{"id":3342,"date":"2013-01-05T10:42:38","date_gmt":"2013-01-05T15:42:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/?p=3342"},"modified":"2013-01-05T11:52:25","modified_gmt":"2013-01-05T16:52:25","slug":"is-tar-baby-the-new-n-word","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/is-tar-baby-the-new-n-word\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Tar Baby the new N-Word?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\"WikipediaAs far back as I can recall,<\/strong> the term “tar baby” was a metaphor in common political parlance for a “sticky situation.” It has no racial meaning in that context, any more than saying “honey trap” or “sticky wicket.” Both have similar, but not synonymous meanings. But in the last decade, “tar-baby” has become the new N-word on the political stage.*<\/span><\/p>\n

The tar-baby theme is common in mythology from many cultures (referenced, for example, in Joseph’s Campbell’s groundbreaking work, Hero With a Thousand Faces<\/a>). It represents an apparently attractive situation that traps the beholder and, once you embrace it, the harder you struggle to break free, the more you become stuck in it. I’ve used the term in such a context in several blog posts.\u00a0But recently, when I was accused on Facebook of using “racist” terms by mentioning a tar-baby situation, I was taken aback, and felt I had to disagree. And do some research.<\/p>\n

[youtube=www.youtube.com\/watch?v=YHNDKxySTvU]<\/p>\n

In 2009, the use of this term in the House of Commons created a mini-cyclone of comment about allegedly racist terminology used in the House. As the blog Unambiguously Ambidextrous<\/a>, notes:<\/p>\n

A controversy erupted in the House of Commons today after Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, used the term \u201ctar baby\u201d in response to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff\u2019s decision to back away from Stephane Dion\u2019s unpopular carbon tax policy. I have to plead ignorance on the etymology of the noun, as I have always been more familiar with the pejorative.<\/p>\n

\u201cOn that side of the House, they have the man who fathered the carbon tax, put it up for adoption to his predecessor and now wants a paternity test to prove the tar baby was never his in the first place,\u201d said Poilievre.<\/p>\n

This was followed by MP Ralph Goodale\u2019s objections to the term and asked Mr. Poilievre to apologize for the usage:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn addition to being a pejorative term, which might well prove to be unparliamentary, the parliamentary secretary might consider that there are many authorities both in this country and many others that consider the term racist,\u201d said Goodale.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Stephen Taylor<\/a> provided a list of references to similar non-parliamentary uses of the term in his blog, none of which seem to have have generated the same storm of controversy.\u00a0Clara Rising<\/a>, writing in 2002 about collective religious consciousness, called original sin, “a cultural Tar Baby implacable and immutable, as infinite and as unavoidable as eternity<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

Back in 2006, then-governor Mitt Romney was taken to task for using the term “tar-baby” in a reference to a piece of problematic infrastructure. As a\u00a0Time Magazine<\/a>\u00a0writer commented about the subsequent uproar:<\/p>\n

So, is use of the term today a case of insensitivity? Or is the controversy caused by political correctness gone amok?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The latter, I suggest. True, I might not be as sensitive to it as Americans. I don’t live in the same political-racial-social milieu as most Americans; while racism exists in Canada, it is not nearly as overt in our multicultural nation.<\/p>\n

In the USA, “tar-baby” has been used as a pejorative (and sometimes as a term of affection<\/a>). Racial politics are so highly charged among our southern neighbours that it is a treacherous undercurrent in American political dialogue. As the Colorado Springs Gazette<\/a> noted in this editorial:<\/p>\n

Racism in the political sphere today has become so insulting that it makes “tar-baby” seem benign.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Even if mild, a white person calling someone of African-American heritage a “tar-baby” is considered a racist slur, and I can appreciate the sensitivity of the use. But surely there’s a difference between labelling a person, race or group with a term and labelling an issue or situation.<\/p>\n

Just as an example, calling a woman a “honey trap<\/a>” is very different from labelling a common tactic in espionage a\u00a0honey trap<\/a>. If I call a woman a bitch, it is very different from calling a tricky shot in golf one. Clearly context matters.<\/p>\n

Would there be an issue if we used the metaphor of the “tar-wolf”<\/a> (from James Mooney’s Myths of the Cherokee<\/em>)? Would anyone be accused of slinging racist slurs against aboriginal First Nations people by talking about a “tar-wolf” situation? The two stories are almost identical<\/a>, aside from the difference between the character molded from the tar. Both the Cherokee and African-Americans shared at least one disreputable part of US history:<\/div>\n

If these two stories sound remarkably similar, it is no coincidence.\u00a0 Before the Cherokee were relocated to Oklahoma in 1838, many were plantation owners and owned slaves.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the heated cauldron of American politics, or in the adversarial arena of the House of Commons, people are constantly looking for ways to attack opponents for any reason, regardless of the validity or strength of the attack. Unfortunately, this also creates a situation of apparent wrongdoing by making it a focus of media attention. The perception of \u00a0racism can create the reality in the public mind that it is there, regardless any logical argument that it is imaginary. Words themselves, no matter how innocently used, become their own tar-babies.<\/p>\n

[youtube=www.youtube.com\/watch?v=S4D470YSl2Y]<\/p>\n

The Denver Post<\/a> commented on this flap in the US:<\/p>\n

The notion that referencing African folklore reveals inherent racism against those of African descent is bizarre.<\/p>\n

True, the tar baby has been fundamentally misunderstood by various illiterate racists. In their ignorance of the folklore, such bigots think the term applies specifically to a black person. For example, the late comedic genius Bernie Mac wrote of being called a “tar baby” as a child. But surely we ought not let ignorant racists push us to obliterate cultural knowledge of important African folklore.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This raises the question: where does the reference come from? The Denver Post<\/a> points out a bit of the history:<\/p>\n

“Tar baby” comes from African folklore. Congressman Doug Lamborn used the term to refer to the debt-ceiling negotiations, not the president. And the nationwide smear campaign against Lamborn follows the left’s typical path of character assassination and guilt by association.
\nIn his book, “Hero with a Thousand Faces,” Joseph Campbell writes of the “celebrated and well-nigh universal tar-baby story of popular folklore.” Campbell refers to scholar Aurelio Espinosa, who in the 1930s and ’40s gathered hundreds of examples of “the tar-baby story” from around the world, varying in detail but all about getting stuck in something.
\nIn America, we know the story best from Joel Chandler Harris’ “Uncle Remus” stories of the 1800s. But Harris did not create these stories. Instead, he took (some say stole) them from slaves, who brought the stories with them from Africa and adapted them orally.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What’s ironic is that Chandler’s stories were not seen as racist until more than a century later. They were originally treated as they were meant: records of African-American folklore.**<\/span> As Wikipedia<\/a> notes:<\/p>\n

The animal stories were conveyed in such a manner that they were not seen as racist by many among the audiences of the time. By the mid-20th century, however, the dialect and the “old Uncle” stereotype of the narrator, was considered politically incorrect and demeaning by many African-American people, on account of what they considered to be racist and patronizing attitudes toward African-Americans. Providing additional controversy is the story’s context in the Antebellum south on a slave owning plantation, a setting that is portrayed in a passive and even docile manner. Nevertheless, Harris’ work was, according to himself, an accurate account of the stories he heard from the slaves when he worked on a plantation as a young man. … Many of the stories that he recorded have direct equivalents in the African oral tradition, and it is thanks to Harris that their African-American form is preserved.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wikipedia<\/a> has a lengthier list of antecedents, including Cherokee and African folk tales, and mentions one researcher who identified 267 variants on the tale in world mythology.<\/p>\n

The New Republic<\/a> took up the debate, noting in 2011 when the term again raised its politically-charged head:<\/p>\n

…the word around the blogosphere, most articulately phrased by\u00a0David Sirota<\/a>\u00a0at\u00a0Salon<\/em>, is that Lamborn was using coded language: \u201c[T]he comment reveals how various forms of racism are still being mainstreamed by the fringe right,\u201d as Sirota has it. But before making that judgment, we must ascertain: Is\u00a0tar baby<\/em>\u00a0actually a racial slur?<\/p>\n

Certainly not the way the guys\u00a0before<\/em>\u00a0Lamborn were using it. A notion that they were passing a quiet signal to racists is awkward, given the decidedly non-black topics they were discussing. Need we entertain the possibility that Romney was telegraphing a subtle signal to bigots in a discussion of a highway project? Was John McCain preaching a coded message to a racist base in a comment about divorce procedure?<\/p>\n

In those instances, a simpler analysis works. Language is all about metaphor, and it is useful to have one to refer to objects or topics that ensnare one upon contact. It\u2019s why the Bre\u2019r Rabbit story the expression traces to has had such legs\u2014as well as why cultures worldwide, including African ones, have equivalent folklore characters. Thus a reasonable analysis is that people reach for this useful metaphor, within the rapid and subconscious activity that speaking entails, unaware that some consider it to have a second meaning as a slur.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As little as I respect the Republicans or Harper’s Conservatives, I doubt they would be deliberately and provocatively racist, and, like my use, meant the word as a powerful metaphor that still resounds in popular culture. John McWhorter, at the New Republic<\/a>, added:<\/p>\n

I submit, however, that to a large extent, those who feel that\u00a0tar baby<\/em>\u2019s status as a slur is patently obvious are judging from the fact that it\u00a0sounds like<\/em>\u00a0a racial slur, because tar is black and baby sounds dismissive. And here\u2019s the crucial point: that, in itself, is a reality that cannot be denied.<\/p>\n

Part of the human propensity for metaphor is that we make semantic associations, which drift and reassign over time. As such, it\u2019s not the most graceful thing to refer to a black figure as a\u00a0tar baby<\/em>, and it was quite gracious for Lamborn to apologize. However, to assume Lamborn knew the word was a slur and was passing a grimy little signal to his base is unwarranted here. It is the kind of reflexive and recreational abuse we revile when it comes from the other direction (i.e. Obama as a \u201cracist\u201d).<\/p>\n

Tar baby<\/em>\u00a0is one of those intermediate cases: The basic meaning is the folkloric one, while a derived meaning, known only to a segment of American English speakers (and to many among them, only vaguely) is a dismissive reference to black people.<\/p>\n

There will be gaffes with expressions like these, upon which, in a sociologically enlightened society, apologies will be necessary. However, to insist upon the moral backwardness of the apologist is logically incoherent in reference to this particular term, and as such, less sociologically enlightened than it may seem.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sounds<\/em> like a racist slur? Should we not judge a thing by more depth than a bad first impression? There’s a conversation in Woody Allen’s movie, Annie Hall<\/a>, in which Alvy Singer (played by Allen) is complaining about what he (mis)hears as an anti-Semitic remark by a TV executive:<\/p>\n

“You know, I was having lunch with some guys from NBC, so I said, ‘Did you eat yet or what?’ And Tom Christie said, ‘No, JEW?’ Not ‘Did you?’…JEW eat? JEW? You get it? JEW eat?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which the audience recognizes as both comically over-sensitive on Alvy’s part, but also as a wry comment on how things get misconstrued so easily. Such is the situation with “tar-baby” today. Except not all of the audience seems to get the joke.<\/p>\n

The Denver Post<\/a> editorial concluded:<\/p>\n

The irony is that “tar baby” has become its own tar baby, and we’re all getting stuck in it. Several media outlets reviewed my detailed blog posts on the matter, and all involved stole time away from addressing the nation’s pressing problems.<\/p>\n

Yet there’s a reason the tar baby folktale has spread through so many cultures. It teaches us something important and universal about human nature. And that’s precisely why we ought not sacrifice the African tar baby story on the altar of political correctness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I agree with that last line. Metaphors are powerful and memorable because they speak to something larger than just the words. Most come from storytelling and in a few words they encapsulate the entire tale – the characters, the events, the moral. The Colorado Springs Gazette<\/a> suggests what I don’t believe is a reasonable solution:<\/p>\n

Let us all stop saying \u201ctar-baby,\u201d for sure. For using this phrase, Lamborn will pay. He is mired in a controversy that will get worse as he fights against it. But let\u2019s keep perspective. Relative to the racial hatred and insensitivity that permeates political rhetoric of the past and present, this should be far from a major-league scandal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What next? Will we stop saying “slow but steady wins the race” because it comes from one of Aesop’s fables, and it might be seen as a slur against Greeks? Stop using “the boy who cried wolf” because it might be derogatory towards shepherds? Stop using the “good Samaritan” parable because it might be seen as a pejorative against Palestinians (today’s Samaritan ancestors)? Where will this nonsense end? Will we abandon all of our powerful language and chuck metaphors out the window out of fear someone won’t understand what we’re saying?<\/p>\n

Better instead to get our head out of the politically correct sand learn to recognize the context of a metaphor. Stop treating it like a convenient one-size-fits-all racist slur that fits your preconceived political notions, and start thinking critically instead.<\/p>\n

~~~~~<\/strong><\/p>\n

*<\/span> Yes, I know “tar baby” is really two words, but calling it the new N-phrase has no cachet. N-word<\/a> has a life of its own, larger than mere counting or vocabulary.<\/p>\n

**<\/span> Uncle Remus stories were still popular when I was growing up in the 1950s, and I saw Disney’s 1946 cartoon version (Song of the South) on TV that decade. Even as a child I was able to see the racial stereotypes and exaggerations. Uncle Remus tales were still available in school libraries, too, sometimes alone, other times in compilations of folktales.<\/p>\n

Read the tale<\/a> here. I wonder why the briar patch metaphor<\/a> from the second half of the tale does not evoke similar revulsion among the politically correct guardians.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

<\/div>\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

As far back as I can recall, the term “tar baby” was a metaphor in common political parlance for a “sticky situation.” It has no racial meaning in that context, any more than saying “honey trap” or “sticky wicket.” Both have similar, but not synonymous meanings. But in the last decade, “tar-baby” has become the new N-word on the political stage.* The tar-baby theme is common in mythology from many cultures (referenced, for example, in Joseph’s Campbell’s groundbreaking work, Hero With a Thousand Faces). It represents an apparently attractive situation that traps the beholder and, once you embrace it, the \u2026…… click below for more \u2193<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[8,11,204,73,62,203,96,219],"tags":[78,41,75,61],"class_list":["post-3342","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books","category-federal-and-provincial-politics","category-internet-social-media","category-language-grammar","category-world-politics","category-quotesmis-quotes","category-social-order-disorder","category-us-international-politics","tag-grammar","tag-heritage","tag-language","tag-politics"],"a3_pvc":{"activated":true,"total_views":12140,"today_views":2},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3342","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3342"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3342\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3358,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3342\/revisions\/3358"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3342"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3342"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3342"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}