depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Mr. Dubois should've kidnapped Nader again. (another Boondocks reference)
Way to go out with grace, Nader....
- Thread starter SoonerMatt
- Start date
Most of you are missing the point here - Nader questioned whether Obama is going to bring change for the people, including blacks/latinos/whites or go along with what the big corporations, that have ran this country for decades, want. And the term 'Uncle Tom' would perfectly describe that - even if it's not 100% appropriate on FOX (but thats not the point here, just a distraction from it)
[quote name='sickle']Most of you are missing the point here - Nader questioned whether Obama is going to bring change for the people, including blacks/latinos/whites or go along with what the big corporations, that have ran this country for decades, want. And the term 'Uncle Tom' would perfectly describe that - even if it's not 100% appropriate on FOX (but thats not the point here, just a distraction from it)[/QUOTE]
Then the phrase wasn't required at all. What did he gain from saying it if he could have just as easily not? Seems like you explained it without it just fine.
Kind of the 'ole "If you can't say something nice" routine.
Then the phrase wasn't required at all. What did he gain from saying it if he could have just as easily not? Seems like you explained it without it just fine.
Kind of the 'ole "If you can't say something nice" routine.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='sickle']Most of you are missing the point here - Nader questioned whether Obama is going to bring change for the people, including blacks/latinos/whites or go along with what the big corporations, that have ran this country for decades, want. And the term 'Uncle Tom' would perfectly describe that - even if it's not 100% appropriate on FOX (but thats not the point here, just a distraction from it)[/quote]
Noone missed that point, that's a regular topic of discussion here. By using racially-loaded phrases Nader isn't helping out the cause.
Noone missed that point, that's a regular topic of discussion here. By using racially-loaded phrases Nader isn't helping out the cause.
Nader has proved himself as a person who cares about the wellbeing of the 'little people' (no - not migets, but everyday people like you and I) including people of color and less fortunate/low income ppl. So whether you think that was correct or not, he is not a racist by any means; and if it makes you feel better - I think he might have used such 'offensive' term to bring attention to the main subject, which actually brought him on FOX, but I dont think that he was wrong is saying that - you have to be racist to think that. Once again what he said was: "But his choice[Obama's that is], basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations". If Obama decides to go along with what the big corporations, that have ran this country for decades, then he would be 'Uncle Tom' - how's that offensive (I hope that this isn't gonna happen, but everything I've read so far points in that direction). So Nader was just warning us about this possibility.
[quote name='sickle']Nader has proved himself as a person who cares about the wellbeing of the 'little people' (no - not migets, but everyday people like you and I) including people of color and less fortunate/low income ppl. So whether you think that was correct or not, he is not a racist by any means; and if it makes you feel better - I think he might have used such 'offensive' term to bring attention to the main subject, which actually brought him on FOX, but I dont think that he was wrong is saying that - you have to be racist to think that. Once again what he said was: "But his choice[Obama's that is], basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations". If Obama decides to go along with what the big corporations, that have ran this country for decades, then he would be 'Uncle Tom' - how's that offensive (I hope that this isn't gonna happen, but everything I've read so far points in that direction). So Nader was just warning us about this possibility.[/quote]
This isnt the first time this election nader has used race baiting. You can defend him all you want but Nader has been doing this just for the press.
This isnt the first time this election nader has used race baiting. You can defend him all you want but Nader has been doing this just for the press.
It's a silly point on top of the way it was phrased. Obama ran his campaign without accepting money from lobbyist groups. There's no reason to expect him to be as tied to large corporations as people like Bush and other past presidents were. Yes he got individual contributions from people within corporations, but he built a huge donor network that put him in office so he doesn't owe any one corporation much of anything. And he doesn't have ties to corporations like the Bush family did with the oil industry or Cheney with Haliburton etc.
Could Obama still some how end up in the pocket of big corporations? Sure, you never know what could happen. But at this point there's no reason to be bashing him from that angle.
Could Obama still some how end up in the pocket of big corporations? Sure, you never know what could happen. But at this point there's no reason to be bashing him from that angle.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='sickle']Nader has proved himself as a person who cares about the wellbeing of the 'little people' (no - not migets, but everyday people like you and I) including people of color and less fortunate/low income ppl. So whether you think that was correct or not, he is not a racist by any means; and if it makes you feel better - I think he might have used such 'offensive' term to bring attention to the main subject, which actually brought him on FOX, but I dont think that he was wrong is saying that - you have to be racist to think that. Once again what he said was: "But his choice[Obama's that is], basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations". If Obama decides to go along with what the big corporations, that have ran this country for decades, then he would be 'Uncle Tom' - how's that offensive (I hope that this isn't gonna happen, but everything I've read so far points in that direction). So Nader was just warning us about this possibility.[/QUOTE]
And entirely undercut his point, as people are talking about what a tactless asshole he is, and not about any conspiratorial combination that anti-corporate liberals would term the "__________ - _________ complex."
OMG, corporations are bad? No kidding. But you don't have to put your dick in my mouth to get the point across; I'll be wondering why there's a dick in my mouth instead of how "ConAgra" is
ing me over.
And entirely undercut his point, as people are talking about what a tactless asshole he is, and not about any conspiratorial combination that anti-corporate liberals would term the "__________ - _________ complex."
OMG, corporations are bad? No kidding. But you don't have to put your dick in my mouth to get the point across; I'll be wondering why there's a dick in my mouth instead of how "ConAgra" is
ing me over.
[quote name='sickle']Most of you are missing the point here - Nader questioned whether Obama is going to bring change for the people, including blacks/latinos/whites or go along with what the big corporations, that have ran this country for decades, want. And the term 'Uncle Tom' would perfectly describe that - even if it's not 100% appropriate on FOX (but thats not the point here, just a distraction from it)[/QUOTE]
Thats pretty much it. Any controversy about his choice of words is a distraction from the larger point of whether Obama is really for the little guy or for corporations.
Theres nothing inappropriate about using Uncle Tom there, the comparison is actually quite apt. Uncle Tom endured slavery all of his life and yet remained loyal to his oppressors, and he's accusing Obama of enduring poverty only to be subservient to corporate interests, essentially betraying his own (the poor). If you consider Nader's position that corporations are largely responsible for poverty in this country, it makes sense.
Its not race baiting, if anything its class warfare. I don't agree with his position, but I have no problem with the way he made his point.
Thats pretty much it. Any controversy about his choice of words is a distraction from the larger point of whether Obama is really for the little guy or for corporations.
Theres nothing inappropriate about using Uncle Tom there, the comparison is actually quite apt. Uncle Tom endured slavery all of his life and yet remained loyal to his oppressors, and he's accusing Obama of enduring poverty only to be subservient to corporate interests, essentially betraying his own (the poor). If you consider Nader's position that corporations are largely responsible for poverty in this country, it makes sense.
Its not race baiting, if anything its class warfare. I don't agree with his position, but I have no problem with the way he made his point.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dafoomie'] Uncle Tom endured slavery all of his life and yet remained loyal to his oppressors, and he's accusing Obama of enduring poverty only to be subservient to corporate interests, essentially betraying his own (the poor). [/QUOTE]
It's not the denotation. It's the connotation - what the words imply due to social constructs.
There's lots of ways to make points without using charged words. Nader used one. Sorry, but since it's an opinion, it's allowed to be analyzed with subjective undertones, and that's the damn deal here.
You can't just use a word that at some point garnered a reputation for having certain associations, especially if they were racial in nature. Those things stick. That's the funny thing about language - in 5, 10, 50 years, words will have evolved to have new meanings, both in denotation and connotation.
It's silly to act like he said a one-dimensional thing. That's naive. People aren't up in arms on this comment because by pure definition it contains nothing implied, they are pointing out that it does have something that's affiliated with a racist background.
It's not the denotation. It's the connotation - what the words imply due to social constructs.
There's lots of ways to make points without using charged words. Nader used one. Sorry, but since it's an opinion, it's allowed to be analyzed with subjective undertones, and that's the damn deal here.
You can't just use a word that at some point garnered a reputation for having certain associations, especially if they were racial in nature. Those things stick. That's the funny thing about language - in 5, 10, 50 years, words will have evolved to have new meanings, both in denotation and connotation.
It's silly to act like he said a one-dimensional thing. That's naive. People aren't up in arms on this comment because by pure definition it contains nothing implied, they are pointing out that it does have something that's affiliated with a racist background.
Its silly that people are taking this as "Ralph Nader called Obama an Uncle Tom" instead of looking at what he was actually saying.
Its like the situation when the aide of the Mayor of DC used the word "$$$$ardly" (stingy, miserly) in reference to a budget. He could've chosen a word that people looking for a reason to claim racism couldn't jump on, but why should he have to?
The former chairman of the NAACP put it perfectly, "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people’s lack of understanding".
Its like the situation when the aide of the Mayor of DC used the word "$$$$ardly" (stingy, miserly) in reference to a budget. He could've chosen a word that people looking for a reason to claim racism couldn't jump on, but why should he have to?
The former chairman of the NAACP put it perfectly, "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people’s lack of understanding".
Well, it's:
1. Using a word with racial connotations is going to overshadow the intent of the point. That's just the way society works.
2. It's a stupid, baseless point to level at a president elect who didn't take money from lobbyist groups. As I said before, maybe he'll still end up in the pocket of corporations rather than fighting for " the little man", but there's no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt (or at least be cautiously optimistic) based on what we've seen from Obama thus far.
1. Using a word with racial connotations is going to overshadow the intent of the point. That's just the way society works.
2. It's a stupid, baseless point to level at a president elect who didn't take money from lobbyist groups. As I said before, maybe he'll still end up in the pocket of corporations rather than fighting for " the little man", but there's no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt (or at least be cautiously optimistic) based on what we've seen from Obama thus far.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='bmulligan']Considering Uncle Tom sacrificed himself so that 2 of his master's other slaves could escape to Canada, I'd say Nader, and most everyone else, never actually read Uncle Tom's Cabin.[/QUOTE]
I know this has been said many times in posts, but people apparently don't get the idea that "uncle tom" has a very negative and racial connotation. Nader was not using the phrase literally (obama=Uncle Tom from the novel).
Its stupid to argue that no one knows/read the novel. That does not matter, the phrase has been adapted to our modern discourse to be a demeaning phrase against "blacks that cozy up to white culture too much". It doesn't matter where the word came from, because now it is an racially charged insult used by both whites and blacks.
I know this has been said many times in posts, but people apparently don't get the idea that "uncle tom" has a very negative and racial connotation. Nader was not using the phrase literally (obama=Uncle Tom from the novel).
Its stupid to argue that no one knows/read the novel. That does not matter, the phrase has been adapted to our modern discourse to be a demeaning phrase against "blacks that cozy up to white culture too much". It doesn't matter where the word came from, because now it is an racially charged insult used by both whites and blacks.
[quote name='gareman']I know this has been said many times in posts, but people apparently don't get the idea that "uncle tom" has a very negative and racial connotation. Nader was not using the phrase literally (obama=Uncle Tom from the novel).
Its stupid to argue that no one knows/read the novel. That does not matter, the phrase has been adapted to our modern discourse to be a demeaning phrase against "blacks that cozy up to white culture too much". It doesn't matter where the word came from, because now it is an racially charged insult used by both whites and blacks.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, it DOES matter where it came from. Accepting the stupidity of others and allowing this type of ignorance to propagate is the real crime here. It's even further degrading to black people as a group - to take a mythical icon and turn it against them. I'd be willing to bet it was a white person who did it first, and now it's just accepted as a fact to further demonstrate ignorance. That's what makes it doubly disgraceful for Nader to have used it in the first place.
"Taking it back" may have been a joke in movies like Clerks, but this type of symbolic sacrifice for one's people, and to do what's right because it's right, is too important an icon to be demonized by stupidity. Thanks for being part of the problem.
Its stupid to argue that no one knows/read the novel. That does not matter, the phrase has been adapted to our modern discourse to be a demeaning phrase against "blacks that cozy up to white culture too much". It doesn't matter where the word came from, because now it is an racially charged insult used by both whites and blacks.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, it DOES matter where it came from. Accepting the stupidity of others and allowing this type of ignorance to propagate is the real crime here. It's even further degrading to black people as a group - to take a mythical icon and turn it against them. I'd be willing to bet it was a white person who did it first, and now it's just accepted as a fact to further demonstrate ignorance. That's what makes it doubly disgraceful for Nader to have used it in the first place.
"Taking it back" may have been a joke in movies like Clerks, but this type of symbolic sacrifice for one's people, and to do what's right because it's right, is too important an icon to be demonized by stupidity. Thanks for being part of the problem.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']Sorry, it DOES matter where it came from. Accepting the stupidity of others and allowing this type of ignorance to propagate is the real crime here. It's even further degrading to black people as a group - to take a mythical icon and turn it against them. I'd be willing to bet it was a white person who did it first, and now it's just accepted as a fact to further demonstrate ignorance. That's what makes it doubly disgraceful for Nader to have used it in the first place.
"Taking it back" may have been a joke in movies like Clerks, but this type of symbolic sacrifice for one's people, and to do what's right because it's right, is too important an icon to be demonized by stupidity. Thanks for being part of the problem.[/quote]
Turning a mythical icon against them? The character was stereotypical, offensive, and completely unrealistic. Characters in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" are so two dimensional you half expect the book to come with cardboard cutouts - it is no "Billy Budd", no "Grapes of Wrath" - instead it's hacky propaganda that was designed to sell like hotcakes and appeal to the literate poplace (who in those times would have been white and prejudiced)
And unless you're a masochistic historian, actually reading the book is a waste of time.
"Taking it back" may have been a joke in movies like Clerks, but this type of symbolic sacrifice for one's people, and to do what's right because it's right, is too important an icon to be demonized by stupidity. Thanks for being part of the problem.[/quote]
Turning a mythical icon against them? The character was stereotypical, offensive, and completely unrealistic. Characters in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" are so two dimensional you half expect the book to come with cardboard cutouts - it is no "Billy Budd", no "Grapes of Wrath" - instead it's hacky propaganda that was designed to sell like hotcakes and appeal to the literate poplace (who in those times would have been white and prejudiced)
And unless you're a masochistic historian, actually reading the book is a waste of time.
bread's done