Q: What made Uncle Tom's Cabin controversial?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jean-Marie wrote: “Uncle Tom eventually has the good fortune of being owned by a”
*cringe*
Are you a Filipino, Jean-Marie?
Jean-Marie wrote: “I know that, in later years, it has become controversial because African Americans dislike the forgiving nature of Uncle Tom”
You admit later in your Answer that the work would became a distorted caricature through the numerous remakes across different media. Do you not think it is much more likely that’s the reason that modern Black Americans have come to flinch away from the story? The Black American former slave class has always been a primarily forgiving group who just want to be economically included in our own country and have the endless discrimination and exploitations cease.
It’s painful reading an outsider’s opinions presented as definitive truths, but that has been the tradition in Black America’s relationship with our foes & rivals.
Slack-Man - I agree that being an outsider to the issue can be a curse & blessing, though France had some parallel experiences.
Nevertheless, his approach was to examine the impact the original story had on the US when it was written.
Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, the off-putting part is the tradition where the outsider treats their opinion of the matter as the default truth and often any pushback or alternative analysis from the actual group depicted in the fiction will get you muted or blocked for daring to pushback on the outsider’s opinion. Apparently, only members of that outsiders own identity group are allowed to challenge his/hers opinion of U.S. race relations history.
This has been my experience on Quora especially.
Muhammad Rasheed - For example, literally EVERYTHING about this post found below in this thread is “problematic” —
— but if I label it what it really it, it would probably get my comment deleted and the comments section closed.
Slack-Man - I agree that being an outsider to the issue can be a curse & blessing, though France had some parallel experiences.
Nevertheless, his approach was to examine the impact the original story had on the US when it was written.
Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, the off-putting part is the tradition where the outsider treats their opinion of the matter as the default truth and often any pushback or alternative analysis from the actual group depicted in the fiction will get you muted or blocked for daring to pushback on the outsider’s opinion. Apparently, only members of that outsiders own identity group are allowed to challenge his/hers opinion of U.S. race relations history.
This has been my experience on Quora especially.
Slack-Man - Well, I was just blocked by someone who I was have a rather civil conversation with, though we were in disagreement.
Look, you can disagree with me all day long as long as you are polite. Everyone has the right to be wrong, including me.
Muhammad Rasheed - You and I have always had civil discussions when our paths crossed. I do remember having a discussion with someone on one of your threads related to the Dilbert controversy with someone else that turned ugly out of the blue and the discussion was missing afterwards, which shocked you as much as it did me.
Muhammad Rasheed - Apparently, some folks are actually seething behind a barely-holding-on faux-civil façade when it comes to certain topics…
Muhammad Rasheed - I think a big part of the problem is that some topics are so controversial, that people have a tendency to want to FORCE a certain narrative to be true without the discomfort of doing any actual research into it. Their forced narrative makes them feel better about it in a shallow way, and they feel validated when the people who think exactly the way they do about the topic and are just as uninformed, high-five and agree with their forced narrative.
That’s why they kneejerk react so negatively at pushback derived from the historical sources they pointedly avoided to keep from feeling bad.
Karen Fowler - The author is not presenting them as truths. What would you prefer — that he preface every single sentence with “I think” or “in my opinion?” The post would soon become unreadable.
Everything anyone says on here is opinion unless it’s cited to be from someone else or is expressing some known mathematical or scientific truth.
In this particular case, we’re discussing the interpretation of a work of literature. By definition there is no absolute objective truth of the matter.
And, last but not least — don’t read painful stuff if it bothers you to that extent.
Muhammad Rasheed - Karen wrote: “The author is not presenting them as truths.”
Sure he(?) is. You can tell by how that second line I quoted begins (“I know”).
Karen wrote: “What would you prefer”
Freedom from anti-Black racism in all of its forms — which includes the passive-aggressive gaslighty ones popular in Quora threads, “Karen.”
Karen wrote: “that he preface every single sentence with ‘I think’ or ‘in my opinion?’”
Placed once at the top of his rant would suffice, thank you.
Karen wrote: “The post would soon become unreadable.”
Obviously, we hold radically different views over what’s subjectively readable or not. I thought it was trash to begin with, but you lot all came to congratulate him and high-five him for supporting a long-running agreed upon narrative, or whatever.
Karen wrote: “Everything anyone says on here is opinion unless it’s cited to be from someone else or is expressing some known mathematical or scientific truth.”
Or unless a particular demographic is expressing the opinion with their penchant for wanting to force it down the throats of those not in their demographic and pretend it’s a truth, which is a common (and insufferable) trait of a particular demographic.
Karen wrote: “In this particular case, we’re discussing the interpretation of a work of literature. By definition there is no absolute objective truth of the matter.”
By a normal and reasonable definition, sure. lol Unfortunately, “normal & reasonable” rarely come into play during U.S. race relations encounters.
Karen wrote: “And, last but not least”
lol Who are you again?
Karen wrote: “don’t read painful stuff if it bothers you to that extent.”
TRANSLATION: “Don't read stuff written about or that references your ethnic group because your opinion about what we make up about you is not welcome.”
Yeah, thanks for confirming my point.
Karen Fowler - In the words of Sgt Hulka, “lighten up, Francis.” No one’s shoving anything down your throat. It’s his analysis of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. You have your own unique take on it, which, from your comments I think is absolutely wrong, but OK…that’s what makes horse racing, as the saying goes.
And no, when I said “painful” that’s exactly what I meant — not the nonsense you “translated” it to. No one in this discussion made up anything about black people (except you, perhaps). Your opinion is as welcome or unwelcome as anyone else’s, irrespective of subject matter or race. In this case, your opinion on Uncle Tom’s Cabin is irrelevant to me; I’m not seeing how you have any special insight into things that happened almost two centuries ago.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol at Karen taking away her ‘Reply’ button after posting her snippy tripe at me. #Classic
Karen wrote: “In the words of Sgt Hulka, ‘lighten up, Francis.’”
No thanks. People I don’t know trying to police how I respond to stuff is unwelcome, “Karen.”
Karen wrote: “No one’s shoving anything down your throat.”
Sure, they are. It’s normal in the U.S. race relations for the dominant political identity group to try to force their opinions of literally anything down everyone else’s throat, especially mine.
Also notice that you literally posted your unsolicited opinion at me and then took away your ‘Reply’ button to keep me from responding. lol What else would that mean other than you want your white woman word to a Black man to be the FINAL WORD. hahaha
Karen wrote: “which, from your comments I think is absolutely wrong”
lol Based on what?
Karen wrote: “And no, when I said ‘painful’ that’s exactly what I meant”
I don’t believe you.
Karen wrote: “not the nonsense you ‘translated’ it to.”
My translation fit the ‘Karen-ish’ and snippy response of your first post. Like a petty and intrusive Ally McBeal character.
Karen wrote: “No one in this discussion made up anything about black people”
Sure, they did. In fact, literally all of them.
Karen wrote: “(except you, perhaps)”
TRANSLATION: You don’t know your own people and we know them better than you do.
lol You are very on-brand, “Karen.”
Karen wrote: “Your opinion is as welcome or unwelcome as anyone else’s”
lol Sure. Because that fits so well with your opinion that you know my people better than I do.
Karen wrote: “irrespective of subject matter or race.”
I guess that explains your snippy effort to control how I respond to my ethnic group’s traditional rivals making up nonsense about us and expecting me to be alright with it like it’s no big deal — as if that very concept didn’t lead directly to slavery and jim crow. smh
Karen wrote: “In this case, your opinion on Uncle Tom’s Cabin is irrelevant to me”
*gasp!*
Karen wrote: “I’m not seeing how you have any special insight into things that happened almost two centuries ago.”
Well, considering your demographic is the literal exact one fighting to keep the negative aspects of U.S. race relations from being taught in our schools to prevent you from having any kind of political disadvantage, my insight into the matter would be one of informed truth versus your own willful ignorance.
Jim Whitney - Thank you for enlightening us on the story of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. Now I can see why a person I admired growing up, Martin Luther King has been called an “Uncle Tom” because his message was a peaceful one, verses todays BLM message.
Muhammad Rasheed - Dr. King was assassinated by his political foes and so was Malcolm X, who believed in the right to bear arms and defend hearth & home from attacks both foreign and domestic. They were both killed for their pro-Black American views within a few years of one another. Obviously the point had nothing to do with whether they were peaceful in their protest method or not.
By the way, ‘BLM’ turned out to be an LGBT front organization that exploited Black trauma to raise funds for our political rivals.
Rigby Parr - Malcom X was murdered by the nation of islam
Muhammad Rasheed - Malcolm X was murdered by Hoover’s infiltration plants within the NOI.
Jeffrey Dubiel - I wonder how many people who use the term “Uncle Tom” disparagingly have even read the book.
Muhammad Rasheed - Even if they did, do you believe they would automatically agree with the ‘turning the other cheek’ doctrine and allowing the bad guy of the tale to win?
Jeffrey Dubiel - No, I wouldn’t expect that turning the other cheek would be an especially popular viewpoint. It never has been. But that’s not the point. What Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel does is to meet slavery on its own ground and expose its moral bankruptcy. American slavers, remember, justified their position by saying they were improving the lot of the black man, teaching him Christianity and guiding him on the right path. Some may have even believed it. But Uncle Tom’s Cabin demonstrates with unmistakable clarity what an outrageous lie that was. The only ones who benefited from slavery were the slavers. There’s plenty of room for the men of action, the Nat Turners and John Browns, in the fight against slavery. What Harriet Beecher Stowe did was to give the Abolitionist movement a moral foundation that anyone in that religious age could grasp.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeffrey wrote: “No, I wouldn’t expect that turning the other cheek would be an especially popular viewpoint.”
I don’t think “popular” would be the correct term or action here. I think we’re looking for “appropriate.” If you’re in the middle of an active war against a ferociously hostile enemy, would the Christ’s “turn the other cheek” message be appropriate? Of course not. There’s a time and a place for everything.
Jeffrey wrote: “It never has been.”
Has any tenet of high-level righteousness (“goody-two-shoes”) ever been “popular?” It doesn’t seem likely.
Jeffrey wrote: “But that’s not the point. What Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel does is to meet slavery on its own ground and expose its moral bankruptcy.”
Literally everyone knew that slavery was morally bankrupt from the beginning. The argument wasn’t new. The problem with America’s “peculiar” institution was 1) the uniqueness of building a permanent, hereditary chattel system that specifically targeted racial phenotype, and 2) the rank hypocrisy of a free slave labor economy in the “land of the free.” The abolitionist movement was a Christian church movement, and conflicting the slave holders through their religion was their core tactic.
Jeffrey wrote: “American slavers, remember, justified their position by saying they were improving the lot of the black man”
lol No, the people knew better. There were quite enough free Blacks around to keep anyone from believing that silliness. The rhetoric you’re talking about was invented later, pretending that Africa was a land of tree-dwelling savages to prevent the new generations of slave from wanting to go back—rhetoric that carried over into the modern day.
Jeffrey wrote: “teaching him Christianity and guiding him on the right path.”
Meanwhile, Charles Colcock Jones, Jr., in his enlightening ‘The Religious Instruction of the Negroes in the United States (1842)’ pointed out that none of his fellows among the slave holder class wanted to give the enslaved Blacks their religion (Part III - Objections to the Religious Instruction of the Negroes in the Slave States) because they recognized it as an inherently empowering message. What they ended up doing, because they knew slavery was very wrong and feared for their souls in the afterlife, was to cobble together just enough of the Word and religion to enable the slave to be saved, but without the empowering part (and tellingly without the Exodus story).
Jeffrey wrote: “Some may have even believed it.”
Nah.
Jeffrey wrote: “But Uncle Tom’s Cabin demonstrates with unmistakable clarity what an outrageous lie that was.”
It demonstrated it from an angle or two, but it by no means represented the full picture. You needed to read it from the actual slave narratives, too, to get the rest.
Jeffrey wrote: “The only ones who benefited from slavery were the slavers.”
lol No. Under a free slave labor economy, quite a few people benefited from it. Just like there’s a quite a few people here in these times who benefit from keeping the minimum wage low. Insurance fraud was also huge back then.
Jeffrey wrote: “There’s plenty of room for the men of action, the Nat Turners and John Browns, in the fight against slavery.”
Uprisings were a never-ending cycle that kept the dominant identity group in a state of tension. It was also normal considering the general brutality of the system. Notice how the common tactic for keeping slave uprising down (savage domestic terror by the proto-police force) is no different from how modern cops keep today’s civil unrest by Black American’s controlled (see: LDJ’s response to the Kerner Commission report findings).
Jeffrey wrote: “What Harriet Beecher Stowe did was to give the Abolitionist movement a moral foundation that anyone in that religious age could grasp.”
No, she didn’t. The abolitionist movement was a Christian movement which drove the national discussion from a moral/ethic conviction. If anything, Stowe drew directly from it during her author planning stage and you see a little of it reflected from her novel in the usual “art reflects life” dance, not vice-versa.
Helmut Worle - Your critique of Jeffrey Dubiel’s comment seems too harsh and completely misses the point of the novel. You apparently would have preferred a violent screed against slavery, which would fit our modern sensibilities on the subject of slavery. What Ms Stowe achieved, however, was to persuade millions of people to her abolitionist view, something John Brown or Nate Turner were not able to do.
Muhammad Rasheed - Helmut wrote: “Your critique of Jeffrey Dubiel’s comment seems too harsh”
The USA’s history of systemic racism against my people has been harsh.
Helmut wrote: “and completely misses the point of the novel.”
Does it?
Helmut wrote: “You apparently would have preferred a violent screed against slavery”
I only prefer the truth.
Helmut wrote: “which would fit our modern sensibilities on the subject of slavery.”
The continuous threat of violent slave uprisings that maintained an atmospheric tension over the time period reveals that it reflected that era’s sensibility, too.
Helmut wrote: “What Ms Stowe achieved, however, was to persuade millions of people to her abolitionist view”
If that were true, then how come it wasn’t the turned hearts of all of these converted pro-abolitionist whites you speak of that freed my enslaved ancestors, but I had to do it myself when the president said we’d be freed if he allowed us to fight in the losing Union’s cause?
I’m not surprised to find that you hold this over-generous fictional high opinion of the morality & ethics of your identity group, I just find it unreasonable that you expect me—the abused victim of the reality of your morality & ethics—to share it.
Kent Karlson - M. Rasheed wrote: “Literally everyone knew that slavery was morally bankrupt from the beginning.”
The pretend Condeferacy, a sizable minority of the United States DIDN'T KNOW. They enslaved 40% of their population in 1861. They fought a bloody treasonous War that killed 700,000+ Americans to keep SLAVERY in perpetuity.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kent wrote: “The pretend Condeferacy, a sizable minority of the United States DIDN'T KNOW.”
lol Of course they knew. These were Christians who knew their book and its (“for the love of money is the root of all evil”) warnings better than we know them today.
Kent wrote: “They enslaved 40% of their population in 1861. They fought a bloody treasonous War that killed 700,000+ Americans to keep SLAVERY in perpetuity.”
Only raw greed fueled the rise of the white supremacist ideology and the degenerate mentality & character of the treasonous Confederates. They were not at all ignorant of the depths of their immorality, but believed that the wealth and lifestyle it afforded was worth the disingenuously conjured excuses to justify it, no different than what the modern racist performs today.
In his ‘The Religious Instruction of the Negroes in the United States,’ author Charles Colcock Jones, Jr. pointed out that one of the barriers he faced in trying to convince his fellow slave holders to provide Christianity to the slave populace, was they believed the religion of God was inherently empowering and if the slaves were believers, they would no longer be able to control them, nor justify their continued greed-fueled enslavement.
The solution was to only give them a portion of the religion—enough to save their souls and relieve the slave holders of their guilt—but not enough to justify releasing them from chattel bondage. These were clearly the actions (and typical screwball mental gymnastics) of a people who knew exactly what self-serving filth they were indulged in.
Kent Karlson - M. Rasheed wrote: “These were clearly the actions and mental gymnastics of a people who knew exactly what filth they were indulged in.”
Isaac Asimov invented psychohistory to make predictions about masses of people in the future. You seem to have invented a version that enables you to divine the psychology of people 160 years ago. What’s next? The judges and juries who burned witches in Salem did not really believe in witches. The Nazis who committed genocide “knew exactly what filth they indulged in.” The people in 2024 who support the immoral, sexual assaulter, fraudster, insurrectionist, indicted Trumpy really know his true nature, but are just masquerading as evangelicals.
Keep your “theory” by posting a document, that as you say proves nothing, except the “mental gymnastics” of people who were willing to enslave humans beings, deny a free and fair election, betray their Country, and murder 700,000+ Americans.
LOLROTFLLKITA of course they DIDN'T know the evil they did, precisely because of their self-delusion. Ask any trumpist.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kent wrote: “You seem to have invented a version”
No need, since they were quite prolific in their writings and were kind enough to explain exactly what they thought about my enslaved ancestors in the historical record.
Kent wrote: “What’s next? The judges and juries who burned witches in Salem did not really believe in witches.”
They certainly didn’t. They tended to falsely accuse people of nonsense in order to confiscate their property by molesting the force of the local gov. Systemic-level racketeering grifts have always been you all's thing.
Kent wrote: “The Nazis who committed genocide ‘knew exactly what filth they indulged in.’”
Are you serious? Why wouldn’t they have known?
Kent wrote: “The people in 2024 who support the immoral, sexual assaulter, fraudster, insurrectionist, indicted Trumpy really know his true nature, but are just masquerading as evangelicals.”
Ah. Now I understand. One of this thread’s pro-Uncle Tom folk actually decided to out himself as a card-carrying member of the liberal-left. And to my surprise and delight, he’s a Ph.D. university professor. lol Naturally, I’ll expect you to be a marxist-communist to go along with the package. A few years ago, I performed my own little bit of spy work and masqueraded as a white liberal university professor to infiltrate an anti-Black message board. Interestingly, the local right-wingers were far more upset with the partisan divide between them and my character persona than they were willing to partner over the anti-Black American racism the two sides clearly had in common, despite the liberal-side duplicity.
Kent wrote: “Keep your ‘theory’ by posting a document, that as you say proves nothing”
I’ll just chalk this dismissive stubbornness up to your commitment to the atheist portion of your identity. There was quite a lot to unpack there that one such as you is, of course, unprepared to discuss. Which is just as well, since I’m unwilling to pretend a red commie atheist knows what he’s talking about on the topic. :P
Kent wrote: “except the ‘mental gymnastics’ of people who were willing to enslave humans beings, deny a free and fair election, betray their Country, and murder 700,000+ Americans.”
That demographic hasn’t changed a lick in the last 400 yrs. You know this as well as anyone, since the social engineering arts are your domain, eh, Mr. Seldon? ;)
Kent wrote: “LOLROTFLLKITA of course they DIDN'T know the evil they did, precisely because of their self-delusion. Ask any trumpist.”
Of course they knew they were performing evil and merely making excuses for it, just as your own political identity clan routinely does. It’s only the strict atheist-communist side of your identity that futilely wants me to believe otherwise. Keep your hot air.
Kent Karlson - It's called Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation that explains the facts is the best. Your “conspiracy theory” that evil doers know they are evil is jejeune. And, btw, your verbal diarrhea is considerably more off-putting than convincing.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kent wrote: “The simplest explanation that explains the facts is the best.”
So, you think that Karl Marx’s over-convoluted determinism claptrap is “simple,” huh? lol The simplest explanation is that people perform self-interested wrongdoing when they think they can get away with it. That’s all.
Kent wrote: “Your ‘conspiracy theory’ that evil doers know they are evil is jejeune[sic].”
First, you don’t know what a conspiracy theory actually is. Second, people do know they perform evil, and merely conjure a multi-level tower of excuses to justify the behavior to themselves.
Kent wrote: “And, btw, your verbal diarrhea is considerably more off-putting than convincing.”
Considering the nature of your position in this thread, why would you believe I would be interested in your unsolicited critique about anything at all? Have a care, please. Focus on the topic at hand.
Kent Karlson - Like trumpists Rasheed calls anyone who shines light on his inane “theories” a “marxist.” A piteous lack of intelligence by both.
SLAVERY is accepted in the Bible and is not abolished in the Quran. Therefore a vast population of believers can and DID find justification for SLAVERY in their religions. Far from believing they were evil, slave-holders believed they were “righteous.” Only the absurd Rasheed comes up with an unsupported idea that mustache-twirling villains are the real culprits. It's only surprising that the clueless Rasheed didn't call slave-holders “marxists,” his go-to insult
Muhammad Rasheed - Kent wrote: “Like trumpists Rasheed calls anyone who shines light on his inane ‘theories’ a ‘marxist.’”
*shrug* If it makes you feel any better, I also call your partisan counterparts “David Dukesters.” lol
Kent wrote: “A piteous lack of intelligence by both.”
You think so? lol
Kent wrote: “SLAVERY is accepted in the Bible and is not abolished in the Quran.”
A non-argument, since the bible is notoriously corrupt (no doubt a deed performed by card-carrying slave holders), while the Qur’an lists “freeing the slave” as one of the Top Good Deeds in a religion that’s all about collecting Good Deeds to prove your submission to the One God and achieve the Ultimate Reward. Of note, the slave institution was almost completely wiped out in early Islam just by the pious devoutly following their Guide Book. The lucrative practice was brought back later as the empire grew and the Arab Expansionists unwisely allowed outsiders to sit in influential leadership roles.
Kent wrote: “Therefore a vast population of believers can and DID find justification for SLAVERY in their religions.”
Oh, so now you’ve flipped to my point of recognizing people justify their wrongdoing after you’ve skimmed it off of someone else’s canned religious argument, huh, Mr. Ph.D.? lol I knew it was coming. *snort* People use any and everything to justify their wrongdoing. Naturally, I’m not surprised to find my new marxist-communist buddy trying to pin the behavior only on religion. In fact, that’s why your ilk is continuously making up new -isms, so that the unscrupulous can have yet more empty abstract concepts they can disingenuously blame their willfully performed wrongdoing on. Tsk.
Kent wrote: “Far from believing they were evil, slave-holders believed they were ‘righteous.’”
lol They believed no such a thing, hence the routine phenomenon of slave holders attempting to “cheat God” by freeing all their slaves in their Last Will & Testament while on their death beds. A double futile effort since God forbids such cowardice, as well as the so-called Slave Codes forbade whites from attempting to sabotage the system — building a mountain of red tape to block casual righteousness from making a mockery of the nation’s obscenely lucrative “peculiar institution.”
Kent wrote: “Only the absurd Rasheed comes up with an unsupported idea”
Be careful, please. You’re already on record for dismissing a source out of hand as if your Ph.D. held no more value than this now obsolete Sticky Note® to-do list sitting before me.
Kent wrote: “that mustache-twirling villains are the real culprits.”
They very much are.
Kent wrote: “It's only surprising that the clueless Rasheed didn't call slave-holders ‘marxists,’”
The slave holder class at the time were very much Christian (such as they were) and very much enjoying being their peculiar version of Capitalists. Since their opinion of Engels’ & Marx’s ravings were no doubt similar to my own, I saw no reason to unfairly label them when so many far more appropriate labels would do.
Kent wrote: “his go-to insult”
Do you really feel it’s an insult when I merely call you out for what you are? In public, you unshyly & randomly insult your conservative partisan rivals and you’re a university professor—a badge you proudly wear right in your bio. Why would you consider being casually referred to as a marxist-communist an insult? Is that the international spy certification part of your training making you involuntarily flinch?
Kent Karlson - Rasheed’s verbal diarrhea is not an argument.
Muhammad Rasheed - Karlson is a chicken.
Muhammad Rasheed - I’ll forgive your shameless, red-commie cowardice if you answer this question for me though. Which of these towns did your ancestors come from?
- Stockholm
- Gothenburg
- Norrköping
- Karlskrona
Kent Karlson - The less words in the moronic posts by Rasheed is a w.
Muhammad Rasheed - The obvious choice would seem to be this “Karlskrona,” but based on your performance in this thread, for all I know they only named the town that in celebration after successfully running your goonish clan out of it.
Kent Karlson - Ah too bad, Rasheed’s verbal diarrhea took an uptick.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol Maybe you’ll come back to life after you get some sleep. Or did your handlers tell you to let it go before you end up running your mouth too much?
Muhammad Rasheed - I suspect that you shutdown when your ‘high eye-cue’ finally decided to let you in on the fact that I wasn’t partisan at all, and didn’t provide you any fodder to slide into the typical rants you are used to regurgitating on autopilot.
Welcome to uncharted territory, Doctor.
Randy Carter - I’ll add that Harriet Beecher Stowe was accused of exaggerating the stories of the cruelties of slave owners - only to provide documentation for the examples she had cribbed from. The stories of slaveowner cruelty were just slightly modified versions of the ones told to her by freed and escaped slaves.
Muhammad Rasheed - The folks who wish that America was “great” again, often falsely claim that slavery wasn’t that bad for the people forced by law to live its inherent cruelties. Perhaps they would like to try being permanent hereditary chattel for 250 yrs (followed by another 150 yrs of economic exclusion 2nd class citizenry) and see how they like it?
Neal Lowrey - I never understood the disdain for Uncle Tom. All I can figure is he was not aggressive enough and didn’t put a pick ax in Legree’s head to suit BLM and their Black Panther predecessors. The Roots re wrote woke version where Kunta was killing Americans with the British is more their style. Tom showed plenty courage and resolve helping the girl and her family to escape to Liberia paradise.
Muhammad Rasheed - Neal wrote: “I never understood the disdain for Uncle Tom.”
It seems to be common sense that the real life ethnic group that the ‘Uncle Tom’ character is supposed to represent would take offense to a piece of propaganda written when America was “great” that depicted the Ideal Slave as one that worked super-hard without complaint, bent over backwards to make sure white people were looked after, and ‘turned the other cheek’ without pushback to whatever sociopathic cruelties the evil whites of the story felt like dishing out. After 400 yrs of continuous nonsense, why would a Black American audience not have disdain for such a character written by a white author?
Neal wrote: “All I can figure is he was not aggressive enough and didn’t put a pick ax in Legree’s head”
Would any of your TOP TEN favorite literary or screen-media protagonists put up with any of what ‘Uncle Tom’ allowed? Why are you suggesting that we should accept this over-submissive white-created “black” character as our hero by default?
Neal wrote: “BLM and their Black Panther predecessors”
‘BLM’ is an LGBT front organization that exploited Black trauma to raise funds for our political rivals. They had nothing to do with the Black Panthers. For their part, the Panthers believed in the right to bear arms and defend hearth & home from attacks both foreign and domestic. Why are you suggesting they were violent terrorists?
Neal wrote: “The Roots re wrote woke version where Kunta was killing Americans with the British is more their style.”
That 2016 remake was written and directed by white Jewish creatives and primarily produced by the white Jewish company ‘The Wolper Organization’ that still owned the screen-media rights from 1977. Since that’s the identity group known for pushing the violent communist revolutions, perhaps you mean it’s actually their style?
Jerry Mc Kenna - In a very Christian country Tom was the most Christlike character. Nobody would write it this way today, but at that time it made sense.
Muhammad Rasheed - Amused at the idea that a country that was built upon delegating a whole group to a permanent bondsman class based on racial phenotype would be considered “very Christian.”
Are you actively campaigning to have the Christ rebuke you as someone he doesn’t know on Judgment Day? You may wish to do a deep-dive on exactly what being a “Christian” is supposed to mean.
Jerry Mc Kenna - I am not saying their Christianity was a good version but the people all thought they were Christian,
Muhammad Rasheed - I know, I was just busting your chops to see how you would respond. They were Christian, and that fact is actually what drove the national abolitionist discussion which genuinely conflicted the slave holder to a degree. It just didn’t conflict him enough to willingly want to give up all that free slave labor wealth. His love of money significantly trumped his love of God.
David Shumate - the story still makes sense today brother. its much easier for people to hate each other than to love others as tho they have more value than yourself thats the entire point of the story…it revealed the evil and the love in the hearts of white slave owners and their slaves and today it reveals the vitriol and latent hatred in the hearts of both black an white people today…
but MOST importantly… Uncle Tom was Christlike in his approach to life. in the face of incredible abuse and neglect, he refused to adopt the hatred of his abusers and retaliate or sabotage…instead he demonstrated love and grace at every opportunity.
i have to see him as a brother believer because of the fruit of his life.
and the US was founded and established on purely Christian principles, our founding documents prove that in writing. if someone says otherwise, they are a fool and a liar…and they probably say that the moon landings were entirely staged too…
Theo N - @Muhammad... Your venomous response shows what an ignorant two dimensional shallow human you are
Muhammad Rasheed - What’s “venomous” about my response? That I didn’t blindly parrot support for this white woman’s ideal submissive slave character with my hat in my hand while staring at the floor?
Theo N - That you were not accepting of anothers thoughts and chose to attack them
Stowe's work was socially as well as politically inciteful. It motivated the abolitionist movement and helped to eliminate slavery. What difference does it make what color the author was?
Uncle Tom was not a sellout. Stowe poignantly portrayed him as a martyr to engender support for the abolition of slavery. Had she made him a warrior leading a violent resistance she would have set the battle to end slavery back by years
You could say she helped set the standard for modern peaceful resistance that Ghandi and Martin Luther King would use to accomplish great things.
Islam recognizes a prophet that led the original revolution of peaceful resistance…..
Muhammad Rasheed - Theo wrote: “That you were not accepting of anothers thoughts and chose to attack them”
There’s a difference between “attacking” versus “disagreeing with,” Theo. I accept the other’s right to express their opinions as they like, just as I accept my own right to critique those opinions as I like. I find it odd that you consider it “venomous” to merely have a difference of opinion in the land lauded for its Freedom of Speech. Would it be reasonable to consider this opinion of yours to be a race-based double-standard? Do you believe America’s rights are exclusively for you and not for me?
Theo wrote: “Stowe's work was socially as well as politically inciteful.”
Agreed.
Theo wrote: “It motivated the abolitionist movement”
To a very limited degree. It seemed to do a better job stimulating whites in the national discussion than the slave narratives did, but I would consider that a cultural trait, since the brutality experienced by real life people for the most part inspired yet more apathy for Black people in the white American populace, while a fictional narrative of their own Ideal Slave archetype, broke all publishing records and STILL didn’t make any meaningful changes to the social structure.
Theo wrote: “and helped to eliminate slavery.”
You lot keep saying this, but it’s not even remotely true. Of note, 250 yrs of passionately discussing the issue on the national stage did not free me. Only Lincoln’s desperate battle strategies during a war he was losing led to the abolishment of the slave institution, and even in the 150 yrs after, the ‘venom’ is found in how the dominant political identity group resentfully feels about the former slave class even in this very thread.
Theo wrote: “What difference does it make what color the author was?”
Her “color” is the physical badge descriptor for her economic high-caste position in a country designed around racial politics as the legacy of the free slave labor era “when America was ‘Great.’” How whites talk about the issue among themselves is different from how they talk about it among the former slave class, and how the former slave class talks about it among ourselves. Even between the two of us, it was considered “venomous” for me even to have a difference of opinion with my identity group rivals and how they choose to see a character that’s supposed to represent me written by one of their own. My opinion is considered that of the hostile outsider as if I have zero say in the matter. Historically, that exact same scenario led to both the establishment of the anti-Black slave institution, as well as the establishment of the anti-Black forced jim crow segregation. I likewise had no say in either of them, and my difference of opinion as to whether my group should be economically excluded and oppressed was considered “venomous” for the same reason, i.e., how dare I suggest that whites shouldn’t oppress Black people for their own exclusive benefit?
Now, ironically, I find a member of that group who established & benefited from those laws against me asking what difference does this author’s color make, as if I was the one who invented racial-politics.
Theo wrote: “Uncle Tom was not a sellout.”
Correct. The character represented the Ideal Slave, who allowed his inhumane white masters to inflict all kinds of cruelties upon him without complaint and without it affecting his own pride in a job well done. I can feel the spirit of the ole slave master practically salivating over my description. The term ‘uncle tom’ came to refer to the treacherous Black sellout figure later. The contrary is not any argument I’ve ever tried to make and in fact, this sub-topic part of the discussion lacks interest to me. This is more in line with how words/language change over time and that sort of thing, and is for the most part divorced from the political stuff that currently has my attention.
Theo wrote: “Stowe poignantly portrayed him as a martyr to engender support for the abolition of slavery.”
Meanwhile, the Southern planters and even the cruel racists in the North thought she was full of crap, preachy and arrogant. For their part, the slave holders responded with the “Uncle Remus” type of archetype and pretended the slaves adored their lot in life.
Theo wrote: “Had she made him a warrior leading a violent resistance she would have set the battle to end slavery back by years”
lol Slavery ended because Lincoln was losing the war and he told the slave that if they helped him fight he would set them free. So, I walked out of the cotton field, picked up a rifle for the very first time, received lackluster & resentful training from white Union soldiers who disagreed with Lincoln’s plan, and went on to win the rudimentary freedoms I possess today as a warrior in the bloodiest war in American history.
Because of this fact, a reasonable person may assume that a proliferation of Black badass slave warriors saturating the markets would have inspired an earlier end to the slave institution.
Theo wrote: “You could say she helped set the standard for modern peaceful resistance that Ghandi and Martin Luther King would use to accomplish great things.”
If I was both simple-minded and ignorant of the history of U.S. race relations, then perhaps I could say such foolishness.
Theo wrote: “Islam recognizes a prophet that led the original revolution of peaceful resistance…”
The Christ Jesus (peace be upon him) held the same position about war & violence used as needed in his Lord’s cause as any of the other prophets. Any attempts to pretend he was unique among them are only the result of corruptions in the message by after-the-fact theologians who were influenced by monarchal agendas and quasi-pagan ideologies.
Muhammad Rasheed - David wrote: “the story still makes sense today brother.”
Said the white guy about the story written by a white woman. Should I be surprised at this demonstration of unlimited support for your own political identity group member? Such unification is the secret to your group’s success after-all.
David wrote: “its much easier for people to hate each other than to love others as tho they have more value than yourself thats the entire point of the story…”
This story was written during the most brutal slave institution that ever existed by a member of the group that benefited from that same brutal system, who wrote the protagonist as an ideal slave for the dominant identity group (see: self-serving, conceited, egomaniacal).
David wrote: “it revealed the evil and the love in the hearts of white slave owners”
If there was love in the hearts of the white slave owners, then the U.S. slave institution would have ended by whites demanding it end because it was the right thing to do. It wouldn’t have taken a desperate battle strategy during the bloodiest war in American history to force it to end, would it?
David wrote: “and today it reveals the vitriol and latent hatred in the hearts of both black an white people today…”
lol The vitriol and hatred comes from the resentful former slave holder class (& lackeys), who lament the loss of their free slave labor gravy train (when America was “great”) even now.
David wrote: “but MOST importantly…”
lol Please do tell.
David wrote: “Uncle Tom was Christlike in his approach to life.”
Can we at least agree this was a fictional character written by a slavery era white woman to be the Ideal Slave archetype? I hold hope that in our managing to remain standing soberly upon the facts, you could eventually curb your suspiciously over-giddy excitement about the dude. smh He’s not real and not available for purchase. Relax.
David wrote: “in the face of incredible abuse and neglect, he refused to adopt the hatred of his abusers and retaliate or sabotage…instead he demonstrated love and grace at every opportunity.”
That also sounds like the caricature you all created around Dr. Martine Luther King, Jr., too (after you murdered him, of course). Imagine a slave that meekly allowed you to beat the crap out of him AND still picked more cotton than everyone else AND went out of his way to cater to every over-the-top whim of white folks AND even allowed you to kill him without complaint… Gosh. When I type it out loud like that, I too find myself getting excited from pure sociopathic greed at all of that potential plantation money. ♪ Ch-CHING! ♫ I think I’m changing my mind about the evils of slavery. Maybe we SHOULD bring it back...? [roll eyes]
David wrote: “i have to see him as a brother believer because of the fruit of his life.”
You mean cotton profits?
David wrote: “and the US was founded and established on purely Christian principles, our founding documents prove that in writing.”
You think the obscene wealth amassed from a brutal hereditary chattel institution is “pure Christian principles,” do you? Have you ever bothered to actually read the bible, or were you afraid of the cognitive dissonance brain-freeze it would be sure to generate in you?
David wrote: “if someone says otherwise, they are a fool and a liar…”
Tell me, how many slaves did the Christ have exactly?
David wrote: “and they probably say that the moon landings were entirely staged too…”
One is a matter of faith, the other a matter of 20th century science. You must confuse yourself a lot, Dave.
Thomas Snider - Back then, what choice did Blacks (or Mulattos even) Have? Either be like Tom or Nat Turner.
Muhammad Rasheed - Thomas wrote: “Blacks (or Mulattos even)”
A curious separation considering why the “one-drop rule” was created after the Trans-Atlantic voyages were outlawed.
Thomas Snider - Interesting.
Christopher Welsh - Except her version is still the better.
The mass revenge never works at establishing lasting peace or change.
The angry black man goes on a rampage robbing stores, burning buildings, and chanting hate whitey? Well a LOT of white people are going to do whatever they can to make sure that guy is kept far away, locked up, etc.
The black man that helps the little old white lady across the street, whose kids play on the community soccer team, and who helps clean the park on weekends? Who cares about skin color, I want him as my neighbor and friend.
Uncle Tom's cabin showed that slaves were PEOPLE. Often kind, loving, and skilled (eg literate). Skin color should not have mattered.
Seeing each other as people, not separated based on skin color, is how things get fixed.
Muhammad Rasheed - I would agree the original novel is objectively better, for one because they wrote better in those days. For two, there’s usually a degradation in quality when translating from novels to other media. Jean-Marie pointed out that the characters devolved into wretched political caricatures of even more offensive archetypes.
But the idea that the novel was better only because the Black ‘uncle tom’ character was willingly self-sacrificing for whites, and accepted the cruelties inflicted upon him without complaint or retaliation is an objectively terrible take.
That’s the way white people write their ideal ‘black’ characters and you think it’s “better.” Better for whom? A casual glance at you all’s list of top fan-favorite white characters shows a whole bunch of military badasses taking blood-thirsty revenge over made up foolishness (“They killed his little dog — now he’s out for BLOOD!”), but I can’t have the same type of badass Black characters for REAL LIFE EVIL inflicted upon me. lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Christopher wrote: “Seeing each other as people, not separated based on skin color, is how things get fixed.”
You know, your demographic actually invented “race politics” as we know it, right? After the Bacon Rebellion of the 1600s, the light-skinned descendants of the European ethnic tribes colluded across all socio-political class lines and agreed that the enslaved Africans of North American would be permanently delegated to the chattel bondsman class and you would solely benefit from this new and ‘peculiar’ racial phenotype caste system.
YOU invented the legal concept of separating us based on skin color for purely self-serving reasons, so who are you supposed to be lecturing here?
Christopher Welsh - No I was commenting generally on the post, not the book, in that a desire for the Django unchained or revenge trope stands very little chance at bringing reconciliation.
Instead a christ like approach of loving our neighbors will.
Which was stowes point as well.
Muhammad Rasheed - So, the group with the bullwhips and amassed free slave labor legacy fortunes get Dirty Harry Callahan and John Wick, while the group living with the negative effects of the ‘Black Codes’ and Sundown Town warnings get Uncle Tom.
That sounds like you believe in a mass media propaganda designed to maintain the power structure first established when Stowe’s book was published. What kind of “reconciliation” maintains that same lopsided power dynamic?
Muhammad Rasheed - The actual righteous option, Chris, is just to do right by my people. A robust Reparatory Justice program designed to close the racial wealth gap, pull the American descendants of slavery up out of the artificial impoverishment pit we were forced into for the last 150 yrs, and economically include us into a wealth-building ownership protected class. The Black American as a fully-free, competitive equal in the open free markets, sharing in the wealth of the nation without further political grifts, exploitation & plunder from your team (and friends).
That’s what the only possible foundation to a true reconciliation between our groups would look like. Then we could be truly alright with each other, yes? And I can have all of my own versions of Jack Reacher and Walker Texas Ranger type badasses, too, without you getting nervous about it — it would just be entertaining fun.
What’s wrong with just doing it the right way, for once, and not this crazy “let’s keep it the same but pretend it’s better” stuff you’re talking about?
Doug Hansen - Great synopsis of an important book. Jesus v. Barabbas might company into play as biblical analogy.
Muhammad Rasheed - “Great” in what way? Clear & readable?
David Shumate - @Jean-Marie... Sir, id like to thank you for your well written post. your description of the book and the background was wonderful.
i didnt see that book in school..late 60s to mid 70s. id heard of it but never sought it out. my perspective of the book has always been based on what others have said, which led to no interest in reading…im 63, and im only now, through your post, learning just how wonderful the book is and think it should have been cherished over they decades rather than spurned. i believe role models and books like Uncle Tom, if it hadnt been buried and missrepresented, could have ultimately prevented 90% of the racial tension in the US today.
of course, i also believe that the fed govt and organizations like kkk and blm have been and still are culpable for stirring and fanning the flames of hatred, intentionally fomenting hatred and distrust between the races…
my last word…if all men and women and children emmulated Uncle Tom, this would be a pretty wonderful world to live in…
heavy sigh…
Muhammad Rasheed - David wrote: “…if all men and women and children emmulated Uncle Tom, this would be a pretty wonderful world to live in…”
If everybody just meekly allowed everybody else to exploit & abuse their persons without complaint, it would make this world wonderful to live in? How would that be?
David Shumate - @Muhammad... im thrilled that you took the time to ask that particular question sir! you actually took a little longer than i expected…lol
to your question:
the answer is absolutely YES! if EVERYBODY were meek and forgiving, there would be nobody to abuse anyone. there would be no people harboring resentment over presumed offenses because EVERYONE would be at peace with everyone.
Jesus demonstrated that sort of meekness as an example for everyone. even back then, He realized that there would be many people, of all races that would reject the Love that He came to teach…He realized that those who decided to reject His way would torment and abuse those that chose to love and forgive…it has been like that since the beginning.
but, even with the misery and suffering that those with a meek heart must suffer at the hands of those that dont believe, their suffering and ultimately their death is eternally worth the cost because Jesus promises eternal life rather than damnation.
it is unspeakably sad, but the truth is that those that think they have all the answers and all the co;ntrol will ultimately find that they have neither…and an eternity to spend in regret and despair as a direct result…
Muhammad Rasheed - David wrote: “im thrilled that you took the time to ask that particular question sir!”
Next time try directing an intended query towards the intended target. Passive-aggressiveness from men can come across kind of fruity and/or serial killer-ish. FYI.
David wrote: “you actually took a little longer than i expected…lol”
Although it may not seem like it, I do have duties I have to attend outside of social media. The 5 Daily Prayers pillar of my religion is kinda famous, for example.
David wrote: “the answer is absolutely YES! if EVERYBODY were meek and forgiving, there would be nobody to abuse anyone.”
lol I see. The problem with this concept is reflected within the way the historical record reads. Traditionally, when members of your political identity group say such things, they never actually mean “everybody.” They always mean everybody except white people. For that reason, it’s impossible to take your pseudo-philosophical rants seriously. U.S. race relations are known to be “peculiar” for a reason—and that reason is of the hypocritical/double-standard variety.
David wrote: “Jesus demonstrated that sort of meekness”
Are we talking about the same “Jesus” who raged out in the Temple and flipped the tables of the usurious money-changers? The one who told his apostles to fetch swords in anticipation of troubles while he prayed at Gethsemane? Forgive me, but I find it likewise difficult to take your offensively-caricatured version of the One God’s messenger seriously, too.
David wrote: “of all races that would reject the Love that He came to teach…”
lol An ironic statement considering the Chris Jesus, son of Mary (peace be upon the prophet) came to instruct the hard-hearted children of Israel specifically in their own religion that they had strayed from. His message is repeated in a fuller form as revealed to the prophesized Comforter after him, which I follow with full submission. Only the children of Israel rejected the Christ’s message, not me.
David wrote: “but, even with the misery and suffering that those with a meek heart must suffer at the hands of those that dont believe, their suffering and ultimately their death is eternally worth the cost because Jesus promises eternal life rather than damnation”
This is literally the same self-servingly twisted version of the faith that the slave holders of old used to give to my ancestors. Should I be surprised to find it resurfacing in an* Uncle Tom’s Cabin* thread? lol Did I not tell you that the word “everybody” had a completely different meaning when your demographic uses it for my demographic? (see: ‘The Black Codes’). smh The more things change, the more they stay the same, I see. Tsk.
David wrote: “but the truth is that those that think they have all the answers and all the co;ntrol will ultimately find that they have neither…”
I’ll admit that does rather accurately describe how my ancestors joined the Civil War, defeated the Confederates and won our freedom finally after 250 yrs. It was starting to seem impossible before that, right?
Arthur Sera - The inspiration for Uncle Tom was a man named Josiah Henson. Look up his story. He was a heroic figure who helped a lot slaves make new lives by inviting them to the lands he had bought in Canada and gifting them a parcel to farm for themselves at no charge.
Mr. Henson negotiated with his owner to buy his freedom and that of his family. The owner freed him as agreed, but refused to free his family as agreed to earlier. Mr. Henson earned more money and then bought their freedom from the craven owner.
Josiah Henson’s little one room cabin is now a historic site on Old Georgetown Rd. In Bethesda, MD, just outside of Washington, DC.
Muhammad Rasheed - He sounds VERY different than the fictional character who meekly allowed a savage white dude to beat him to death that everyone in this thread considers the ideal Black person/slave figure they wish we all would emulate.
Arthur Sera - I am certain that the Harriet Beecher Stowe character for Uncle Tom was written to minimize the blow-back from the slave owning populace for telling an abolitionist tale. The slaver mentality of the times was extremely prone to anger and violence. Unlike Josiah Henson, Uncle Tom’s death was intended to generate more criticism of slavery. Josiah Henson avoided death through superior intelligence and planning.
Anybody that casts the name “Uncle Tom” as an insult to someone of color to criticize their weary good intentions does not know the heroic stature of Mr. Henson. A man who managed to accomplish so much in spite of the injustices that society heaped upon him…
Muhammad Rasheed - Arthur wrote: “Uncle Tom’s death was intended to generate more criticism of slavery”
If this was true, then Stowe was preaching to the choir, since the routine cruelties inflicted upon the slave class were no secret to anyone.
Arthur wrote: “The slaver mentality of the times was extremely prone to anger and violence”
It certainly wasn’t confined to the slavers, since merely the hint of talk about Reparations instantly conjures that same level of anger/violence in not only their descendants, but even in foreign whites who happen to read a Question about it on Quora.
