Tar Baby bites Mitt Romney

Sure. I will do it. But I just wanted to post a few things to clear up any allegations that have been made about me. Now that I am done, we can get back to business. I would like to answer Semper's and your comments a bit later.

I will fully participate in a good discussion with people who are honest in their attempts to converse about this. If they give me the proper respect, I will do the same for them.

[edit on 7-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Relentless
I think "they" almost count on the fact that a discussion of this sort will deteriorate into a personal dialogue that pretty much puts an end to serious discussion. I think this has done more to help Romney in the end. Is that what anyone intended?

I don't think most people on this board are that sinister or conniving. The first bunch of responses to this thread were light and harmless, which probably have eventually led to a good discussion about the topic in general. The first incident of the topic turning antagonistc was this one, imo:

Sigh....but this isn't a discussion about "high literature". This is just a thread devoted to Confederate apologists patting themselves on the back for bringing back an antiquated, rather infamous term, praising others who use the term despite its infamous leanings and giving politicians a pass for adopting the term even though it is found to be derogatory to a segment of the American population.

That's when the peronal attacks started, and it's been downhill since then.

To me, that is what put an end to serious dialogue - labeling the term, the topic, and the members discussing it as racist. All in an attempt to further the notion that one race should be beholden to another.

Please don't blame this on me. I did not label anyone racist. However you and the others made sure that perception took place, didn't you? That's just another one of your little tactics when you don't want to seriously deal with race relations and complain about Blacks.

The attacks started when you introduced this thread with your title. You only wanted to thwart a progessive discussion about race relations. You had no intention of making it serious. You did it so you could complain about how political correctness has gone awry. You also did it in the same fashion to put down yet another set of Black leaders for their dissent against Mr. Romney's actions.

This thread was never meant to be serious in the first place. It was only an outlet for people against diversity. So yes, "they" can be that sinister if they want it to be.

Joel Chandler Harris came from Georgia. His literature focused on painting an "idyllic" and "happy" life on a plantation. Because of his willingness to put a happy face on slavery and Plantation life, he has done much to try and embellish Confederate life while stealing the stories of African-American slaves and turning them into novels.

His works are highly contested as a result. And the people who find his work of value are "sympathizers".

This is even shown when trying to equate his literature to "American culture and lore". The sad part of it is, that "American culture" is not the "high culture" that praises art for art sake. Harris' literature is one that glorifies the Old Confederate South and its institutions. He nefariously makes them into "children's stories" so that kids are lured into thinking that was the way things happened before and during the Civil War.

So, to make a long story short (pardon the pun), the people who support this terminology are "Confederate sympathizers".

I agree with Semper's assessment of the term, with a few dissenting points. Tar baby is a highly contested term that has outlived its use. But there are those few that will bring it back and use it daringly in order to show their contempt and lack of caring about the sensitivities of African-Americans.

You can cut it in many ways when it comes to Gov. Romney and his use of the term. You can even say that it was "innocent". But when it comes down to it, "tar baby" is a racial slur and for a lot of people in the South this was especially the case. For Black people who were raised in the South, Whites didn't use the "proper meaning" of this term. They used it as a racial slur.

So, this term is not as benign in its usage as some would believe. This term is problematic--just as "cracker-crat".

What it comes down to is that the people who use it don't care about Black people. They won't consider for one moment about how others feel in mixed company. And when others defend the utterers of the term, it shows me the lack of conscience and consideration for those that that term has hurt through the era of Jim Crow. Here too, those who perpetuate the usage of this term grew up during Jim Crow before the Civil Rights Era.

So to me, it's not any different when people defend Mitt Romney. What do you expect when a guy comes from the same state as Charles Stuart?

Mr. Stuart blamed his own crime on a Black person. As a result, the Boston Police falsely searched a lot of Black homes and unjustly arrested African-Americans due the fact of Mr. Stuart's stereotypical description of Black people. In the same way, he fueled the same sort of prejudice about Black people due to what others perceived of them. In the end, Mr. Stuart didn't even confess to shooting himself and his wife. He committed suicide, the coward's way out.

To me, you are no different than Charles Stuart. Just like he did, you are capitalizing on the stereotypes of Black people and leaders to incite prejudice while trying to play the "choir boy".

Charles Stuart embraced his victimhood, played the race card and "screamed about race". Because of his efforts he did a lot to ruin race-relations because of his own short-sited opinions of African-Americans and the perception of crime.

That is why support of such terms are dangerous just because of that. And, I have no illusions about Mr. Romney. He used the term with utter disregard.

The perception of those defending Mitt Romney only feel that serious dialogue ended because their agenda of striking down "political correctness" and berating diversity was thwarted.

Of course, only a thread with serious discussion can be allowed if there aren't any dissenting voices who openly question and criticize those who salivate for a pre-Civil Rights era society.

That is why the use of "cracker-crat" in this thread was highly important despite its incindiary insertion. It showed that even people who willingly want to embrace a term like tar baby with the utter disregard for others have their limits when other offensive terms come into play.



[edit on 7-8-2006 by ceci2006]

I leave for a few days, and pages and pages get added on. Dang. So cracker-crat was supposed to be derogitory? I thought it was another word for dixie-crat. The democratic party that was instrumental in trying to defeat civil rights, yet ironically draws more of the African-American vote.

As I recall, we were talking about the validity of what a politician said. You, Ceci2006 were the first to start throwing around epithets indiscriminately. Interesting word, that: indiscriminate.

Yes, what a difference a few days make.

I merely contributed my perception of what a politician said.

And yes, those "epipthets" were used to demonstrate a point. And it did bother you, did it not? I bet it bothered the heck out of you just like "tar baby" would offend African-Americans. If not, you wouldn't be complaining about my use of the term "cracker-crat".

Your complaint further proves my point.

But hardly indiscriminate is an adjective that could be descriptive of offensive words or this thread in general. Far from it. Indiscriminate certainly is something your posts are not. They are very highly prejudicial.



[edit on 7-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by jsobecky

I don't think most people on this board are that sinister or conniving. The first bunch of responses to this thread were light and harmless, which probably have eventually led to a good discussion about the topic in general. The first incident of the topic turning antagonistc was this one, imo:

My point was and still is, first I do not believe that anyone here is purposely derailling the thread, but that is what happeneing (still I might add), second, this is not a board problem, it is a society problem. People have got to stop taking things so personal they distract from the real problems.

I agree with you, Relentless. It is a social problem that needs to be discussed apart from the personal issues that weave amongst it.

In the spirit of staying on topic, I would like to ask a question:

Could someone define what the social problem represents concerning this issue? Would they please write some reasons why?

I would like to know how someone else views this problem.

[edit on 8-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Yes, what a difference a few days make.


And yes, those "epipthets" were used to demonstrate a point. And it did bother you, did it not?

[edit on 7-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Hardly. I know many crackers and rednecks. The difference is that they don't weep when they hear it.

Good for you. I'm glad to hear it. I hope it warms the cockles of your heart.

Because no tears were shed at all during the continuance of this thread. I don't know who could be that sensitive.

[edit on 8-8-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Relentless
My point was and still is, first I do not believe that anyone here is purposely derailling the thread, but that is what happeneing (still I might add), second, this is not a board problem, it is a society problem. People have got to stop taking things so personal they distract from the real problems.

I agree, and that's why I pointed out the first post that tried to sidetrack the topic.

Is is a societal problem? Apparently so, since some members of society find fault with the term Tar Baby. How big of a problem, and what can we do about it are the questions that never got a chance to be asked.

As to your observation that it is not a board problem, well, we are constantly being told that ATS is a microcosm of society, so it would seem to be a board problem also. And judging by the name-calling going on here, it is definitely affecting the board.

Oh yes it is most troublesome. But sadly enough, it isn't my post that started this problem. It is the thread itself with its divisive title that did the trick. It incited ill will against Black people.

You can read it on page one--before my first post on this thread. That was hardly serious discussion.

When people post threads based on the stereotypes of another race, they must realize that a topic like this will always invite opposition. And those opposed to it will try to dismantle the stereotypes fostered by the thread-starter.

Not everyone will agree with what the thread-starter will propose.

And what can we do about it? Encourage people who truly care about race-relations to introduce topics like this one. People who don't care about diversity use topics such as these as a forum to complain and incite more divisiveness between us.




[edit on 8-8-2006 by ceci2006]

WtF? This thread is exactly why the race issue will never be solved. Anytime someone tries to have a rational, reasonable discussion about it, everyone makes it personal. In all my life I've never seen a discussion about race end as a discussion about race, but i digress...

What most people don't realize is that racism is deeply embedded in our language. Many of sayings still used today originated in racist times ( Probably all of them did). One example off the top of my head would be, " That's kettle calling the pot black".

Now before you dismiss this outright, think about it - This term is only used as a way to say someone bad is calling someone else bad. ( I don't mean that in a good vs evil sorta way.) Example: If someone unshaven and unkepmt were to call someone a slob, we would say, "Isn't that the kettle calling the pot black".

When I hear that I can't help but think to myself, "What's wrong w/ being black".
Now if in that same instance I were to say, (Trying to think of white objects....) "Isn't that the teacup calling the saucer white" You would say to yourself, "That doesn't make any sense!" That's because white is always associated w/ positive themes and dark tones w/ negative themes.

The media has had a huge part in programming us this way.From movies, tv, you name it. Next time your watching anything remember this - No matter how dark the good guy is, the bad guy is always darker (not always skin - clothes too, or has beard).

Some racist will say that that is art imitating life, but they don't realize how powerful our media is. It shapes our view of the world at a very early age, and even worse it shapes our view of ourselves. When we see people on a screen that look like us, we relate to them, and we say he/she (whatever) is like me. When white people always see white people as good, white people will eventually believe they are morally superior. When dark people always see dark people as bad, they will eventually believe it is in their to be bad nature to be bad.

I know what your thinking, but you have to realize that no one consciously decides this - it happens on a subconscious level, Thus the term, "Programmed" when in reality we are just humans flaws and all. Within every person there is good and there is evil. No race holds a monopoly on either.

What was my point again? Oh yeah, racism is deeply embedded in our language, media and society as a whole, and only when we as a people become aware of that, can we begin to have a calm, rational discussion on the subject.

To get back on point, Romney should've known better.

Calm Anomoly, your post should have been the main point of this entire thread. Thank you for saying it. Finally it's nice to hear from someone who understands the perplexities of why these words are contentious to say the least.

In fact, this is my way of thanking you for introducing something thoughtful to this thread:

You have voted Calm Anomoly for the Way Above Top Secret award.

Mr. Romney should have known better. But, when people are indoctrinated with the perceptions of "white being good" and "black being bad", it works both ways. He didn't have a conscience when using the word. He didn't think about his public persona and how others would perceive of him.

But in the end, there were plenty of other words he could use to describe a "sticky situation". And that is the main point. People do not think about the feelings of others when they speak. And when they serve a constiuency of mixed races, he should have been more recognizant of what he says.

You don't have to be Mother Theresa, but you still have to have a little common sense when you speak.

P.S. I still believe that issues of race can be discussed. It just has to be done by people who are willing to see change. They must fully want it to be better. However, I see that less and less now since 9/11. And it makes me sad.

[edit on 9-8-2006 by ceci2006]

P.S. I still believe that issues of race can be discussed. It just has to be done by people who are willing to see change. They must fully want it to be better. However, I see that less and less now since 9/11. And it makes me sad.

Don't be sad ceci,

What you are doing is exactly that. Putting your opinion out there, discussing this on a cerebral level.

Knowledge is power. Just because a subject is controversial and even emotional does NOT mean it should be avoided in conversation. In fact, quite the opposite! In that event, it needs to be brought to the front and discussed even more.


Semper

Originally quoted by semperfortis

Don't be sad ceci,

What you are doing is exactly that. Putting your opinion out there, discussing this on a cerebral level.

Knowledge is power. Just because a subject is controversial and even emotional does NOT mean it should be avoided in conversation. In fact, quite the opposite! In that event, it needs to be brought to the front and discussed even more.

Semper,

That is extremely kind of you to say. I thank you for your graciousness, even though what I did in this thread was shameful and contrary to my belief of being kind to others. And for that, I apologize because now that I look back on it, I did not project myself decently as I would have wanted. And because of that, people have been hurt. And I feel bad as a result.

From the experience on this thread, I have learned to be more kinder and understanding of others. And even though it is hard to do sometimes, I have also learned to forgive. This thread taught me an important lesson and really changed my outlook on how issues such as this one have to be treated.

However, I agree with you that this topic needs to be discussed openly and honestly so people from all walks of life can be understood and treated better without the tension and heart-ache that often goes with discussing topics like these. I hope that by keeping issues like these within relevant conversation people can find a middle ground in which can bring them together instead of tearing them apart.

That is the least I can do in order to see people get along better in this world.

Take care,

Ceci






[edit on 13-8-2006 by ceci2006]