Do many find the term racist and/or offensive?; and 2) If so, how did the term come to acquire this correlation? The first issue appears indisputable at this point is well-documented in this article. Once Republican civil rights figures and the head of the Boston chapter of NAACP speak out against the offensiveness of the term, it's established. In effect, the proof of its offensiveness lies in the hue and cry raised upon its employment. (Unless, of course, one could substantiate with evidence that such remonstration is all part of a ginned up scheme.) Also, the fact that Romney and McCain apologize for their usage acknowledges the offensiveness of the term, their motive or ignorance of this notwithstanding. Continually qualifying the fact that it is an offensive term with the phrase "for some" elides the fact that offensiveness, by its very nature, is never total. It would be just as fair to say, "A burning cross is considered offensive by some." One may argue about the motive or foreknowledge around the censured utterances--and I don't think this article has ever claimed that Romney, Kerry, et al attempted to offend--but the term clearly has reached the status of offense (for some!). The second question, revolving around how the folktale figure acquired this semantic linkage is the question still ripe for examination and scholarship. I would imagine it lies in intertwined reasons joining nineteenth-century literature, national magazine culture, racial stereotypes, literary representations of "Negro" dialect, and yes, the associations with a Disney film now widely condemned for its soft-pedaled racism. Any cultural historians or etymologists with some time on their hands? --Patchyreynolds 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying "burning a cross is offensive to some" is a true statement, but you're omitting some nuance and using it as a false comparison. Burning a cross is a symbol of a terroristic threat to blacks. Not everyone objects to the intention behind the symbol (such as white supremacists for example) but we all agree on what that symbol means. The tar-baby thing is different... not everybody agrees that the word means something offensive. In fact, nobody can produce a single documented instance of anyone ever using this term to degrade black people. Not even the people offended by the term can explain what the supposed offense is; essentially it's just 'we don't like it, don't use it'. If they can't explain the offense, this is just trying to enforce arbitrary speech codes on others. 68.219.43.96 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I doubt that most white supremacists would embrace the term "terrorism" for this tactic, thus defusing the notion that "we all agree" on your reading of the symbol. (Nor, as a matter of fact do most members of white supremacist movements use your label, preferring instead "white pride.") And if you re-read my earlier comment you'll see that you've once again combined what I argue are two separate point to address. The first is whether or not "tar baby" is offensive. The simple fact that so many are offended by the term affirms ipso facto its offensiveness. You might personally find a film dull, might not understand its thrilling quality, might not be able to sensically trace the narrative thru-line creating suspense, but if a bunch of audience members scream, it's scary (or at least retty darn startling). The second issue, the one still ripe for investigation and documentation, is the provenance of this offense. It might be that the folklore character represents the corporeal manifestation of racist stereotypes (e.g., black, dangerous, polluting to the body, etc.). It might be Harris' representation of dialect. It might be its linkage to the Disney film or the antebellum American South. It might be a combination of these or something else altogether. It might even be that members of certain interest groups originally created and subsequently fanned the offensiveness of the term to further their own agenda. All of these could be investigated and documented. The fact that the article as it currently stands does not yet lay out this evolution should in no way eclipse the fact that the term clearly has developed negative racial connotations. As well, intent of use only becomes an issue when notations of use presume a motive. If the article claimed that Sen. McCain meant to debase African Americans, well, yes, we'd have to prove that he deployed "tar baby" with intent to harm. Other than that, whether or not someone intends it to offend in no way mitigates its offensiveness, only their culpability. (And as a side note, though I don't believe the senator meant to use the term offensively, he had to have heard of the earlier Romney flap. It might have slipped his mind, but it's unlikely that he was wholly unaware of the turmoil the term previously caused one of his chief rivals.) Finally, it's not "their" job to "explain the offense" (whoever "they" might be for you); it's our job as writers of the article. This article isn't about the justness of a certain position, but about the why's and wherefore's. --Patchyreynolds 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood my point by latching onto the term "terroristic". Let me clarify it. Burning a cross is a symbol that indicates a threat against blacks. While a slim minority aren't offended by such threats and may even support them, nobody disputes the meaning of the symbol of the burning cross. The tar baby situation is different. The meaning of this symbol is disputed. How do we know what it means? Those who have used it claim no racial offense or association, so no help there. Those claiming to be offended can't describe why it's offensive, so no help there. You could dig up some tenuous academic associations, but if that were the case, wouldn't the offendees come out and say it? This looks overwhelmingly more like the case of niggardly than anything else... the term bears a passing resemblance to something that someone might find offensive, and some have been quick to affirm that offense 66.156.56.202 02:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia Buckingham

Some editors seem to find her viewpoint objectable. I've put it back in unless anyone can come up with a reason why reporting her POV is invalid. 68.190.48.20 16:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many quotes

Suggestion.... under the "Controversial usage" section how about we keep the first paragraph and remove all the bloody quotes and just keep the links to the various articles as references? As it stands now the article breaks NPOV by making an argument that Republicans are being targeted for using the term tar-baby but not democrates. However, a simple Google news search shows numerous hits were Republicans used the term without controversy and where some Democratics were admonished. 68.190.48.20 05:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)