The Uncle Tom Stigma

"I think you need to re-read my comment, chum"

Did so; not seeing what I missed.

"it's about basically being a weeaboo for White culture and forsaking your own, which is unhealthy."

I wonder if this isn't merely "unhealthy" in the same way that interracial marriage, tomboys, queer marriage, and queer adoption is: it goes against social norms/tradition.

What are the rates of interracial marriage among blacks and non-blacks. Myself (Secretist - black troper) has consider marrying outside of my race. I was engaged outside my race for a while. I generally ignore race and since at school there's a significant amount of white females that trope happens unintentionally. It was based on astrological compatibility so it wasn't a serious attempt at a relationship. We did have a lot in common and had simmilar values and personalities, so it could have worked if we made a serious effort. We just did it because we could along with a cheap sterling silver ring I allowed her to keep.

edited 26th Oct '11 12:56:13 PM by secretist

"Did so; not seeing what I missed."

I'm on my phone right now, so I can't respond efficiently, but let me just say that you'll need to go read it again. You must have missed the whole post if that is your response.

Edit:My post: "On Topic: I like to think of being an Uncle Tom as being similar to being Weeaboo, but with regards to 'White culture instead of Japanese culture.'"

MRDA 1981: "The stereotypical weaboo often fetishes Japanese culture qua Japanese culture. I don't really see that in the folks derided as "Toms"/"coconuts"."

Your post is irrelevant, seeing as how I'm comparing something, and all you're doing is defining what I'm comparing it to, and then saying that you don't see how it doesn't apply

________________________________________________________________________________________

" wonder if this isn't merely "unhealthy" in the same way hat interracial marriage, tomboys, queer marriage, and queer adoption is: it goes against social norms/tradition."

Er, no. You'll never hear me saying something like that. Put down the strawman.

And you've missed the point again; forsaking your own culture and being a weeaboo for another is never good. I'm not talking about being an Otaku here, I'm talking about being a White-culture weeaboo/Uncle Tom.

Take the average weeaboo behaviours: placing a race of people on a pedestal, above most/all others, striving to emulate that culture poorly (to an annoying, often offensive degree), holding an ignorant, incomplete, flawed view on said culture, and attach that to a Black with regard to White culture. That is what is meant when someone calls you an Uncle Tom. At least, in my experience.

Having respect and a fondness for a culture is one thing, (A perfectly healthy, informative, horizon-broadening thing) but to forsake and denounce your own culture for your own poorly-concieved, ignorant, and in some cases, offensive views on another is a different, silly, and far more deplorable one.

An Uncle Tom is someone who is Black, but is so ashamed of their culture that they deny that their hair is afro-tetured. They're that guy who bleaches his skin so that they look 'more civilized'. They are that that guy that insists that you know about their White 12x great uncle, denounces AAVE as "monkey-talk", is an apologist for racism or slavery, and thanks Whites for taking them out of Africa, and advocates bombing it to the stone age, all the while praising Whites for various things as they walk down the aisle with their White bride, who they chose not for love, but because they want to climb some sort of social ladder (As another poster mentioned), and don't want their kids to be 'too dark'.

It breaks my heart when I see someone try to define an Uncle Tom as a Black who has a good job, a full family, doesn't speak with AAVE and has a dislike of rap or gang violence. That's just ignorant.

/rant

edited 26th Oct '11 4:07:19 PM by DisasterGrind

Though given that 'otaku' is a derogatory term in Japan, IIRC...

/pedant.

Then I hope you're willing to speak out against black people who do define an Uncle Tom that way.

edited 26th Oct '11 3:29:16 PM by feotakahari

Of course. Why wouldn't I?

Saying that a Black person has to fulfill certain stereotypes (and such destructive ones at that!) in order to be Black is ricockulous. It's a dangerous idea to be putting into people's heads.

edited 26th Oct '11 3:52:08 PM by DisasterGrind

TBH, I'm not convinced that these aren't entirely mythical.

Again, few-to-none of the folk I've seen referred to as "Toms" carry around this ethnofetishist attitude. In fact, this reads more like a strawman. Granted, this fits the definition of "self-hate" more closely than other behaviours castigated by the Racefinder Generals, but, from both my experience and observation, they tend to define a "race traitor" as someone who, for example, prefers metal to Motown, has geeky mannerisms and interests doesn't use slang, reads something other than Hip-hop Monthly, etc.

Another thing: if this behaviour you cite is "unhealthy" in your eyes, why the derision? If someone has cancer, does it make sense to scorn and scourge them? If the behavours you describe are actually "unhealthy", surely the afflicted ones will suffer under their own steam, right?

edited 27th Oct '11 8:39:09 AM by MRDA1981

"Again, few-to-none of the folk I've seen referred to as "Toms" carry around this ethnofetishist attitude."

That's great, but just because you don't see it very often doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere. For example, many of the Blacks I know know a 'Tom' who act this way, and you can read scores of stories about (Real) people who also act this way.

"In fact, this reads more like a strawman."

How can it? I'm not refuting it, and it's not meant to be a (mis)representation of your points. If anything, I'm just being overly-idealistic in thinking that Blacks should not define Uncle Tom as someone with good qualities like smarts, a good job, etc, and that very few reasonable Blacks actually do. And I'd also like to stress the fact that simply having non-stereotypical interests does not make one an Uncle Tom, and is never a good reason to insult someone.

"Granted, this fits the definition of "self-hate" more closely than other behaviours castigated by the Racefinder Generals"

Yes, but an Uncle Tom is the one who's vocal about it, and also holds Whites in incredibly high regard. Self-hate is a part of being an Uncle Tom. Even my avatar thinks so. Also, you're leaving out the culture/race fetishization.

"they tend to define a "race traitor" as someone who, for example, prefers metal to Motown, has geeky mannerisms and interests doesn't use slang, reads something other than Hip-hop Monthly, etc."

That is stupid. That's a self-destructive definition, there. I've never personally seen Uncle Tom used like that in all the media and conversations I've consumed. Neither has anyone I know, and we all define Uncle Tom the same way, even though we didn't sit together and define it for ourselves. You've got to be more realistic than that, too; no reasonable Black person will call someone out on any of thosse behaviours, nor will they dismiss genuinely good character traits as being White

"Another thing: if this behaviour you cite is "unhealthy" in your eyes, why the derision? If someone has cancer, does it make sense to scorn and scourge them? If the behavours you describe are actually "unhealthy", surely the afflicted ones will suffer under their own steam, right? "

I chose the word 'unhealthy' because it fits alright; It's not overly-vitriolic, and it gets the point across just fine. I mean, I could have easily replaced 'unhealthy' with "fucking stupid", but that's just not how I chose to word it. Plus, this point is silly; it has no bearing on anything at all. Ask anybody if they think any of those behaviours I listed are good for a person. And your cancer point makes no sense whatsoever here; we're not talking about non-behavioural illness, and culture fetishization is not in any way similar to cancer. It's just simply not good for your identity.

PS: I'm not sure if you're implying what I think you are, but I think it would help for you to know that you just described me to a t in your first paragraph, and that I am the offspring of mixed race parents.

edited 27th Oct '11 10:03:10 AM by DisasterGrind

"Another thing: if this behaviour you cite is "unhealthy" in your eyes, why the derision? If someone has cancer, does it make sense to scorn and scourge them? If the behavours you describe are actually "unhealthy", surely the afflicted ones will suffer under their own steam, right?"

That was a strawman, by the way.

No. That was a question.

"Ask anybody if they think any of those behaviours I listed are good for a person."

Appeal to popularity?

"It's just simply not good for your identity."

What standard is "good" being judged by here?

edited 27th Oct '11 10:33:38 AM by MRDA1981

"No. That was a question."

Wrong! You were in the process of distorting my argument and refuting said distorted argument. That's a strawman right there.

"Appeal to popularity?"

Not exactly; it's more of an appeal to common sense. And simply saying "appeal to popularity?" does not make my point any less valid, and does nothing to refute anything I've said.

"What standard is "good" being judged by here?"

We're not here to argue semantics. And if you want to question duality, then you're not in any position to discuss a stigma.

edited 27th Oct '11 11:00:34 AM by DisasterGrind

I guess mindreading isn't your strong suit.

"Common sense" and "good" are vague container words, which the user can fill with whatever preconceived notions they desire:; you'll have to use more definition than you currently use.

"And if you want to question duality, then you're not in any position to discuss a stigma."

Wut?

edited 27th Oct '11 11:14:01 AM by MRDA1981

"I guess mindreading isn't your strong suit."

Yeah, I failed Telepathy 101 and never looked back. The teacher failed me the instant I walked into the classrom.

"Common sense" and "good" are vague container words, which the user can fill with whatever preconceived notions they desire:; you'll have to use more definition than you currently use."

Again, you're questioning duality and arguing semantics. I don't want to get the nice peoples' thread locked, here.

edited 27th Oct '11 11:20:58 AM by DisasterGrind

"Yes, but an Uncle Tom is the one who's vocal about it, and also holds Whites in incredibly high regard."

Other than Uncle Ruckus, I don't know know of any people, fictional or otherwise, vocal about any other race being amazing and superior to their own.

"We're not here to argue semantics. And if you want to question duality, then you're not in any position to discuss a stigma."

Here's a hint, from me to you. Don't drop buzzwords unless you know what the fuck they mean.

edited 27th Oct '11 11:22:03 AM by kashchei

They don't have to outright say it, you know. And I do. So do many people on the internet. Heck, there was one who was on one of those reality shows, who married her White husband because she actually hates Blacks. She was very vocal about it too.

"Here's a hint, from me to you. Don't drop buzzwords unless you know what the fuck they mean. "

"Stigma: a mark of disgrace or infamy; a stain or reproach, as on one's reputation."

This is a bad thing.

If you're here making statements questioning moral dualism (Good/Bad) then how can you accurately discuss a stigma, if you're actively questioning what it means if something is "good/bad" in the first place?

If my definitions are faulty, them shame on me, but that's pretty much what I'm saying.

EDIT: I just realized that I'd misread MRDA's post.

edited 27th Oct '11 11:58:31 AM by DisasterGrind

How can you discuss a stigma if you don't determine what good/positive and bad/negative mean in this context?

Shouldn't you have already determined that for yourself if you've already started arguing?

On an unrelated note, I'd like to say that you guys are great. This is the most fun I've had discussing things in a long while.

edited 27th Oct '11 11:38:33 AM by DisasterGrind

The idea is that, since harm and benefit are relative, we need to understand what each individual discussant means by these terms. It has nothing to do with semantics; we aren't arguing the definition of good, but the extent of it.

Fair enough, I suppose. But what I'm really afraid of is getting the thread locked for going off-topic. But with the way you've put it, that shouldn't be a problem, right?

Edit: I just realized that I'd misread MRDA's post. I thought he was asking me to define good.

edited 27th Oct '11 11:59:41 AM by DisasterGrind

Also, I'd like to apologize for being such an asshat. I tend to get carried away when having a good discussion, and end up simply trying counter anything everyone else says without giving it much thought. I'll try to keep in mind that this isn't a game, and that I need to stop being such a belligerent, immature scatpuffer. Hahaha!

Aprilla's post on this (post 134) was one of the most brilliant things I've ever seen.

^^ Takes a real man to apologize, at any rate, even though you weren't really doing much of anything to warrant an apology

edited 28th Oct '11 2:37:17 PM by kashchei

I love it when Tropers come together!

(smokes cigar as The A Team theme plays)