Talk:Uncle Tom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uncle Tom article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 Cabin is real 2 Fine ground glass 3 Fair/ Unfair Accusations 4 Disagreeing 5 Criticism of the novel 6 "The practice of covert resistance" 7 Oreo etc 8 Cleaned up the definition section 9 Vandalism

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fine ground glass

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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.164.229.179 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.7.176.49 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)