You know, I heard Mitt’s “tar baby” remark over the weekend, and I made absolutely nothing of it. When I was writing my post reacting to his credit-taking for his Big Dig “leadership” (too little too late), I considered quoting that part, but I never considered remarking on his choice of metaphor. I had never heard the term used as a racial epithet — and believe me, where I grew up, I heard just about everything else.
The term, coming from the story of Brer Rabbit from Uncle Remus, does indeed refer to a sticky trap. Romney used it in that sense, not in a demeaning context. (And as far as we know he was sober.)
In fact, author Toni Morrison tried to “de-criminalize” the word:
In 1981, author Toni Morrison published a novel titled “Tar Baby,” and she has compared the expression to other racial epithets. She says it’s a term that white people used to refer to black children, especially black girls.
Reached at her home near Princeton University, where she teaches, Morrison called the expression “antiquated” and one that’s “attractive to some people, when they begin to search for hints of racism.”
She described it as a “forbidden word” that she sought to restore to its original meaning, one that illuminated an old African tale about the connection between a master and slave.
“How it became a racial epithet, I don’t know,” she said. “It was my attempt to rescue the phrase from its low meaning. I wanted to annihilate the connotation and return the meaning to its origins. Apparently, I haven’t succeeded.”
She added: “I suppose it should be avoided because it could be offensive to some people.”
Well, maybe she did succeed, since the Governor and I were unaware of the racial connotation. Maybe we’re white guys who don’t get it. Or maybe, we really really get it.
I don’t know, I’m just having a hard time getting worked up about this. This kind of thing is sort of a cultural flare-up; it sucks up all the meager oxygen we’ve reserved for talking about race, and (to mix my own metaphor) leaves us all like a group of 8-year-olds pointing fingers and going “OOoooo, you’re gonna get it” at the kid who said a bad word. We vilify the perpetrator; the perp apologizes profusely; he’s publicly absolved (“Of course, so-and-so’s not a racist”) — or not — and white people congratulate ourselves on our enlightenment and keep doing the same old thing. Teachable moment? “Honey, today I taught myself that I’m not a racist jerk because I never use the N-word — unlike some people!” “Oh, good work, honey! I’m so proud.”
No, racism today presents itself as a lack of moral imagination, as an inability to think “There but for the grace of God go I” when the There is Roxbury or Mattapan, and the I is pretty comfortable and safe. With its easily learned themes, it substitutes complacency for compassion: “Well, it just can’t be helped with those people“, goes the unspoken thought.
Maybe we can all use this as a teachable moment to show how damn silly it is that we’re talking about this rather than the fact that 47 people — were any of them white? — have been murdered in Boston, and the mayor (much less the governor) doesn’t seem to have any clue or any initiative. We’re not talking about the fact that segregation still exists. We’re not talking about health disparities. We’re going through a debate on immigration that –regardless of the merits — is clearly partly fueled by racism. We seem to feel that Iraqi lives (for instance) are a lot cheaper than Americans’. On and on.
Maybe dealing with racism is about more than avoiding a few words and references. Maybe it’s about shaking off the ability to create a mental distance from people — neighbors — who have different skin, culture, religion, or language; and to regard their lives as being worth not quite as much as one’s own. Unfortunately, our discussion about race is generally confined to “bad words”. Too bad — the residue of racism sticks to us all, like a certain metaphor I will refrain from using.
It’s like the efforts to retroactively assign current values to historical figures, like the Founding Fathers, who were a product of their day and age.
<
p>
Every old white person of a certain age, who remembers taking thier kids to see the Disney movie ‘Song of the South’ is thinking – just more whining. And they tune out entirely.
<
p>
Racism is real. There are enough genuine examples of it without trivializing the subject like this.
Your argument about real racism versus these ridiculous gotcha moments is an excellent one and in general I wish people could discuss the subtleties of language without the speech police moralizing. But I was still surprised that Romney used the phrase, and frankly I’m surprised that anyone hasn’t heard of the racist use of it, especially after the Tony Snow incident as recently as May.
<
p>
The conspiracy theorist in me wondered whether Romney might have used the term on purpose in order to generate a little of this harmless heat, which also sends a message to certain kinds of conservatives nationwide. This happened for Snow, when Southern supporters especially used it as an example of p.c. liberalism run amok and northern ignorance of southern culture.
<
p>
Snow himself and his defenders claimed (wrongly) that critics were ignorant of the folktale origin of the term. In doing so they ludicrously claimed the Uncle Remus stories themselves were racially neutral too.
This wasn’t just some off-the-cuff comment, nor was it a slip of the tongue on a mike that Romney didn’t know was on. This was an answer to a question that he almost certainly KNEW was coming, and I’d be surprised if it wasn’t prepared. That’s pretty damn embarrassing – especially for a politician trying to overcome suspicion about a religion that has a bad, and surprisingly recent, racist history. The Mormons did not abandon their prohibition against persons with “black African blood” entering the “priesthood” in the church until 1978. (And, according to one authority on Mormonism, “priesthood is the necessary condition for men receiving temple endowments and eternal sealings of marriage that admit its holders to the highest tier in heaven and potential godhood” – it’s a big deal in the Mormon religion.) This was a really dumb move by a pol who’s seeking the highest office in the land, and one of whose strong suits is supposed to be his polish and professionalism.
David –
<
p>
I was more with Cannon – musing whether there was any political upside in using a Snow-protected phrase, inviting a little political heat from word police in order to be seen as “accidental hero” with certain conservatives….but when I thought about it, seemed so unlikely, though. Fairly low potential upside, fairly large potential downside. If you want a Sistah Souljah moment, so much better to pick a person than a word.
<
p>
Yet you’re fairly confident that this was a purposeful, Machiavellian move. Why?
<
p>
Peter –
<
p>
I agree with you that Frank’s blaming Mitt for Big Dig, when he wasn’t allowed to dump Amorello, is off target. But Frank’s right that it was RIDICULOUS for Mitt to claim that distancing himself from Big Dig would have been a “good move” in his run for VP. This is his “I’m in charge” moment. His stump speech is now:
<
p>
*I saved the Olympics
*I balanced MA budget, despite the nutty libs
*I stepped up when the Tip O’Neil/Ted K axis of evil finally conceded that their Big Dig mess needed grown-up supervision. Republicans (like you) will certainly buy his version of things in primary season, that the problems were created by Dems.
I’m not such a conspiracy theorist as to see the “tar baby” comment as code to racist voters. My point, rather, is that I’m assuming that the comment was pre-vetted, and that nobody involved – Romney, Fehrnstrom, whoever else is in the loop – caught the possible fallout. Strikes me as a very amateurish mistake from someone who is supposed to be all spit and polish.
…he was in Iowa saying he was told to avoid this “tar baby”, but he had the courage to deal with the Big Dig problem.
<
p>
WTF! He’s Governor of this state and the biggest public works project in the state’s history (US history?) is falling apart and killing people and he makes it out as a badge of courage that he is dealing with the problem!
<
p>
And we’re focusing on a obscure phrase? Folks, we have a problem here and apparently it is us. Yes the phrase/word is wrong. But we got a Governor that has spent the last 3 years ignoring the Big Dig and everytime something went wrong (like a flooding tunnel) he used it as an excuse to try and fire Matt. Now, he’s off campaigning for President and using his “to little, to late” efforts to paint himself a hero.
<
p>
HELLO…earth to Democrats…it’s Mitt’s job to focus on the Big Dig and he’s totally screwed it up and must be called on it. Tar baby is secondary to the shallow competence we’re letting him get away with.
Mitt TRIED to take control of this in 2005, and the Leg. shot down the amendment. He went to the SJC to try to take control, and get an opinion of the parameters of his authority, and was told there was ‘no compelling urgency’ and was not given a ruling. A Senator, who shall remain nameless because she’s in enough trouble already, inserted an amendment in THIS year’s budget to FORESTALL the Governor from appointing a Turnpike member who would vote to give him authority (the usual course of events that the SJJC said amde thier opinio unnecessary).
<
p>
WHERE in all of this did Mitt screw up? WHAT opportunity to take oversight and begin an investigation did he neglect?
<
p>
And I’m sorry, but any bona fide member of the hackarama, right or left, would have advised that the shrewd move would be to stay far away from a problem which will not be solved anytime soon, especially while dealing with a Legislature that would rather spend money on rhododendrons and loam than tunnel safety inspections.
And because Romney exceeded this benchmark by “taking on” the Big Dig, he deserves praise. Wow, talk about setting the expectation bar at the ground. Is that the advice you’d be giving Romney–to stay away?
<
p>
Romney’s whining and lame attempts–the SJC gave an opinion–and won’t let me do anything, well then take to the bully pulpit and demand control. After the tunnel leak, public opinion would have forced the legislature hand–like it did this month. At least try and not whine–I’d have respect in Romeny if he atleast tried and failed at that point. But his level of “trying” during the leak situation is the same level of hackarama games you seem to decry.
<
p>
The bottom line is that Romney is part of a long line of Republican Governors that either exhibited a “see no evil, hear no evil” attitude (Romney and Weld) or took part in the feeding frenzy (Celluci (sp) and Swift). Peter, you’re like Howie Carr and other conservatives that just want to ignore the fact that Republicans controlled the oversight of this process and blame it on Democratic hacks. Yes, there were plenty of Dem hacks at the dinner table getting their share of patronage. But sitting at the head of the table were Republicans. Nothing you say will change the truth.
and with the others who say we got more important stuff to get worked up about.
<
p>
“Tar baby” is such a wonderful image and metaphor and I feel sorry for those who can’t enjoy its use, and appreciate the history of our language and culture, and who see political conspiracies behind every twist of phrasing. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
The guy’s a Republican. Nothing wrong with shaking him up with a little righteous indignation. So stretch the word’s meaning a little. Or maybe a lot. I’ve only heard project managers use the term any (and without any racial connotation). Just stirs up a little mischief.
<
p>
He should be glad he didn’t use the word “niggardly”. Didn’t a city manager somewhere get fired for using that word a few years ago?
<
p>
(As we all know, it means:
<
p>
1. Grudging and petty in giving or spending.
2. Meanly small; scanty or meager.
<
p>
I’m sure no politician is too savvy on words that connote small spending.)
<
p>
Here’s a link:
<
p>
http://www.hubpoliti…
<
p>
Who knew that the Globe and Kerry also used this term in the SAME way, and got zero criticism? Of course, who can criticize the Globe in the Globe?