So, it seems the governor of Massachusettes has put his foot in his mouth, and I'm curious how the board feels about his statement.
He said, regarding the Big Dig in Boston (a large construction project that has had nothing but problems since its start), "The best thing politically would be to stay as far away from that tar baby as I can."
Now, in this sentence, he's using the correct definition of the term "tar baby" - which is a difficult situation that is almost impossible to get out of. It's a reference to a "Bre'r Rabbit and the Tar Baby" by Uncle Remus, where Bre'r Rabbit is trapped by a doll covered with tar.
Of course, we know that the term "tar baby" gained a negative connatation as a racist term for black people.
My question is, because of the negative connotation, does the real meaning become unusable?
Other words come to mind that have this same problem - negative connotations destroying original word meanings. Does "gay" mean happy and cheerful anymore? Can someone use the word "queer" to just mean strange? Or talk about a bundle of sticks as a "fagot" of wood?
Some words gain new meanings without losing their original identity - "black" is still a color, "cracker" is still a snack food, and you can still have a "chink" in your armor.
Still other words are damned by similar sounding names, such as the notorious use of the word "niggardly" by a politician some years back to mean stingy.
In my opinion, the outcry over Romney's statement (and to Tony Snow's statement earlier this year) is overreacting. But then, I read Bre'r Rabbit and knew that meaning long before I learned of the racial epithet (which I didn't learn until high school when studying the 60's), and, being white myself, the word has never been used to target me.
I am curious about hatrack's thoughts on this, though.
(and PapaMoose, if you feel this is inappropriate, I'll gladly take it down - it's not meant to be in any way. Similarly, if it becomes inappropriate, I totally understand locking the thread.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: My question is, because of the negative connotation, does the real meaning become unusable?
I keep thinking of the "That's what she said!" 'King of the Hill' episode.
To me, the answer is a pretty straightforward 'no'. There are all kinds of words that are used as stand-ins for sexual acts, racist terms, what have you. It's the nature of the English language.
Pigeon-holing a word and not allowing it to mean a non-pejorative meaning is pretty much dooming that word and retiring it from the English language in polite company. In effect, we cede control of the language to a certain point of view.
There is no real reason to do this. It's perfectly, 100% clear that Romney wasn't being racist. Viewing what he said as racist is being wilfully blind to what he was saying and invalidating his point of view as an individual. It is living in the past, through a morally wrong point of view.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
I'd add that it's more acceptable coming from a Northerner/Westerner than from a Southern politician. I suppose the term may bemore often used in its racist sense in the South, but outside of the South we're far more likely to have heard of the term through the Br'er Rabbit stories, where the meaning is similar to "trap".
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
When I decided on a personalized "vanity" plate for my car, I wanted Bassoon. But, they said it had too many letters. So, I tried German, Fagot. The state wouldn't sell me that one. I hate it when a clear precise word is hijacked and used in a sloppy way. And, I often try to ignore the misuse untill it goes away.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It sounds as if he just made a mistake, though I'm surprised that the expression is still in political parlance.
Though, it may be a cunning linguistic move, considering it's a construction project involving quite a bit of tar.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I'd add that it's more acceptable coming from a Northerner/Westerner than from a Southern politician. I suppose the term may bemore often used in its racist sense in the South, but outside of the South we're far more likely to have heard of the term through the Br'er Rabbit stories, where the meaning is similar to "trap".
No one says it in the South, either, but it doesn't really change much if they did, imho. For instance, if Romney said, holding a hot dog,"This is the finest wiener I've ever had. Very firm and succulent. Something I can really wrap my mouth around!", is it really necessary for him to point out that he's not talking about penises?
Edited for spelling
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
See, I reject even the suggestion that he made a "mistake," since use of the phrase "tar baby" isn't -- or, rather, shouldn't be -- a mistake. It's only as racist as you want to make it.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I think it doesn't help if those terms already have a strong negative connotation. "Niggardly" is just a not nice thing to say about anybody.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't see a single thing wrong in what he said. I've also lived my entire life in the south and have unfortunately, met many racists but never have I heard an African-American called a "tar baby." The "n word" plenty of times. And a lot of other epithets I won't list, but "tar baby" is not among them.
I think the context is important, there is nothing in there to suggest Romney had anything racist on his mind. The word has a perfectly legitimate meaning appropriate to the context.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is the first time I've ever heard that phrase. There's nothing in the context to suggest that Romney was being rascist or is rascist.
I am glad I am not a politician.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Let's get this straight, the phrase is offensive. Calling anything a tar baby, or a "black kid nobody wants," is an affront to dignity, even if we take out the racial aspect and just have the phrase be about a kid that nobody wants. I don't think that anyone has used the phrase in the last 30 years without knowing the connotation is "a black kid that nobody wants," and that's a serious negative image that shouldn't be casually employed.
I don't think it was racist, but I do think that it shows poor taste.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Calling anything a tar baby, or a "black kid nobody wants," is an affront to dignity...
I think the second connotation -- the "black kid nobody wants" -- is often not in fact meant by the phrase.
Speaking as a Yankee, it's certainly not what springs to mind when I hear or use the phrase "tar baby." A tar baby is something that's designed to trap you and get you more stuck the harder you try to free yourself or fix the problem. "Black kid" isn't even on the radar. Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
Irami-
"Tar baby", in its original usage, meant "a situation impossible to extricate yourself from." It comes from a folk tale where a character made a fake baby out of tar to attract and trap another character.
I guess it was later used to mean "black kid", because of the color of tar. Toni Morrison wrote a novel called "tar baby" in part trying to rescue the word from the not very widespread racist meaning.
It's not quite as ridiculous as considering "niggardly" a racial slur, but it's in the same ballpark.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But it wasn't about being a baby that nobody wanted; it was about a doll made of tar that stuck to you when you punched it. The more you tried to free yourself, the more stuck you became.
I think that it would be wonderful if nobody had to worry about being misunderstood when they use terms correctly. But then, I am naive and idealistic.
[ July 31, 2006, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
A kid that nobody wants? What? I'm aware of two definitions for the term--one in which it's a general racist epithet meaning "black person", and one in which it is a small mannequin made of tar, wax, or some other sticky substance which is difficult to release one it has been grabbed. By extension, the second definition has come to mean any sticky situation that it's difficult to extricate yourself from.
Can you tell me about the origins of the phrase as meaning "a black kid nobody wants", Irami?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I don't think that anyone has used the phrase in the last 30 years without knowing the connotation
I think this depends strongly on culture.
I believe it's far more true to say that no member of the black community has heard the phrase in the last 30 years without knowing the connotation.
You're always more aware of epithets that have been leveled against your own people. Lots of people haven't heard the term "mick" as applied to the Irish, but having that ancestry makes me aware of it (not that the term bothers me).
Similarly, the Italians have a host of epithets leveled at them, which they are all acutely aware of, yet many people have never heard of them (certainly in areas where there are very few Italians).
Speaking only from personal experience as a white suburban kid, I didn't know that "tar baby" had anything to do with race until I was 16 years old. I had read Bre'r Rabbit and the Tar Baby (and watched a cartoon version) at least a decade earlier, and the image of Bre'r Rabbit struggling trying to get away from this trap is indelibly printed in my brain. It's in the same pigeon hole as "quick sand," "chinese finger trap," "bear trap," and any of the traps used in Most Dangerous Game.
When I actually think about the word itself, the racist meaning comes up in my head quickly on the heals of the initial meaning, but for most of my young life it did not.
So, does Romeny know the racist meaning of the word? Probably, yeah. Did the racial meaning even occur to him when he made that statement? I don't know, but I can easily see how it wouldn't have (just from my own experience).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not that I can speak for Irami, but when looking up the racial origins of the word online, it seems that "tar baby" can be used to refer to a particularly dark-skinned black person.
It is my understanding (again, no personal experience here, and Irami feel free to shoot me down if I'm wrong) that there is long standing value judgement placed on darkness/lightness of skin in the black community itself - with darker being less desirable than lighter.
So, if "tar baby" was used as meaning especially dark, and dark meant less wanted, I could see where his meaning comes from.
Still, it seems that connation relies at least somewhat on values held within the black community itself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that some people are thinking it has the same connotations as "red-headed stepchild."
I agree that he shouldn't have said it, but I don't think that it reflects ANYTHING negative about him at all, and I don't believe that he is rascist at all.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Let's get this straight, the phrase is offensive. Calling anything a tar baby, or a "black kid nobody wants," is an affront to dignity, even if we take out the racial aspect and just have the phrase be about a kid that nobody wants. I don't think that anyone has used the phrase in the last 30 years without knowing the connotation is "a black kid that nobody wants," and that's a serious negative image that shouldn't be casually employed. [Emphasis Added]
You are very much mistaken. I have never heard this connotation in my life. I can easily see how this word can be used in a racist fashion, but the specific image of a black kid nobody wants did not occur to me. When I read the quote, I understood exactly what he meant, and it seemed like a rather clever analogy. I don't think he did anything wrong or has anything to apologize for.
The "niggardly" incident was a teacher putting it on a vocabulary list, because it was in a story the kids were reading in their reader. IIRC, she forced to apologize for doing so, in order to keep her job. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I stand corrected. It's possible that Romney had purely in mind the inextricable trap aspect of tar baby, in which case, all is well.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It's also possible that tar may have come to mind because it is a road with tar on it after all. Could have been thinking about making a play on words that came out sounding entirely different.
AJ
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
This bothers me in the same way that the term "Uncle Tom" bothers me. The original Uncle Tom was heroic, but white people turned it around and created a caricature. The result is that uncle Tom has come to be used by black people as a pejorative term.
Likewise, the brer rabbit stories show ingenuity in storytelling, and represent a character who succeeds despite adversity. The African American community should be celebrating the reference.
What also really ticks me off is that Disney has locked "Song of the South" away from the public for exactly this reason. No doubt, a movie that shows black people as "happy in their lot in life" is unrealistic, and a product of its times, but it's clear to me that the movie was made to promote the idea (to whites) that black people are intelligent and we should all be able to get along if we work together. There are some Shirley Temple movies that should just outright be burned, but Song of the South should be available for viewing, if only for the historical value.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Icarus: David Howard, aide to the mayor of Washington DC, was forced to RESIGN for using the word "niggardly," entirely correctly, in a budget discussion.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I could see if he said, "It's all because of those tar babies this happened" But, it really was a clever use of an old story... People are a bit too sensitive about the wrong things.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: This bothers me in the same way that the term "Uncle Tom" bothers me. The original Uncle Tom was heroic, but white people turned it around and created a caricature. The result is that uncle Tom has come to be used by black people as a pejorative term.
My understanding was not that it was white people who changed the word's meaning; I thought black people did it themselves. Can you document that?
quote:What also really ticks me off is that Disney has locked "Song of the South" away from the public for exactly this reason. No doubt, a movie that shows black people as "happy in their lot in life" is unrealistic, and a product of its times, but it's clear to me that the movie was made to promote the idea (to whites) that black people are intelligent and we should all be able to get along if we work together. There are some Shirley Temple movies that should just outright be burned, but Song of the South should be available for viewing, if only for the historical value.
Disney has been wanting to release this movie to video for at least a decade now. They are paralized by fear of what a PR disaster it would be. Rightly so, given how much intellectual cachet is present is dissing Disney these days. They are also gunshy due to their experience trying to open a Civil War edutainment park in Virginia--though, given that the "edutainment park" business model seems to no longer be a viable one, I suppose they should be relieved, at this point, that they never built the park.
-o-
Seatarsprayan, wow, I had no idea. How asinine.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Now, I'm further curious.
I would hazard to say that in this particular case "tar baby" was meant in a totally innocuous way, but that it caused a bit of a stir regardless among people who feel the term strikes close to home.
How important is it for politicians to purge words with negative connotations from their vocabulary? We've seen what an onstage scream can do to a candidate's chances - a misunderstanding over word use could likely be just as damning.
Personally, knowing both the origin and connotation of the term "tar baby," I've effectively removed it from my spoken usage. While the image remains (specifically the cartoon one) in my head as a form of trap, I am a little more sensitive restricting words with racial or sexual connotation from teaching in an urban/suburban New Jersey middle school.
I'm sure Icarus has certain words he avoids using in the classroom that are Florida specific (and certainly anything with sexual overtones) out of an understanding of the audience involved. Teachers have to restrict their speech to make sure students don't veer offtopic or start whispering to one another over "I can't believe Mr. So-and-so said..."
Of course, teachers have only 20-35 students to worry about. It seems politicians need to wipe out swaths of their vocabulary to make it mass market consumable without the "I can't believe Candidate So-and-so said..." whispers.
While I don't feel using "tar baby" in the context he did is an indicator that he's racist, it might be an indicator that's he's just not a very good politician.
This has nothing to do with his ability to govern, of course, but his public relations prowess.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yeah . . . I never mention Spic-N-Span. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:My understanding was not that it was white people who changed the word's meaning; I thought black people did it themselves. Can you document that?
The Uncle Tom character of minstrel show fame was originated by white actors in blackface.
quote:Disney has been wanting to release this movie to video for at least a decade now.
Disney had said on no uncertain terms that the movie would never again see the light of day. As a result of pressure from a number of groups, there is now some possibility that the movie will be released again.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Your post seems to contradict what I have been told by imagineer friends of mine. If it will "never see the light of day again," it's not because Disney doesn't want it to, but because they rightly fear that it would be at least as disastrous for them as this comment has been for Romney.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The story reminds me of something that happened to Howard Cossell, where he referred to a black wide-receiver as a "little monkey." It appears from other comments he'd made (where he'd applied the same term to white athletes) that "little monkey" was linked in his mind simply to fast wide-receivers, but there was quite an uproar, eventually leading to ABC discontinuing his contract.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I did not know "tar baby" was an offensive term, but I think that it is based on where and when I grew up. There was not much racism towards African Americans where I grew up so I never heard the terms. I think I could identify most racist references towards Hispanics though. I did not know "cracker" was offensive until high school when a white friend of mine from the South used it to refer to herself jokingly. I also learned this year that "uppity" is racist and was shocked. So, I can believe Romney didn't know its connotations and just thought he was being clever in using tar baby with construction.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
This explains the strange looks I got when I used this term last year. To me it's always been a trap. I didn't even know it could be used as a racist term.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I consider myself to be a well-educated, well-informed Southerner, and have never heard the term "tar baby" used in a derogative or racist fashion. I have heard any number of other terms used by both white and black racists, but this one has been, until now, totally under my radar.
Note to Romney critics: There are many valid issues you can criticize Romney on. Picking this one and trying to run with it is an insult to voter intelligence.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I also learned this year that "uppity" is racist and was shocked.
See, now, I knew this. It was used often in reference to a black person who spoke out or tried to rise in the system, and I know it's touchy especially among black women.
Still, I worked with a terrific teacher who happened to be a very strong minded black woman, and we were teaching two different sections of an ancient cultures course. I had a book I thought she might want to look at because she tried very hard to have fair representation of minorities and of women whenever she could.
The interchange went something like this:
Her: "It's sometimes hard to find women to discuss in context of the course curriculum." Me: "I have a great book you could use." Her: "What's it called?" Me: "Uppity Women of Ancient Times." Her: "Uppity?!?" (very defensive) Me: "It's just the title! You know, women who bucked the trend and made themselves heard even in ancient times..." Her: "Oh, okay.." (calmed down considerably)
Totally stepped on a mine there, but once she knew it was a book title the conversation got a lot less tense.
Still, the one word got her ready to go to war, and I can see how politicians should avoid such trigger words, even if they're totally innocent and acceptable words in their own right.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think the most likely scenario is that he didn't even know of the word's racist connotation. If he had, I don't think he would have risked using it, even to make a witty point. Like many on this thread, I've never heard of it as an epithet before, and I seriously doubt he had.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: Note to Romney critics: There are many valid issues you can criticize Romney on. Picking this one and trying to run with it is an insult to voter intelligence.
I think you greatly overestimate voter intelligence.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
If he didn't, he's an incredibly unaware politician. Tony Snow got tagged for it only a couple months back, too, in his first White House address - with Jon Stewart picking up on it on the Daily Show.
You'd think that after one politician got some bad press for it, namely the spokesman for the White House, other politicians might be a little more sensitive. Like I said, bad politica public relations, but I don't think it was a racist statement.
Of course, whether or not that particular statement was racist doesn't mean anything one way or the other about Romney himself being racist.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
You beat me to it Icarus
FC- How can a statement be racist if the person that said it is not racist?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Wrong way round, Bao.
The statement could be innocent, but the person can still be racist.
I probably should have said "Even though the statement was innocent, that doesn't say anything about whether or not he's racist" or something. I was a little unclear.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm inclined to believe that unless someone is intending to communicate something offensive to you in the words they use, it is wrong of you to blame them for something offensive that you found in their words which they did not intend to communicate.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think I have it the right way around for what I'm trying to say. However, with your clarification, I understand that you meant that an innocent statement that can be interpreted as a racist statement cannot be used to determine whether someone is a racist or not. That is true.
However, it seems extremely unfair that such a statement should even suggest the question of whether he's a racist or not. Here's an example. Senator Obama is addressing health concerns about American sodium overconsumption, particularly in snack foods like peanuts and Wheat Thins. He mentions that he personally tries to avoid crackers. Is this inherently a racist comment because it contains a word that has a double meaning as a racial slur? Heck no. He was talking about snack foods for crying out loud. Should it even be suggested that he was a racist? I think such as suggestion is a slight against his character and tells more about the nature of the people making the accusation than it does the person who made the statement.
Edit: What Tres said kind of sums up what I'm saying here I think.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm inclined to believe that unless someone is intending to communicate something offensive to you in the words they use, it is wrong of you to blame them for something offensive that you found in their words which they did not intend to communicate.
I agree, unless you can make a plausible case for negligence, but I don't think that's the case here. The big dig is an intractable mess that involves tar. The allusion is appropriate, if unfortunate. ________ As an aside,
You know, republicans brought this on themselves. They built their southern base on the strength of sideways remarks at the expense of black people, and now the sins of a generation of politicans are coming to haunt Romney.
[ July 31, 2006, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I'm inclined to believe that unless someone is intending to communicate something offensive to you in the words they use, it is wrong of you to blame them for something offensive that you found in their words which they did not intend to communicate.
Hmm . . . I don't agree. Someone could not intend to give offense, but nevertheless have an opinion that is demeaning. Like if I say girls aren't good at math, but I don't mean anything bad by it, I just mean it as an observation, etc. I think people would have the right to take offense. I don't think anything like that is the situation here, I just don't agree that the speaker's intent to hurt is the only thing that matters.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think it just points to a lack of awareness on Romney's part.
It shows that he isn't aware of the concerns of a segment of the population he wishes to represent (I'm sure Kanye West would love to issue a statement on this), and it shows that he isn't aware of the political mistakes of others in his party on a national stage.
That doesn't say anythin g to me about racism, and everything to me about being a bit politically disocnnected.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Does that mean Quake is racist? Say it isn't so!
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I think it just points to a lack of awareness on Romney's part.
It shows that he isn't aware of the concerns of a segment of the population he wishes to represent (I'm sure Kanye West would love to issue a statement on this), and it shows that he isn't aware of the political mistakes of others in his party on a national stage.
That doesn't say anythin g to me about racism, and everything to me about being a bit politically disocnnected.
So you don't find it refreshing that the racial aspect of the word was so far from his mind that he didn't even consider it when making his (actually kind of clever) pun?
I'm still convinced that looking for rasicm everywhere and whining about it is what keeps it around.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I seriously had no idea that it was used in any sort of racist manner.
Though as soon as I read the subject I thought (I wonder if some black person would get offended if it was used) apparently they did 40+ years ago.
I am of the opinion that Mr. Romney thought he was being clever with his usage as he was speaking about a business that dealt with tar.
I think the only racist sentiment that can be gleaned from it is based in the individual.
You will be offended if you want to be.
As for the question of whether we can use a word in however which way, I think dicussions like this very thread are deciding the fate of the phrase. If we all decide its risky and stay away from it it will become a racist term and be unusable for a good amount of time, possibly forever.
I think thats a shame as we have already surrendered plenty of words to racism, sexism, and pretty much all forms of prejudice. I personally am going to keep using the phrase, "Tar baby" as I think its a useful phrase, and there are not too many synonymous phrases for it.
I sure hope we dont lose the words jet, ink, pitch, dirt, ash, gunpowder, tar, oil, petroleum, night, charcoal, and obsidian to racism.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, you can bet I won't use "niggardly" in school, because someone else already fought that fight and lost.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Well, you can bet I won't use "niggardly" in school, because someone else already fought that fight and lost.
agreed, "Niggardly" is completely lost to us.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm simply curious about this whole issue. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other.
On the one hand, it's an individual's prerogative if they want to be offended by something or not.
On the other, if it's an innocent word and people read into it, you can't blame the speaker.
My only thoughts on this relate to Romney's role as a politician and representative of the people - in this case, as he's gearing up for a presidential run, all the people in the country. If a large portion of the population is offended by a certain innocent word, it would behoove a national candidate seeking the support of everyone to avoid using that word.
Should the average person on the street avoid it? That would depend on the audience involved. In Iowa, no. In Harlem, yes.
You have to be sensitive to your audience. I mean, if I knew someone was deeply upset by the loss of a pet rabbit, I'd avoid mentioning rabbits in conversation with that person out of courtesy. Rabbits are totally innocent, but they are a trigger for that person. Same with the word "tar baby" - it's an innocent word that is a trigger with a large portion of the population.
Add on top of this the fact that Tony Snow was snagged for this word only very recently in a national address, and you'd think a national political speaker would have a red flag on the term.
So, was he wrong? I don't feel he was. Was it a political faux pas? Yep.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rabbit is a sexual euphemism in spanish.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:I think you greatly overestimate voter intelligence.
On the contrary, I have a pretty good notion of the average intelligence of the electorate.
It is unfortunate, but in the world of modern sound-bite politics, making a big deal about this quote is a very good political move. Unfortunately, many of today's voters lack the initiative to pursue the context of a quote like this, and insinuation is everything in politics. If you can use this quote to hint that Romney is racist, and do it over and over again, you can score cheap political points. It is unfair and represents a despicable trend in politics, but I fear that sort of trick will only become more and more common.
Taking all this into account, perhaps I should amend my comment to say that trying to make ado about this particular issue is an insult to the intelligent voter.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Rabbit is a sexual euphemism in spanish.
In which culture?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I heard it in spain but I got the impression that Conejo had the same implication pretty much everywhere.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Not that I've ever heard. Guess I'll ask around.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
how does that even work Pixiest?
"Hey baby you got a rabbit for me?"
"Wanna make like rabbits baby?"
"Hey honey bunny I've got a carrot for you!"
or is it the same in Spanish as it is in English "They reproduce like rabbits?"
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: it works like this:
"Una mujer tiene un conejo."
"Un hombre no tiene un conejo."
got it? Figured out what it means yet? Do I gotta get more graphic?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
2 similar terms which I have issue with before I leave for the day:
1) Since I just watched Clerks 2 this weekend: Porch Monkey. I had never heard the term before the movie, and my immediate thoughts on hearing it were exactly as implied in the initial use of the phrase (i.e. someone lazy sitting on their porch just watching life go by). I dunno, while the situation in the movie is obviously ludicrous there seems to be some legitimacy to Randall's crusade.
2) Indian. While in a creative writing class senior year of college we read a number of Native American short stories and poems and discussed them. When at one point I made reference to something "Indian" I was immediately reprimanded by almost the entire class. I was confused because I had always seen the term as fairly neutral, if silly. Obviously it could be used in a negative manner (as any racial title can be depending on tone and context... see NINA) but I'd always just viewed it as the term (incorrectly labelled though it was) for those individuals 'originating' in the Americas. I was further taken aback when some of my classmates also seemed to take offense at 'Native American' though I'm at a loss for what they considered to be an appropriate label.
Can anyone comment on either of these similar instances?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: it works like this:
"Una mujer tiene un conejo."
"Un hombre no tiene un conejo."
got it? Figured out what it means yet? Do I gotta get more graphic?
Conejo = purse?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Grimace, while I think people have the right to prefer whatever label they want, I agree that jumping all over someone's case for innocently failing to read their minds and keep up with the PC trends is silly and counterproductive.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Grimace, I would have chided you for saying Indian and not meaning the people of central Asian country India.
Your classmates probably glean a sense of satisfaction for being able to play the PC card on you since they probably did not have anything inteligent to say.
I agree with Icarus, though it always seems to be white people who complain about any name used to describe that particular group of people. Maybe we shouldnt be trying to group them together in the first place <shrugs>
Pixiest: no hablo espaniol (you will have to translate for me to a limited extent) sorry!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: send me an email. pix ie st (at) ya hoo (dot) c om
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It isnt mail.yahoo.com?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
nope. just yahoo.com
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Rabbit is a sexual euphemism in spanish.
What spanish? 'cause that's news to me.
Every country has different phrases that mean different thing; makes translations in to Spanish brutal (my father is a professional trnslator). I know, for example, that you can't use the term "cojer" (to take) in Argentina because it has sexual connotations down there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have used the phrase 'tar baby' before. I actually thought it a perfect description of Iraq!
I read 'Bre'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby' as a kid.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The newly opened museum on the mall is called the Museum of the American Indian. I think that's an okay term.
Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
Interesting anecdote from NYU Law...our first year lawyering class ends with briefs and oral arguments over a made up case, Wanoda Tribe v. Miller, in which a California Native American tribe is suing California's Department of Children and Social Services for a general violation of the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act. One of the questions that kept coming up (primarily for the lawyers representing California, since we had to appear sensitive) was whether to use the term Native American or Indian, since the act in question uses the term Indian, but it was written in 1977 before the term started to be considered insensitive. Very annoying.
Posted by Andrew W (Member # 4172) on :
quote:I'm inclined to believe that unless someone is intending to communicate something offensive to you in the words they use, it is wrong of you to blame them for something offensive that you found in their words which they did not intend to communicate
Yes. This is how is should be. Sadly people just take things the way they sound to them, because people rarely pause to wonder what the intended meaning is.
To the person (Icarus I believe) who disagreed saying "what if the intention was not to offend, but the thought behind it was offensive", I think that still falls under this umbrella. If the intended meaning "girls aren't good at maths" is offensive, then it is offensive, but just suppose I said "blah, blah, maths, it's not for girls" parodying the Yorkie ads here in England, the intended meaning is not "girls can't do maths" so it isn't offensive.
If you mean something offensive, it's offensive. If you don't, it isn't.
This doesn't stop people being offended though, and never will.
I know about this recently because I made a totally innoccuous comment on someone's blog, about the difference between their blanket statement about the opinions of "the community" and the actual opinions prevalent in my community. They took this as a blanket denial that that opinion ever existed anywhere, and a deeply offensive attack on them for thinking that anyone could hold that opinion. It wasn't. I was pointing out that excessive Generalisation about issues is pointless because of the variety of human experience, but that didn't bother them. Banned. Gone, and not allowed to point out what I really meant, which did not contradict or insult them. Their interpretation of my words was the 'real' one, which is absurd.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:If the intended meaning "girls aren't good at maths" is offensive, then it is offensive, but just suppose I said "blah, blah, maths, it's not for girls" parodying the Yorkie ads here in England, the intended meaning is not "girls can't do maths" so it isn't offensive.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see the difference between saying "girls aren't good at math" and "math, it's not for girls."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
girls are not for math
or math is not good for girls
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Neither seems like a particularly favorable comment.
I mean, you could say "Bob isn't good at math" or "Math is just not for Bob" - both are commenting on Bob's poor math ability. How is one doing so less than the other?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm going to continue my aside, and say that black voters don't trust Republicans. Approximately 90 percent went to Kerry. Approximately 90 percent went to Gore. And there aren't any black republican representatives in congress anymore. The last assertion may be wrong. I thought that J.C. Watts was the last one, before he stepped down.
This doesn't have to be. It isn't a matter of representation in the upper eschelons, it's a matter of trust. Bush's entire cabinet could be black, and black people still wouldn't trust republicans. When Bush finally went to the NAACP this year, he gave neutered remarks,
quote:I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African-American community. For too long my party wrote off the African-American vote and many African- Americans wrote off the Republican Party.
That history has prevented us from working together when we agree on great goals. And it's not good for our country. That's why I've come to share with you. We put the interest of the country above political party.
I want to change the relationship.
The America we seek should be bigger than politics. And today I'm going to talk about some areas where I believe we can work together to reduce the obstacles for opportunity for all our citizens.
This sounds like a watered down apology. What Bush should have said was, "For fifty years, the Republican party has profitted from the votes of scared whites at the expense of black Americans, so much the case that now, a national campaign map looks like something out of a civil war battle plan. Sure, it's not the fifties and we don't use ethnic slurs, but code words like "law and order," "bussing," "quotas," and "states rights" have been artfully employed to let white people know that we are going to protect them from the influence of black people.
That's a shameful legacy, and one that poisons every member of my party. We sold black people out to get a lock on white voters. And let the words ring forth, from this podium at the NAACP, that the Republican party aims to work intimately with the black community to fashion public solutions that'll increase public participation of black people within the Republican party and within America.[/quote]
And if he would have followed it up by introducing a bill to let ex-felons vote, instead of 10 percent of blacks voting republican, it would have jumped up to thirty five percent, over night. And if he gives that same speech to some rich white southern audience, he could have gone to 40 percent.
The cost, of course, which may be evident in response to this thread, is that he is going to lose the support of whites. But who says that there isn't supposed to be a cost?
[ August 01, 2006, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
There is a phrase that goes something like
He is a fool who takes offense when none was intended.
It is getting a little ridiculous how easily we as a collective people jump to be offended by things that are said and done. Sometimes we should be but we definately take offense way too often.
(edited to add... I didn't read the entire thread and I am aware that it diverged somewhat from the original post. I'm not responding to anyone in particular just giving my meager thought) Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The show doesn't mean to offend Mormons, just explore the conflicts endemic to having a mormon fire fighter. Are you saying that Mormons are fools for being offended by the temple garments exposure?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Seriously, guys?
Okay. Mormons are all nutjobs. Republicans are all bigots. Rednecks are all inbred. I don't mean any offense, I'm just telling it like I see it.
We're all still cool, right?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Oh shut up. Back to your other thread!
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I've never heard the term tar baby before. I was aware that "uppity" had been used to describe African Americans in the past, but it never would have occurred to me that having been used in that way would make it a racist term. When people talk about cracker in a discussion like this, I recognize it as being racist, although I have no idea what group it's used to describe. In general, though, if I heard someone described as a "Cracker" I would assume that they were crazy. I'm wondering how many more terms there are that I'm completely unaware are racist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The show doesn't mean to offend Mormons
You know, I doubt this. In fact, I think any show which makes the display of the garments a dramatic moment would almost by definition have to know enough about them to know that Mormons consider their display to be highly offensive. In fact, that they're "sooper-sekrit" is pretty much the only thing that most non-Mormons know about them.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
See, I associate "cracker" with "Cracker Country," where we went on an elementary school field trip to learn about early Florida settlers.
-pH
Posted by Andrew W (Member # 4172) on :
quote:Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see the difference between saying "girls aren't good at math" and "math, it's not for girls."
You must be. And I'm not sure how.
The first one means "Girls aren't good at maths" The second one means "I am in context parodying an advert from TV, and in no way am actually commenting on the actual ability of Girls to do maths"
It's all in what is meant, rather than what is said. If I say "How you doing you old bastard" to a good friend, I don't in any way mean "How are you doing you illegitimately born person", even though that'd be the 'dictionary definition' of what I'd said.
AW
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:The second one means "I am in context parodying an advert from TV, and in no way am actually commenting on the actual ability of Girls to do maths"
What ad? This maybe be a form of humorous statement that's only funny to those "in the know" and has a lot worse meaning to those not in the know.
But, if the ad was for, say, men's deodorant or soap, and it said "Pumice Bar, it's not for girls" - that would mean "this isn't for sensitive skin" or somesuch. Joking by replacing "pumice bar" with "math" changes the meaning to jokingly say girls aren't good at math. It's still insulting, just veiled in a "it was just a joke" wrapper.
You could throw in "Driving, it's not for girls" or "Common sense, it's not for girls" or "Rational thought, it's not for girls" or any other word, and they all take on a "girls are bad at these things" meaning. It may be funny because of its relation to a commercial, but the message has been changed to something more insulting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Like he said, he's parodying the Yorkie ads: "It's not for girls."
You need to like bad British chocolate to get the joke, perhaps.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Ah, I see. It's a joke made uisng a bad ad campaign - but, still, taking the slogan and applying to something different puts the speaker's own spin on it and refocuses on a different target. Instead of Yorkie trying to somehow show their bars are masculine, it is a joke made at the expense of girls not being able to perform well at ___________.
Consider some other slogan parodies turned to insults:
"Staying in the kitchen - just do it." (Nike) "White men - where's the beef?" (Wendy's) "Voting Democrat - sometimes you feel like a nut." (Almond Joy) "Your head - Like a Rock." (Chevrolet)
Just because something's a parody, doesn't mean it's automatically not offensive or insulting.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)