Talk:Uncle Tom

Topic

Hi everyone! I'm a new contributor and know very little of the formatting system here at RW. Could someone go me through the steps?

Hawaiianred (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Take a cover story and copy its format. There's also MediaWiki help articles about standard wiki formatting.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 20:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

So many problems

The original Uncle Tom was one of the few truly good characters of the novel, and he wasn't meek or an idiot in any sense of the word. Southerners were pissed off about that, and the minstrel show version of Uncle Tom was created as basically how Uncle Tom "should" behave. The minstrel shows became more widely viewed than the original source material, especially since many people didn't read, and so that is the image that stuck.

And really, "sizeism"? Sure, it's a thing, but it's only superficially comparable to racism and sexism. CorruptUser (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This page really should have a different title. The term has a very specific meaning ("A black man who is obsequiously servile to white authority"), but the examples suggest it is a generic term that can be applied to women against feminism, LGBT people, etc. So I suggest either removing the irrelevant examples or re-naming the page. CowHouse (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bongolian I think you added this in the wrong place. CowHouse (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@CowHouse, no it was intentional. Sharpton, formerly obese, has engaged in fat-shaming. So either this is not a form of Uncle Tomism and the bullet point needs to go entirely, or it needs to stay as an example. Bongolian (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian Does it say anything about fat-shaming in the source you provided? My position is we should either re-name the page or remove the irrelevant examples. CowHouse (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @CowHouse. That was the wrong Smoking Gun reference on Sharpton. I have replaced it. I'm not particularly attached to this bullet point. The whole bullet point can come out but if it stays, so should the example. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sad that a character who was meant to be a hero gets turned into an insult

Thanks to the crappy racist play, the term "Uncle Tom" which could have been positive gets warped into a slur. So much potential as something positive. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

my problem with this

who is calling who an uncle tom, and on what basis?

Its an entirely subjective slur that i think only in a few extreme cases could it justified if at all. not all black people will agree on what is best for all black people. not all gay people will want the same things. not all women, x, y or z etc.

its a slur and an ugly one at that whenever it is used or implied. if someone in a particular group does not agree with anothers position, the slur is not warranted. if they are not radical enough for you, the slur is not warranted. when we throw this slur around we are saying they betray their own kind, or they are not sufficiently black enough, or gay enough, or woman enough. thats strong condemnation. we would need to justify if throw this slur at someone.

we need to provide more justification than we do in the examples section. are the people in this section really justifying their own oppression? or do we just not like them, and they disagree on what is oppressive, or what is or is not justified? who is calling them out here? is it gay people calling out gay people? black people calling black people? do they speak for all their group? dunno about you but i'd be uncomfortable telling people in a group that i dont belong to how they should think or whats good for them.

if its justified to label people as this then we need to do better than 'could be argued' or 'is reportedly'. we need to do better than the piss poor arguments we have given. alluding to their position in vague terms, or a specific position reads more like a difference of opinion rather than a heinous apologia.

if there must be an examples section at all, it should document who is making the claim and for what. we should not offer an opinion on if it was justified.

this article from the outset attempts to take a ugly subjective slur and portray it as valid part of civil discourse. it does so poorly, (the whole macolm x vs luther king bit is confused nonsense) only too eager to get to the part where it dishes the dirt. it is not a valid part of civil discourse. there is miniscule number of circumstances where it might be a valid descriptor and is it is not a subjective slur that aims only to shame our opponents into submission. it should not be used at all we should not validate its use with this article.

This article is shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the page is necessary, e.g., it's a category anchor (Category:Internalized discrimination). It could certainly use more citations. Bongolian (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

@MarioSuperstar77 recently made this edit, which was a continuation of an argument he and I were having in the saloon bar. I’ve got no interest in restarting that argument here, I just want to ensure that it doesn’t negatively affect the quality of our articles. The added paragraph is poorly integrated into the existing text, and feels very out of place, none of the other examples are presented like this. It’s obvious I think it should be removed, what does everyone else think? Christopher (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You can re-word this if you feel as though it is not implemented the way you'd like, but I think it is worth adding that into the article, so to say it has information on how people promote internalized ableism. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

if i could refer you both to my post in the thread directly above this one. thank you AMassiveGay (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

[EC]It has information on how you believe I “promoted internalised ableism”, none of the other examples have similar “information”. I’m not going to rephrase it, because I don’t think it should be there at all. You know exactly what you’re doing, can we keep saloon bar arguments to the saloon bar?

I won’t reiterate why I believe the argument is inaccurate because I’ve said I don’t want to start it up again, but I will point out one factual error: the term idiot was used medically in the 19th and 20th centuries, it’s misleading at best to say it was “centuries ago”. Christopher (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked that up and besides the United States, there is nothing that agrees with the assessment that "idiot" is used in a medical context anywhere else in the current year. However, thank you for pointing out the mistake I made, I will correct that. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As the person being called an Uncle Tom, I agree with AMassiveGay. Christopher (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I resolved the issue you and Duce had with the paragraph, let me add it back into the article. This is relevant information. Bigotry does not come in just one form. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You sort of resolved one issue (none of your citations were relevant to the idiot comparison), but the main one is unresolvable. Please stop bringing saloon bar drama into mainspace and let the issue go. Christopher (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

#1 I spent half an hour looking through statista for the correlation between the usage of words like "stupid" and the r-word on social media and on which contexts they are used, but I was not successful in finding the correct information. RW has many unsourced statements and this page has plenty of it I should add, but you take specifically offense to what I have to say and that is the issue here. #2 What happened in the Saloon bar is irrelevant to my revision here. I would have added that sooner if I knew there were people on this planet who use this rhetoric. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m not the one who mentioned citations, as I said it’s one minor issue.

What happened in the saloon bar is relevant. You saw me using an argument you didn’t like, and then decided to “refute” that argument in a mainspace article that doesn’t contain any similar refutations. You’re making the article slightly worse and causing unnecessary drama.

If you want to continue the argument, I’m sure someone would be willing to do so over at the saloon bar. You could start a debate/essay page. If it’ll stop you from polluting mainspace I could get involved again, although if you now think I’m some irredeemable bigot not worth talking with I’m happy to do leave this behind. Christopher (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if I did open a debate on the debate space, you would likely argue for 30 minutes then either forfeit or silently leave the debate like you did earlier, so I won't, but I would be interested to see how another debate with you would go, after all, there were 3 more people on there clearly opposed to Cory, you and Duce using the r-word because they too think it is an offensive term. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t forfeit, I left because the argument was going in circles and wasn’t going to produce anything interesting. I didn’t realise you took it so seriously, it seems like DuceMoosolini and PanGalacticGargleBlaster are as fervent as you are in the opposite direction and may be willing to argue with you for a bit.

It’s a shame I seem to have made an enemy here. Can we agree to keep this out of mainspace at least? Christopher (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I would absolutely keep the argument out of mainspace, yes. All I wanted to do was to add the rhetoric itself onto the article that it is apparently okay to say the r-word because it is nothing more than a stronger "idiot". If you think "idiot" is equally as bad as the r-word, then point it out, I don't care about that. It is all I am going to say on the matter. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair warning and suggests required

ive made clear my issues to the examples section above. reviewing said examples reaffirms my opinion that

1. 'uncle tom' as a derogatory descriptor is to ugly a thing to be accusing people of and we should absolutely not be doing so here. there are few real world examples were it can be justified.

1. we are not the voice of any one group, nor are we the judge. with few exceptions our examples of 'uncle toms' consists of our judgement on the people who hold opinion contrary to what we as self appointed voice of various oppressed groups consider the correct views to hold on any given subject. the partisan political hackery is really appalling and its only us making the allegations of uncle toms ands we really should not be.

1. the allegations are largely false, supported with vague assertions of someones 'wrong' opinions and assertions about the ethnic/social/sexual identities of these UTs to magnify any ironies or hypocrisies we've imagined for them. and i repeat we should not be making any of these allegations ourselves.

1. absolutely zero references, but 100% assertion.

now with the above argument over whether retard is offensive or not, people are adding to this mess. i think i will be removing the examples section completely. in its place i planned to provide examples of its real world usage. documenting how other people are using the term. but got a problem there. 'uncle tom' is a phrase concerning the racial politics in the us. lots of examples of it used in that context. i can find nothing concerning other social groups, except 1 jane fonda quote. because uncle tom is intrinsically about american racial politics. in other areas and different social groups, we have different phrases for similar concepts. ive runout of such phrases. ive got-

1. uncle tom
2. house negro
3. self hating jew
4. collaborationists such in vichy france.

im done. might need more for a broader article. thoughts? maybe closeted gay? not sure about that one. uncle tom syndrome will make an appearence too somewhere.

please note that i will resist any attempts to work with the existing list of examples or attempts to salvage them. they are not just low quality, but imbued with a partisan hackery that is repugnant to me. all examples used should be of other people using this term or similar. there should not be our judgement on the usual suspects. ive said elsewhere its an ugly term that should not be part civil discourse. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I’d second scrapping the examples, it’s just a way for people to soapbox and doesn’t add anything. You’re right that an article called “Uncle Tom” should focus entirely on anti-black racism, internalized discrimination (sadly no British English redirect, will fix that in a second) redirects here, you could move the page to that title and leave Uncle Tom as a redirect if you still want the article to focus on other stuff. A lot of the homophobia stuff is covered on pages like Haggard's Law, “self-hating Jew” is a common accusation in certain circles, I don’t think any other forms of internalised bigotry are notable enough to be worth mentioning. Christopher (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

ha i'd forgotten about haggards laws. i might have to go and pick at that article as well. there was much that irritated me about. theres a little too much gloating over the trials and tribulations of closeted gay men. for another day though. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

and ive still to provide a serviceable karl marx draft as promised after making a big point shitting on our current one.(it'l be a while yet) AMassiveGay (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I know what you mean, it’s always easy to criticise and section blank. I said I’d add some content to HAES after reverting several years’ worth of edits yesterday and haven’t touched autism rights movement in a week or two. Christopher (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

internalised discimination

we dont have a page for this and i think would make a better article than we have for uncle tom. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest way to start might be to just rename this article, and make the necessary edits to replace the term "Uncle Tom" wherever it appears in the article?--Butter Melon Cauliflower (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, scrap that idea - but it's possible that some of the material that was cut from this article might be more suited to that one instead. --Butter Melon Cauliflower (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)