Did you read the book? He was a mensch.
I'm glad you read the book—you're in limited company, perhaps. Now if we could get Shepherd Smith to read anything that's not been passed down to him from Murdoch . . . well, that'd be lovely.
So, you'd know that an "uncle tom" is a slave who allows his master to essentially walk all over him and/or those he cares for, usually—
as others may perceive it—at the expense of his dignity. You'll also note that this was not a name which
originated as a racial phrase used by whites to suppress blacks. It was first-adopted as a derogatory phrase by the black community. You might ask yourself this:
Why would a white slave owner during those days degrade
a black slave for being obedient
to his master? That doesn't make much sense (although does not negate the fact that slave owners were certainly eager to degrade blacks when the did something perceived to be disobedient), and, while I suppose there are cases in which a black man might actually be racist towards other blacks (
Clayton Bigsby, anyone?), in the antebellum days, the phrase "uncle tom" was not conceived as a label specifically dependent on race, but rather, a
disdainful phrase for someone who doesn't respect themselves enough to stand up and fight for their freedoms, or seek out a better life (underground railroad escape attempts, for example, risky—yet worth the risk to someone who respects the value of freedom). Over time, the use of the phrase "uncle tom" spread (got out-right butchered, rather) to the extent that the people to which it was applied
actually began believing that they could not overcome their environments. True, eventually whites began using the phrase as well in the form of unrelenting racial hate speech, and the
truly racially-fueled and immoral injustices were born, like the stereotypical era of motion-picture "black-face" actors. Thus, the tools of oppression which still survive in-part to this date were forged—the remnant of which, best summarized, is: the government-fueled general myth that blacks (minorities in general, or, now, anyone of any race, rather) cannot overcome and succeed on their own (this bred the entitlement myth, which the Democrats (and now some Republicans) use to rely on a relatively assured voter-base). Look for this to expand beyond minorities and poor whites to the point of breaking. After it all falls apart, perhaps, the concept of self-determination may return to this country. But the point is: You are only what you consider yourself to be. If you think you are a slave, you are a slave. If you believe you are a free man, then, by God, it is beyond my, or anyone else's, power to make a slave of you. Perhaps if we white folks would stop being so zealously protective of African Americans or other minorities—treating them as though their some fragile bunny rabbit to be fed, petted, and watered—they'd finally empower themselves, and that would truly be something that
no one can take away—certainly not by spewing out a few racial slurs, if in fact Nader had done so.
So, fast-forward to election year 2008, and here's the analogy that sailed wide over some heads:Corrupt/failing corporations with political influence (AIG, GSachs, etc.) = slave owners of the antebellum era
Government puppets of said corporations (McCain, Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc.) = "uncle toms," pacifist slaves themselves
[sane] American people = slaves who resent the "uncle toms" for bending over and kissing their owners' arses
Racial? Eh, I hope not. That's contrary to what the media would probably prefer you to believe, but I've seen you folks moan and groan [justifiably so, to be clear
] about all the unwarranted race-card playing that went on during this race (in fact, I can't really even believe I'm debating this with YOU folks, instead of some Obama loons, but unfortunately, we have to wait for them to see that Obama isn’t all he’s cracked up to be). The point that Shepherd Smith missed, either intentionally in an effort to try to ruin Ralph Nader because he got more votes than any other third-party—or maybe Shepherd's just plain stupid—is this:
Nader posed the challenging (or not-so?) question that Obama must now ask of himself:
Will I be the president who will put an end to this corrupt, practically incestuous relationship between the federal government and corporations seeking welfare at the expense of the people? OR Will I follow suit of every other "uncle tom" president before me, and bend to the will of the men actually running this plantation called the United States government, rather than heed the will of the people I am supposed to represent? I am not
that naive—All evidence, particularly Obama's past voting records, points to the former, and, by that standard, McCain just as well qualifies to be labeled an "uncle tom," as goes for Bush, or Clinton, or [insert any no-balls politician here].
It's up to Obama whether or not the "shoe fits."—Not Nader. Nader asked a question—no different than if he had gone up to Mr. Obama and asked him if he considers himself a "house-*let's not go there*" or a free man. I should hope that Obama considers himself a free man, though whether or not he considers you and I as free persons, is another story entirely.
This post, of course, assumes the fact that Nader has always made a stand for minorities and low-income families (though, often approaching it from the wrong angles—his calls to raise the minimum wage, for instance, is not going to stop inflation, which is the real reason why those with low incomes—or even middle-incomes—are unable to save their earnings), and speaks out against corporate welfare better than a handful of Republicans who will be cleaning out their desks in the coming months.
[And the Carlos Mencia video was not meant to be "deep or intellectual." It was meant to make a mockery of this thin-skinned attitude that Americans cannot say anything that someone else might perceive to be offensive (regardless of what is considered "common courtesy" or not—some people don't like flag-burning, and some people think it's wrong to criticize the goverment—well, darn, we don't want to offend anybody). In other words, we
all could stand to
grow a pair. Though, if you ever want someone to cause you to stop and think, comedians are far more useful than politically-correct, agenda-driven distortionist news anchors with bad acting skills (That whole "Shame on you, tisk-tisk, Mr. Nader"? Load. Of. Crap. Shepherd Smith smudged that interview because
racism, whether it is actually present or incorrectly perceived to be, causes sensationalism and
sensationalism great for ratings—a lesson borrowed from CNN. Worked quite well, unfortunately.
).]
