Talk:Uncle Tom

Uncle Ben's Rice

As example? https://www.tiff.net/the-review/uncle-tom-is-dead/ https://www.rogerogreen.com/2015/10/21/uncle-ben-carson-as-uncle-tom/ 2607:F2C0:E006:34:B103:D3D1:C6F0:DE87 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oreo

The definition for Oreo is not the one that I've heard when I was growing up. I remember it as being someone with a white and black parent. It was still derogatory, but I think the definition is wrong. Anyone else have input? 128.193.44.196 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Growing up in South Africa some people were given the label "coconut" - black on the outside, white on the inside - maybe "oreo" is a similar label? --Totorotroll (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh!> … this gets bounced back & forth every few months … an editor adds it, and then Some Other Editor removes it … I've lost track. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)}

Cabin is real

Uncle Tom's cabin exists: in Canada. One day soon I'll add some info....DW

Actually it's the cabin of Josiah Henson (located near Chatham, Ontario), the escaped slave whose experiences inspired much of the book.

It would be better included under Uncle Tom's Cabin - stewacide 22:57 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)

Fine ground glass

We humans have been making glass for over 3500 years.

The Ancient Egyptians were making and exporting glass from their factories to their neighbours in Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Cyprus and Crete.

About 500 years ago, it was believed that if you ground up some valuable glass and fed it to an enemy, it would kill them. A few centuries later, the slave chronicles of pre-Civil War America refer to disgruntled black slaves who “poisoned masters and mistresses with arsenic, ground glass and ‘spiders beaten up in buttermilk’ ”. A popular device in Victorian literature had fictional characters using ground glass to surreptitiously kill off unwanted relatives. The “ground glass death” myth persists to this day. For example, it is claimed that unscrupulous manufacturers of ecstasy cut it with ground glass. But, as it says in Porgy and Bess, it ain’t necessarily so.

Firstly, I should clear up exactly what I mean by ground glass. The ground glass that I don’t mean is the type used in the focussing systems of expensive still and movie cameras. No, the ground glass I’m talking about is what you get if you smash glass up into tiny pieces that you then maliciously feed to someone.

In 1642, the writer and physician, Sir Thomas Browne, described in his book, Pseudodoxia Epidemica, how he tested this myth on dogs – and how he debunked it. (I guess he didn’t have to deal with a Grants Committee or an Ethics Committee). He wrote, “That Glass is poison, according unto common conceit, I know not how to grant … from experience, as having given unto Dogs above a dram thereof, subtilly (sic) powdered in Butter and Paste, without any visible disturbance”.

More recently, in 1916, a poisoner in New York City testified that he had tried to use ground glass to kill people, but that it had proved to be useless.

Since then, many people have written about this supposed toxicity of ground glass, but probably the nicest summary comes from Dr. D. P. Lyle, who wrote the enticingly-entitled Forensics for Dummies. In another of his books, Murder and Mayhem, A Doctor Answers Medical and Forensic Questions for Mystery Writers, he answers the ground glass conundrum. He writes that “very fine glass is unlikely to cause any lethal damage to the Gastro Intestinal tract … Even with coarser glass, the bleeding would probably not be massive or life-threatening, but slow and (would) lead to anaemia and fatigue.”

The gut is a very dynamic organ, writhing around as it does in that space between the bottom of your lungs and the top of your legs. It is also dynamic on its inside. It both grinds your food very finely in the stomach, as well as pushing it along the 8-metre-or-so length of the gut and out into your toilet bowl. Long skinny splinters of glass would definitely cause problems as it got shoved along your gut – but you would certainly notice it as you chewed your meal.

And yes, chunks of jagged glass the size of matchheads would cause bleeding as they rubbed against the soft interior of your gut - but while it was in your mouth, you would have to notice the unexpectedly rough texture of your meal. You would still notice the glass if it were ground as finely as sand (ever had a picnic on a windy day at the beach?). If the glass were ground so finely that you didn’t notice its presence in your mouth, then neither would your gut.

There might be an intermediate grain size of ground glass which you wouldn’t notice eating, but which would cause some minor bleeding, which you would notice in the toilet bowl - and then you could denounce your murderously transparent relative as a Pain in the Glass… Should you really wish to use glass as a murder weapon, do try a broken bottle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.152.243 (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC) A comment on the note about a cook and fine ground glass: no body would die from eating glass if it is fine enough to be eaten without noticing, nor will anyone eat it if it where noticeable. Fine ground glass has no more effect then the sand of the sea shore. If anyone has a beter example, please edit it.

Sand on the seashore is old, it has been slowly ground for a long time and it has rounded edges under a microscope. Freshly ground glass will have sharp edges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.124.240.82 (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you're not familiar with real-life examples of this. Yes, it WAS effective over time; slave masters died slowly, from internal bleeding. (Ya-aay! One more for our side) :-p deeceevoice (talk · contribs) 17:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the Internet: "They poisoned masters and mistresses with arsenic, ground glass and 'spiders beaten up in buttermilk.' They chopped them [slaveholders] to pieces with axes and burned their houses, gins and barns to the ground." (Robinson) Plottin' and schemin', grinnin' an' skinnin' to ol' massa's face, but with a stolen knife in a back pocket and an escape plan at the ready. 'S how we got ovuh. :-p deeceevoice (talk · contribs) 11:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you read this before you believe a general list of ways to poison people... http://www.snopes.com/horrors/poison/glass.htm

Gee, thanks for the patronizing suggestion, but the author of the piece you cite makes certain assumptions based on free folks in the modern era:

1. speed. Slaves were slaves for life. It's not like they had someplace to go. The amount of time it took to accomplish a murder was insignificant. In fact, the slowness of a hated master's death and watching as it took hold of him could make the process even more satisfying/gratifying. :-D
2. Medical care. Rather than visit a physician, it would be far more likely that the afflicted slaveowner would rely on home remedies for something apparently so minor (in the beginning, at least) as intestinal discomfort or stool blackened by blood. And guess who would've tended to him? Yep. Good ol' "Mammy." :-p
3. Poison. Most slaves did not have free access to poisonous substances; indeed, even so common an agricultural substance as lye often was carefully controlled/accounted for. Did vengeance homicide using poisonous substances happen? Of course (hooray!). But shattered glass from an "accident" in the kitchen would have been discarded without reservation. Further, it would have been relatively plentiful over time and never missed. If one had the time (and it's already established they did) to grind it, glass made a perfectly serviceable, untraceable instrument of murder. Poison could be more easily detected -- and, in case of the existence of an antidote -- more easily treated. Given a choice, would you choose to kill a racist, rapist crakkker, or someone who sold your children away from you, and be found out, mutilated/murdered for your trouble in a public and agonizing way so as to be made an example of? Or, would you rather do so surreptitiously over time and survive to savor the act? "Uncle Tom" was an "uncle" because "uncle" was/is a derogatory term for an elderly black man. A reminder: the subject under discussion here is tomming -- not how to be a "bad nigguh" and die young. We're talking stealth here, cunning subterfuge. Rule number two: get even/get ovuh. Rule number one (and the most important; it is "how we got over"): stay alive.
4. Efficacy. Snopes doesn't say ground glass wouldn't kill someone; it most certainly did. It simply says it would take -- again -- time.
5. Detectability. Finely ground glass can be concealed in food -- particularly in the kind of simple food eaten in the antebellum South. The texture of stoneground grains, nuts, porridges and stews -- rather than the refined flours and highly processed and relatively sophisticated fare of today -- could easily disguise it, the occassional grit detected as merely a consequence of rural circumstances, incomplete washing of raw ingredients.

Such acts of defiance were more than wishful thinking/apocryphal folklore. They actually happened. deeceevoice (talk · contribs) 22:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry, but where is a single cite that supports someone dying from ground glass? --Vision4bg (talk · contribs) 02:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste a lot of time hunting down evidence on something so widely known as this. Just about anyone who's studied slave resistance knows of this method of retribution. From ReligiousTolerance.org, "A brief history of the "peculiar institution": 16th-18th centuries, in North America & Britain":

"Many, perhaps most, slaves engaged in passive resistance:

"'They worked no harder than they had to, put on deliberate slowdowns, staged sit-down strikes and fled to the swamps en masse at cotton picking time. They broke implements, trampled the crops and 'took' silver, wine, money, corn, cotton and machines.' 3

"Others were more aggressive:

"'They poisoned masters and mistresses with arsenic, ground glass and 'spiders beaten up in buttermilk.' They chopped them [slaveholders] to pieces with axes and burned their houses, gins and barns to the ground.'"

Another source:

From a curriculum abstract developed by Yolanda Jones-Generette of Yale:

"Female slaves were often given the job of cook for their slaveholders. These slaves would sometimes poison the food that they prepared for their masters. Slaves would create concoctions from different herbs and plants and put them into the food of their masters in which resulted in death for some slave owners. These slave cooks would grind up glass in food and they would prepare meals with other harmful items in them.2"

If I searched my personal library, I probably could come up with more information on this relatively widespread practice -- but I haven't the time or the inclination to do so. deeceevoice 13:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a fairly minor issue so this is the last thing I'm going to add about this since you seem to feel fairly passionately about the testimonies you've read, but the article says:

"or exact a slow and agonizing death from her master by lacing his food with finely ground glass"

Whereas as far as *I've* read there has never been a proven case of poisoning by ground glass being hidden in food. If the article was reworded so that it said something to the effect of "attempting to poison", it'd be better. Pedantic, yes, but also factual. --Vision4bg 14:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've returned to the snopes.com article and re-skimmed it from top to bottom. The case it presents has done absolutely nothing to overturn the historical accounts of poisoning using glass. In fact, it doesn't even address the numerous historical references to the practice of slave cooks grinding glass in their masters' food, which attests to the historical and cultural bias inherent in the article -- something which I suppose is understandable, given the times, but is not at all useful in debunking numerous credible historical references to slave resistance.

Incidentally, it has also occurred to me there is another wrinkle in all of this, and that is the relatively high lead content of a lot of early glass and the effects such lead poisoning would have over time. If players of the water harp (armonica) contracted serious nervous system disorders, insanity and other maladies from merely rubbing the rims of leaded glass, consider what ingestion of it might do over time. Unless you come up with something better than the snopes article to challenge what has been widely accepted as historical fact for decades (ask virtually anyone who has studied the subject or read any decent related work), I'm strongly inclined to let the passage stand. Some historians, for example, have challenged the authenticity of folklore recounting quilts being used as "flags" of sorts to point the way to runaway bondsmen and women (based on the absence of written evidence of the practice before the 1980s) and all sorts of other things -- but never, to my knowledge, such accounts of black, uh ... culinary creativity. deeceevoice 16:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair/ Unfair Accusations

Hey guys, I was wondering if it was worth putting in something about many people accused of being Uncle Toms based on views that simply aren't in line with the majority of the black race, rather than actually being against the race. For instance, some called Bill Cosby an Uncle Tom because he said black parents were not doing enough. In this day and age, such accusations of "Tomming" are quite frequent and I thought it would be worth a mention.--Zoso Jade 20:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ignorant or offended people say lots of things. That doesn't mean they merit mention in a Wikipedia article. IMO, Cosby's right on time. deeceevoice 18:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagreeing

If I may chime in, I also feel that simply disagreeing with the majority is commonly thought of as tomming and is based on the ignorance of people who would label Cosby or Clarence Thomas as Uncle Tom's. It may be nice to mention that simply being a black conservative with strict family values does not make you an oreo. Not every African-American wants to hear 50-cent and put down Bush all day. Secondly, as a Microbiologist and skeptic of Urban Legend I conducted a little research time and effort to the ground glass myth as well. I have asked a surgeon friend who works at Harborview in Seattle and have also thought about the effects on stomach lining and intestinal tissue and it is our belief that consuming ground glass (fine enough to avoid detection) is completely harmless. The slave may have felt he or she was poisoning but it is far more likely that coincidental death due to stomach cancer etc. would have perpetuated a myth amongst the black community. It is in fact very much like eating sand and I'd invite a person with doubts to really think about the damage that fine powdered silica (inert in the human body) would have on cells in the GI tract. Because slave historians have encountered reports of its occurence does not make it a valid way of killing someone. Just my two cents, I won't edit the page. I'll leave it up to the community as it is a very SMALL but interesting point. J Shultz 02:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Just one minute. The majority of African-Americans are socially (not politically) conservative and continue to have strict family values. The schism generally is among older African Americans and some youth. And, I beg to differ. Hell, most African-Americans get a kick out of anybody putting down Bush, any day, anytime, anywhere. And, no. The fact is being a black political conservative in the black community generally does -- rightly or wrongly -- make you an oreo. You're considered a Quizling. And dat's the troof, roof. :p deeceevoice 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

While I will defend Cosby, I have to say that Clarence "Uncle" THOMmas is, indeed, a vile, depraved, self-loathing, lying Uncle Tom. :p His set of symptoms/pathology is classic; I knew he had a white wife before I knew it as fact. I'm leftist, pro-choice, feminist, black nationalist/pan-Africanist -- and I have no use for ignorant, misogynist gangsta rap, either; but those things embodied in the code phrase "family values" and white supremacy and racism amd imperialism and paternalism and the bull-crap foreign policy agenda of that arrogant, clueless half-wit in charge at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, all of which seem to be core, mainstream American values, piss me the hell off. It's not like there's no in-between area here. Further, regardless of your conversation with the surgeon, the historic record is what it is, and it contains numerous such accounts in various credible works. Unless and until a credible historical or medical work addresses and debunks such claims, the passage should be considered as "factual" as any other and should remain. deeceevoice 05:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of the novel

The article states the following:

Most blacks, however, object to Tom's passivity, willing subservience and complete lack of outrage at his enslavement, and to Stowe's paternalism in the portrayal of the loyal, patient, long-suffering Tom. They view the author's prose as patronizing, condescending, stereotypical, and emasculating. The depiction of Tom in the popular stage version of the novel also was greatly influential in popular perception of Tom as a servile, white-haired, shuffling slave who was grateful to his master.

Is this opinion or fact? I've read the book and I don't agree with that claim that Tom is "willingly subservient" and harbors a "lack of outrage" at his enslavement. If that is the case, why would he help his niece escape, and then refuse to tell his master where she went? The reason Tom stays on the plantation is because his age and infirmity make escape unrealistic, not because he enjoys being a slave.

Anecdotally, I've known quite a few African Americans who have read the book and been pleasantly surprised at the portrayal of Tom. My understanding is that the epithet "Uncle Tom" comes not from the book itself but from various minstrel shows of the same name that distorted Tom's character into a "happy darkie."

Funnyhat 04:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of the term is that it originally meant a character like Uncle Tom in the book: someone who had the opportunity for freedom and independence from white control but refused to take it. What made it derogatory wasn't that Tom was too dumb to gain his own freedom, but that Tom knew slavery was miserable and had the power to free himself, but chose wretch familiarity instead.

Over time the semantic content of the insult drifted to describe blacks in the white establishment who acted in the interest of themselves and their white cronies against that of other blacks, especially poor ones. The term "Uncle Tom" couldn't have been applied with this meaning originally, since for a long time there was no such thing as a black in the white establishment; rich blacks had instead a sort of parallel society until the decline of segregation in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.--96.245.223.207 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"The practice of covert resistance"

Can any sources be provided that support the assertion that 'Tomming' was often a practice of resistance? While I agree with User:Deeceevoice that Wikipedia has multiple systemic biases and sympathise with the aim to "set the record straight on race", I'm afraid that this section simply reads like speculation at the moment. It really does need some explicitly-referenced verifiable content. TSP 15:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That section looks like a WP:NOR violation ... I've moved it further down in the article. —141.156.241.54 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oreo etc

This article doesn't do a very good job of explaining the diff between Oreo (+ equivalent terms) and Uncle Tom. The Oreo article does so somewhat better. The kind of people these terms were used to describe are rather diff... Nil Einne 15:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the section "Other terms with the same meaning" and removed the Mounds and cocoanut references, as well as Twinkie, bananna, and apple ... that article Food metaphors for race does a sufficient job, and it was getting a little off-target ... this is a very America-centric term (not British or French), and specific to African Americans, not Asian Americans or Latino Americans. --72.75.105.165 11:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As I was editing, I got interrupted in the reorganization of that section ... it seemed that Uncle Tomahawk belonged closer to the top, and it made sense to keep cocoanut after some other text was removed ... the order still does not feel quite right, but I'm starting to get sloppy, so that's all I'll do for now. I still think that Mau-Mauing thing is unique to British Colonials, but I won't take responsibility for removing it. --72.75.105.165 12:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up the definition section

I took out "It is often used towards African American police officers who are accused of "selling out" through working for what is considered an oppressive white power structure criminal justice system.". It was superflous and needlessly specific. Defining the term and then explaining its most popular usage - a perjorative for blacks who side politically with seemingly anti-black views - was enough, and the police-related usage is close to original research without a cite (especially since I've never heard it used that way before). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.229.179 (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2006

Vandalism

This page has been vandalized, and I can't figure out how to edit out the vandalism. It is obviously a complex code. Someone please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.7.176.49 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2006

People accused of being an Uncle Tom

This is the second time that I have reverted this list ... please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material, and most of these are "poorly sourced" (and I'm not just talking about the editor's failure to use {{cite}} templates, BTW) as they are simply blogs or other editorial essays, and not Hard News, i.e., they are the opinions of the writer, not verifiable reports of the accusation, e.g., when Belafonte called Colin and Condi "White House niggers" ... even if a few of the references provided came from reliable sources, the very idea of such a list violates neutral point of view ... note that the Three-revert rule does not apply to such reverts, so please stop, or else I will have to notify an administrator of this situation. —72.75.85.159 (talk · contribs) 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs) has restored the list again, this time without the blog citations ... but it's still a Bad Idea that violates WP:BLP, so I'm reverting it again. --72.75.85.159 03:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. I found the inclusion of these derogatory references to certain political figures to be controversial, offensive, and add no relevant value to the page. --68.13.47.75 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop, Please stop IM SOOOOOOO OFFENDED ..... shut up already —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.116.80 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Carlton Banks

Not satisfied with being unable to make "improvements" to this article, Hoponpop69 added a wikilink for Uncle Tom to the Carlton Banks article the other day so that they could then add Carlton's photograph to this article ... OTOH, they did not do a very good job of providing a proper wikilink to the character, so I have fixed it (List of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air characters#Carlton Banks instead of Carlton Banks, which is an incomplete redirect to just the list, not the character in the list) ... if some other editor thinks that the photo does not belong, then feel free to remove it, because I (for one) really do not have time for these kinds of ego trips from editors who refuse to discuss controversial edits (see above) ... since it's about a fictional character and not a living person, I really don't care one way or the other, but if you're going to do something like this, at least do it the correct way. --Dennette 01:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

POV?

This line:

"It is commonly used to describe black people whose political views or allegiances are considered by their critics as detrimental to blacks as a group."

I believe is biased and uses what I think people call "weasel words" (i.e. "considered by their critics"). "Uncle Tom" is often used if a black person is simply outside the political mainstream of blacks (typically having a conservative or libertarian ideology). AbstractClass 08:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ... OTOH, I'd check the cited source first to see if it isn't a direct quote from the author ... frankly, I can't see that much difference between "detrimental" and "outside the political mainstream" from the detractor's perspective, since the latter implies the former to them ... the key point not to lose is that it's a black-on-black term, like "You don't get to use the N-word".

I seem to remember that an earlier version (about a year ago) had "other blacks" instead of "their critics", but someone thought that it was not PC or something, changed it, and no one reverted it. — 141.156.216.67 (talk · contribs) 13:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That like is perfectly NPOV as it is. Who is it biased against? It carefully does not describe what any of those views or allegiances are, yet factually states the common current day usage. And the problem with "other blacks" instead of "their critics" is obviously (I must add in a most insulting way) a matter of accuracy - it's the simple fact that non-blacks can and do use the term.Snackmagic 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Racist Term

There should be some discussion as to whether the term itself is racist and why or why not.

I agree. In my personal opinion, it is a racial slur and an offensive one at that.--74.74.110.50 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Palanaki

Uncle Tomahawk

Winfred Blevins, in his Dictionary of the American West (various publishers and editions) cites the term "Uncle Tomahawk" as a term for an Amerindian displaying the same outlook as an Uncle Tom negro, and cites it as an extension of that original term.

TJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanyajane (talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Tanyajane 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder if we could include the term "Twinkie", which I've seen used as a derogative term for asians who act the same way (yellow on the outside, white on the inside). I can only come up with one third party usage at the moment though, in the movie Harold and Kumar go to White Castle. --Ifrit (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted section

I have deleted the Notable controversial users section per WP:BLP and WP:SYN. Substantial parts of the section were unreferenced, and most of what was referenced simply documented the use of the term (in one case only allegedly). In only one instance was controversy established through multiple independent sources. One instance isn't enough to sustain an entire section, nor did it have significance beyond a brief news event. Probably deletable outright per BLP, and if not then belongs in the individual biographies rather than here. Durova^Charge! 02:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good … it was starting to get kinda off topic. :-) Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)}

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 22:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

The problem I have with this rewrite is that it focusses almost entirely on the literary origins of the character and says almost nothing about the actual meaning of the term in modern discourse. I think that needs to be addressed. Gatoclass (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

By all means expand it more. When I started it was one paragraph of content followed by a laundry list of BLP violations. For two years people had tried to remove the BLP violations, but they kept getting reinstated and converted into WP:SYNTH violations. That landry list took up most of the article (such as it was), so the only feasible way to move forward was to undertake a major expansion. This is where the sources that were readily available went. If you'd like to bring in more sources, please do. Durova^Charge! 17:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing "white Southern slaveowners" to "white slaveowners"

In the novel, Uncle Tom's master, Simon Legree, is from the North. This was an important point to Stowe: she was trying to point out that the North as well as the South bore the moral guilt for slavery, and Tom's Christianity is superior not merely to that of Southern slaveowners but also to that of Northerners who countenanced and encouraged slavery or, like Legree, actually came south to practice it themselves. Pirate Dan (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

James Weldon Johnson's opinion

HUGE problem with the line about James Weldon Johnson's opinion on the book. The quote does NOT come from Johnson's autobiography Along This Way. Rather, it comes from his fictional book The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man. The book is absolutely not autobiographical in any way, and its narrator actually expresses a few views that were contrary to Johnson's own. Even the wiki page on the book, which is otherwise completely appalling, could tell you that. 192.246.233.118 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)caty

If that's in error the mistake was unintentional. Feel free to correct it; this is a wiki. Durova³⁵⁷ 03:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Michael Steele

I know Michael Steele is often called an Uncle Tom, but why is he in the "see also" section. Doesnt seem very NPOV TylerRDavis (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Intro doesn't summarize article

The intro does not summarize the article. The lede says:

• Uncle Tom is a derogatory term for a person who perceives themselves to be of low status, and is excessively subservient to perceived authority figures; ..

But that is not the major concept in the article. Instead, the article mostly discusses character(s) named "Uncle Tom". Maybe the article should be split. But the current article is poorly summarized in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  18:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Lycurgus started fixing this. I did some further shuffling that I think puts the article more in-line with others on Wikipedia that would describe an element of fiction along with a resulting epithet.

Most of the article is about the character, with one section describing the evolution of the epithet. I edited the intro and hat statement to better represent it. Also renamed the section that explains the history of the epithet (was "Minstrel stock character"), added an explicit description of it, and moved the epithet's details down there from the intro. I also added a "main article" link here from Uncle Tom's Cabin's section on the Uncle Tom character. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:34, 26 Feb 2012 (UTC)

Mohammad Ali documentary?

Under 'notes' there are currently two references, one being 'Mohammad Ali (2009). Thrilla in Manilla (Documentary). USA: HBO.' Is this cited at all in the text? I'm just wondering how it's relevant. --Genya Avocado (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

== this whole article is whitewashed and scrubbed of racially and criminal charges against white people. heritage that they think we are too stupid to remember what our grandparents spoke of, as you researchers have done as history shows once again you are trying to change history. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY WHITE PEOPLE CANT LIVE IN THE TRUTH. PAST OR PRESENT. just from this bullshit either white people are still up to the same shit still teaching their kids FROM THE CRADDLE UP, to follow the racist bullshit that will get them killed this day time.. just a different year. Same evil spirit and action. this article is trying to convince young people that it was happening to everybody. teaching your white kids a will false narrative in this day and time will get them killed. Tell them the truth so they can live a long life. I CAN CLEARLY TELL THAT WHITE PEOPLE ARE PROUD OF THIS RACIST HISTORY FOR YHIS COUNTRY. YET YOUR ASHAMED LYING ABOUT THE CHOAS AND EVIL DISTRUCTION AND HATE THAT THE WHITE RACE HAS DONE TO WORLD.

Uncle Tom cabin

Several incidents from text that show slavery was barbaric and life threatening 103.242.199.189 (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to Revise Uncle Tom’s Characterization

Hello editors,

I propose a revision to the content regarding Uncle Tom’s character. The current portrayal perpetuates a narrative misaligned with Harriet Beecher Stowe’s original depiction in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Specifically, the article suggests that Uncle Tom was complicit in the oppression of others, which contradicts the novel’s content.

In the novel, Uncle Tom is portrayed as a moral and self-sacrificing figure. He protects two enslaved women, Cassy and Emmeline, by refusing to divulge their whereabouts despite being brutally beaten. Ultimately, he sacrifices his own life rather than betray his principles, making him a hero, not a traitor.

I suggest the following changes:

1. Accurate Characterization: Revise the description of Uncle Tom to reflect his role as a protector and moral figure in the novel.

2. Cite Specific Passages: Include references to passages that highlight his refusal to betray Cassy and Emmeline and his ultimate sacrifice. For example, in Chapter 40, Uncle Tom states: “No! no! no! my soul ain’t yours, Mas’r! You haven’t bought it—ye can’t buy it! It’s been bought and paid for by one that is able to keep it” (source: Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin).

3. Historical Context: Provide context on how the term “Uncle Tom” became a pejorative due to misinterpretations and racist caricatures in post-publication adaptations. Academic analyses, such as “The Social Protest Meaning of Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, discuss how the character’s portrayal was distorted over time.

To support this revision, I can provide reliable sources, including:

• Primary Source: Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin (full text here).

• Academic Analysis: “Uncle Tom’s Cabin Character Analysis” (LitCharts).

• Historical Distortion: “Systemic Racism as a Living Text: Implications of ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’” (JSTOR).

I believe these changes would improve the accuracy and neutrality of the article. Please let me know your thoughts and any additional steps I should take to proceed. 68.4.180.219 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Revising Uncle Tom's Characterization

Hello editors,

I propose a revision to the section of the article describing Uncle Tom's character. The way Uncle Tom is currently perceived in modern culture—used as a derogatory term for someone who betrays their own race—is the complete opposite of his portrayal in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s *Uncle Tom’s Cabin*. This misrepresentation needs to be corrected.

• • Current Text**:

"Uncle Tom is the title character of Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1852 novel Uncle Tom's Cabin. The character was seen in the Victorian era as a ground-breaking literary attack against the dehumanization of slaves. Tom is a deeply religious Christian preacher to his fellow slaves who uses nonresistance, but who is willingly flogged to death rather than violate the plantation's code of silence by informing against the route being used by two women who have just escaped from slavery. However, the character also came to be criticized for allegedly being inexplicably kind to white slaveowners, especially based on his portrayal in pro-compassion dramatizations. This led to the use of Uncle Tom – sometimes shortened to just a Tom – as a derogatory epithet for an exceedingly subservient person or house negro, particularly one accepting and uncritical of their own lower-class status."

• • Proposed Replacement Text**:

"Uncle Tom is the title character of Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1852 novel *Uncle Tom’s Cabin*. In the novel, Uncle Tom is depicted as a deeply moral, brave, and self-sacrificing figure who gave his life to protect others. He refused to betray the whereabouts of Cassy and Emmeline, two enslaved women who had escaped, even under the threat of brutal violence. In Chapter 40, Uncle Tom declares: 'No! no! no! my soul ain't yours, Mas'r! You haven't bought it—ye can't buy it! It's been bought and paid for by one that is able to keep it.' His refusal to give up the women’s location ultimately leads to his murder. In his final moments, Uncle Tom prays for his oppressors, demonstrating his unwavering strength and compassion.

Despite this heroic portrayal, over time, adaptations of the novel distorted his character into a subservient figure. These distortions, combined with societal shifts, caused 'Uncle Tom' to become a derogatory term, which is the opposite of Stowe’s intent. Far from being submissive, Uncle Tom’s actions exemplify moral courage, loyalty, and resistance to oppression, even at the cost of his own life."

• • References**:

- [Harriet Beecher Stowe’s *Uncle Tom’s Cabin* (full text)](https://utc.iath.virginia.edu/uncletom/uthp.html) - ["The Social Protest Meaning of Uncle Tom’s Cabin"](https://academic.oup.com/book/9794/chapter/157016488) - ["Systemic Racism as a Living Text: Implications of 'Uncle Tom’s Cabin'"](https://www.jstor.org/stable/45200266)

This revision highlights the truth about Uncle Tom's heroic character and corrects the widely misunderstood cultural narrative. Thank you for your consideration.

68.4.180.219 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)