Is a black person calling another black person an Uncle Tom racist?

[USFREEDOM911]

You will also find that there is a lot of prejudice or racism, call what you will, between Africans and West Indians. We used to have a comedy TV show here called Desmonds that highlighted that fact on a regular basis.

We have a similar situation in AZ.
A lot of Natural Born and legalized immigrant Hispanics have a huge problem with the illegals.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Every black Republican is an Uncle Tom.

Why would it be racist?

 

[cawacko]

Every black Republican is an Uncle Tom.

Why would it be racist?

Couldn’t sleep and decided to go through JPP posts from nine year ago? (been there myself)

A majority of whites vote Republicans. What’s a good term for the race traitors who don’t?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Couldn’t sleep and decided to go through JPP posts from nine year ago? (been there myself)

A majority of whites vote Republicans. What’s a good term for the race traitors who don’t?

Intellectuals.

There's a "similar threads" category at the bottom of the page, btw.

 

[cawacko]

Intellectuals.

There's a "similar threads" category at the bottom of the page, btw.

The beauty of being white in America. We’re allowed diversity of thought while not being accused of selling out our race while minorities aren’t.

 

[QP!]

It is not racist for a white person to call a black person an Uncle Tom, if the person is an Uncle Tom.

An Uncle Tom is 'a black person who understands they can receive benefit from white racists by being the face of their racist views, denigrate other blacks, in a way that will gain them favor and benefit from the racists.' Ie Candice Owen.

You can say it is 'mean' to use such a loaded term but describing Candace Owen and others, as i do in my definition above, is entirely appropriate.

If you are applying the term broad brush against blacks then it would be racist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...le-tom-but-he-got-the-opposite-of-an-apology/

It would seem to be racist to me. What say you?

Obviously.

 

[QP!]

Nah, it’s racist. It follows along the same mindset that the “you aren’t black” statement was made. (This also applies to similar statements made against LatinX and AAPI people but the focus is usually black people.)

If you think about it it’s really just another form of white supremacy. It’s white people saying you do not have the right to think independently and heterodoxically if you so desire. You must stay in your lane/box. Pretty insidious.

No, and you highlighted the EXACT distinction.

'You aint black' is a broad brush statement suggesting all black people are the same in a certain regard.

Saying 'Candice Owen is 'a black person who understands she can receive benefit from white racists by being the face of their racist views, denigrate other blacks, in a way that will gain them favor and benefit from the racists.'

Is accurate and true and ONLY speaks to her specifically. You might not like that part simply shortened to 'Uncle Tom' and think it is a rude way to say it, but they mean the same things.


I take issue with you last sentence as it also GROUPS all black people together as if a monolith.

Black people DO THINK INDEPENDENTLY which means a percent will deliberately take the Uncle Tom route knowing it is profitable while others do not.

 

[cawacko]

It is not racist for a white person to call a black person an Uncle Tom, if the person is an Uncle Tom.

An Uncle Tom is 'a black person who understands they can receive benefit from white racists by being the face of their racist views, denigrate other blacks, in a way that will gain them favor and benefit from the racists.' Ie Candice Owen.

You can say it is 'mean' to use such a loaded term but describing Candace Owen and others, as i do in my definition above, is entirely appropriate.

If you are applying the term broad brush against blacks then it would be racist.

With how people use it, it’s basically a racist statement. It follows along the same line of the “you ain’t black” statement that was made. (This also applies to statesments made about LatinX and AAPI people but the focus is usually in black people)

If you think about it it’s really just another form of white supremacy. It’s white people saying you do not have the right to think independently or heterodoxically if you so desire. You just stay in your lane/box. It’s pretty insidious.

 

[QP!]

With how people use it, it’s basically a racist statement. It follows along the same line of the “you ain’t black” statement that was made. (This also applies to statesments made about LatinX and AAPI people but the focus is usually in black people)

If you think about it it’s really just another form of white supremacy. It’s white people saying you do not have the right to think independently or heterodoxically if you so desire. You just stay in your lane/box. It’s pretty insidious.

No.

No, and you highlighted the EXACT distinction.

'You aint black' is a broad brush statement suggesting all black people are the same in a certain regard.

Saying 'Candice Owen is 'a black person who understands she can receive benefit from white racists by being the face of their racist views, denigrate other blacks, in a way that will gain them favor and benefit from the racists.'

Is accurate and true and ONLY speaks to her specifically. You might not like that part simply shortened to 'Uncle Tom' and think it is a rude way to say it, but they mean the same things.


I take issue with you last sentence as it also GROUPS all black people together as if a monolith.

Black people DO THINK INDEPENDENTLY which means a percent will deliberately take the Uncle Tom route knowing it is profitable while others do not.

 

[cawacko]

No, and you highlighted the EXACT distinction.

'You aint black' is a broad brush statement suggesting all black people are the same in a certain regard.

Saying 'Candice Owen is 'a black person who understands she can receive benefit from white racists by being the face of their racist views, denigrate other blacks, in a way that will gain them favor and benefit from the racists.'

Is accurate and true and ONLY speaks to her specifically. You might not like that part simply shortened to 'Uncle Tom' and think it is a rude way to say it, but they mean the same things.


I take issue with you last sentence as it also GROUPS all black people together as if a monolith.

Black people DO THINK INDEPENDENTLY which means a percent will deliberately take the Uncle Tom route knowing it is profitable while others do not.

I understand the intellectual argument you are making of a very specific distinction but at its core, and how 99% of use the term, it references any black (or minority) person who has conservative political beliefs. And the idea that to hold heterodox views is done only to profit carries the same (basically racist) stigma. (that's not to say there has never been anyone who has seen an opportunity to make a dollar but it works both ways; look at folks like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibrahm Kendi, they profit doing what Candace Owens does - just in a different manner - but that's the exception not the rule)

 

[QP!]

I understand the intellectual argument you are making of a very specific distinction but at its core, and how 99% of use the term, it references any black (or minority) person who has conservative political beliefs. And the idea that to hold heterodox views is done only to profit carries the same (basically racist) stigma. (that's not to say there has never been anyone who has seen an opportunity to make a dollar but it works both ways; look at folks like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibrahm Kendi, they profit doing what Candace Owens does - just in a different manner - but that's the exception not the rule)

While i agree some people (racists) will use the term broad brush and thus THEM saying it always racist, the term itself is not racist IMO.


This statement is a fact of life and these black people DO exist ... "...a black person who understands they can receive benefit from white racists by being the face of their racist views, denigrate other blacks, in a way that will gain them favor and benefit from the racists.'..." and if you are saying, you are fine with those particular black people being labeled that way but just do not use the words 'uncle tom' to shorten it, because the latter have been too tarnished by broad brush use... ok.

But in my view there is nothing wrong in identifying an uncle Tom, as such, even if you prefer we use the long form to do so.

 

[Yakuda]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...le-tom-but-he-got-the-opposite-of-an-apology/

It would seem to be racist to me. What say you?

No just a derogatory term used by people of low intelligence. In common parlance, a leftist who can't deal with disagreement.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It is not racist for a white person to call a black person an Uncle Tom, if the person is an Uncle Tom.

An Uncle Tom is 'a black person who understands they can receive benefit from white racists by being the face of their racist views, denigrate other blacks, in a way that will gain them favor and benefit from the racists.' Ie Candice Owen.

You can say it is 'mean' to use such a loaded term but describing Candace Owen and others, as i do in my definition above, is entirely appropriate.

If you are applying the term broad brush against blacks then it would be racist.

Sorry, but anything that divides people into subgroups by skin-tone is racist. Geneticists have proved that human beings can't be subdivided into "races". "Race" is a social construct using superficial characteristics and culture.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The beauty of being white in America. We’re allowed diversity of thought while not being accused of selling out our race while minorities aren’t.

I've been labeled a "race traitor" by JPP White Supremacists.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

With how people use it, it’s basically a racist statement. It follows along the same line of the “you ain’t black” statement that was made. (This also applies to statesments made about LatinX and AAPI people but the focus is usually in black people)

If you think about it it’s really just another form of white supremacy. It’s white people saying you do not have the right to think independently or heterodoxically if you so desire. You just stay in your lane/box. It’s pretty insidious.

Well said and agreed.

Not just white supremacy, but an enforcement of "you're either with us or against us" based on culture and skin-tone.

Consider that both Barack Obama and Colin Kaepernick were both over 50% "white" by ancestry, but have chosen to be "black" by culture. Had they continued to embrace "white culture" is there any doubt some would label them Uncle Toms?

Remember when Tiger Woods first rose to prominience and the kerfuffle caused by his refusal to label himself "Black"? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/may/29/tiger-woods-racial-politics

On 13 April 1997 Tiger Woods putted his way to golfing history in Augusta, Georgia. The fact that he was the first black winner of the US Masters was not even half of it. At 21, he was the youngest; with a 12-stroke lead, he was the most emphatic; and finishing 18 under par, he was, quite simply, the best the world had ever seen.

But the fact that he was black explained much of the excitement. Golf in the US was never just a game. Long regarded as the bastion of the white, Christian and middle class, it was a gatekeeper to respectability and networking, open principally to local and national elites. Black players had been allowed to compete in the Masters in Augusta only since 1975. Until 1982, all the caddies in the tournament there had to be black. And until 1990, Augusta didn't allow black members and even then conceded only because, if they hadn't changed their policy, they would have lost the right to host the tournament....

...But within a fortnight of black America gaining a new sporting hero, it seemed as though they had lost him again. From the revered perch of Oprah Winfrey's couch, Woods was asked whether it bothered him being termed "African-American". "It does," he said. "Growing up, I came up with this name: I'm a 'Cablinasian'."

Woods is indeed a rich mix of racial and ethnic heritage. His father, Earl, was of African-American, Chinese and Native American descent. His mother, Kultida, is of Thai, Chinese and Dutch descent. "Cablinasian" was a composite of Caucasian, black, Indian and Asian. When he was asked to fill out forms in school, he would tick African-American and Asian. "Those are the two I was raised under and the only two I know," he told Oprah. "I'm just who I am ... whoever you see in front of you."

It's not difficult to see where Woods was coming from or to sympathise with what he was saying. Few people relish having their identity reduced to tickable boxes. "By choosing to embrace all of who he is," argued Gary Kamiya in Salon.com, "an entity for which there is no name, except one that sounds like a tribe from the imaginary country of Narnia – Woods, the goofy 21-year-old with the golden-brown skin and the beautiful swing, has become a messenger for a larger truth: Our race does not make us who we are."

True. And yet, if that is the case, Woods' insistence represented not an advance but a retreat in our efforts to retire race as a restrictive category. For far from abolishing racial categories by coining "Cablinasian", he simply created a whole new category just for himself.

Some black Americans, not unreasonably, felt Woods was trying to write himself out of their story....

 

[cawacko]

While i agree some people (racists) will use the term broad brush and thus THEM saying it always racist, the term itself is not racist IMO.


This statement is a fact of life and these black people DO exist ... "...a black person who understands they can receive benefit from white racists by being the face of their racist views, denigrate other blacks, in a way that will gain them favor and benefit from the racists.'..." and if you are saying, you are fine with those particular black people being labeled that way but just do not use the words 'uncle tom' to shorten it, because the latter have been too tarnished by broad brush use... ok.

But in my view there is nothing wrong in identifying an uncle Tom, as such, even if you prefer we use the long form to do so.

I go back to basically 99% of the people who use the term are doing so to reference any black people (not just public figures) who hold conservative or express conservative beliefs or vote conservatively.

I grew up in Oakland. I went to school with a large number of black kids. I can vividly remember my freshman year in high school, there were two very smart black kids in my class, and several other black students came up to them and asked why do they want to be (or think they are) white? At that age I didn't fully comprehend what that statement entailed but now I do. And it's the same as the Uncle Tom references. It's basically saying if you're black you're expected to think and act a certain way. And this is engrained into (black) kids at an early age. Think about that. Growing up is challenging enough but the added pressure of making sure you don't 'act white' or become an Uncle Tom does little to help.

 

[QP!]

Sorry, but anything that divides people into subgroups by skin-tone is racist. Geneticists have proved that human beings can't be subdivided into "races". "Race" is a social construct using superficial characteristics and culture.

Disagree and that is fine.

I simply do not agree that if i put 5 black people and 5 white in front of you and ask you to point out the black (or white) ones, that is racist.

I know some people want to define the word that way but i do not. I would call that racial and not racist. And i understand the view you are ascribing to. i just do not agree with it.

The racist definition i subscribe to involves malice, not simply identifying traits.

And yes race is a social construct. That does not change what i say above.

 

[QP!]

I go back to basically 99% of the people who use the term are doing so to reference any black people (not just public figures) who hold conservative or express conservative beliefs or vote conservatively.

I grew up in Oakland. I went to school with a large number of black kids. I can vividly remember my freshman year in high school, there were two very smart black kids in my class, and several other black students came up to them and asked why do they want to be (or think they are) white? At that age I didn't fully comprehend what that statement entailed but now I do. And it's the same as the Uncle Tom references. It's basically saying if you're black you're expected to think and act a certain way. And this is engrained into (black) kids at an early age. Think about that. Growing up is challenging enough but the added pressure of making sure you don't 'act white' or become an Uncle Tom does little to help.

Fair enough. I can understand your personal POV that the word has been so badly coopted as to only have that meaning for you.

Like i said, i am fine with the term being 'taboo' to use for that reason, but the definition is not if applied to certain persons like Candace Owens. That is my point. This is true of people like her "...a black person who understands they can receive benefit from white racists by being the face of their racist views, denigrate other blacks, in a way that will gain them favor and benefit from the racists.'...", and if you say... yes agreed and you can say that but just don't use the term Uncle Tom', fine. I get it.

What i am arguing is that it not racist nor wrong to properly identify what Candace and those like her are doing.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Disagree and that is fine.

I simply do not agree that if i put 5 black people and 5 white in front of you and ask you to point out the black (or white) ones, that is racist.

I know some people want to define the word that way but i do not. I would call that racial and not racist. And i understand the view you are ascribing to. i just do not agree with it.

The racist definition i subscribe to involves malice, not simply identifying traits.

And yes race is a social construct. That does not change what i say above.

So you support the White Supremacist idea that the human race is subdivided into races. Fine. Do you go with the traditional four races or do you go with something else?

Do you disagree with geneticists that there's no such thing as "race"? That the main difference between groups of human beings is cultural, not genetics?

You can't have it both ways, QP; is race genetic where you can look at people and determine their race or is race a social construct based solely on ignorance of science?

In 2003, Phase 1 of the Human Genome Project (HGP) demonstrated that humans populating the earth today are on average 99.9% identical at the DNA level, there is no genetic basis for race, and there is more genetic variation within a race than between them [2]. In addition, genetic isolation, sharp boundaries and distinct evolutionary lineages of ‘races’ do not exist. Thus, the idea of ‘race’ as a genetic category was presumably put to rest. The continued acceptance of ‘race’ as an appropriate biological category would have to be predicated on data indicating there are genes distinct to one ‘race’ that are transcribed in one ‘race’, but not another and human genetic variation is not continuous.