Here is a brilliant, beautiful piece by fishwax in response to SOME DU rationalizations on Bushco’s new Press Secretary Snowjob’s use of “don’t wanna hug the tar baby.”
What’s especially interesting in this eloquent OP is that it echoes the challenges many here have commented on regarding genderized slurs-- and the various ways they are understood on DU.
He writes:
“Some of the posters in the various Tony Snow/Tar Baby threads have taken it upon themselves to explain--or defend, sometimes in rather condescending terms--the “real” meaning of the phrase “tar baby.” The assumption of these posts seems to be that the “legitimate” explanation of the term renders null any possible offense that might be taken.”
The OP lucidly identifies the core of the dilemma about (potentially objectionable) language use. This thread may interest WR&I because we have tried to illustrate the principle with the similarities between racial slurs and/or gender-based slurs. The ideas are crafted here beautifully. fishwax's comments could be applied word for word to any sort of bigotry-infused language. (I’m highlighting some key lines with **).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1217463tar baby, sambo, and "hanging" portraits
fishwax (1000+ posts) Wed May-17-06 01:21 PM Original message
tar baby, sambo, and "hanging" portraits
Some of the posters in the various Tony Snow/Tar Baby threads have taken it upon themselves to explain--or defend, sometimes in rather condescending terms--the “real” meaning of the phrase “tar baby.” *The assumption of these posts seems to be that the “legitimate” explanation of the term renders null any possible offense that might be taken.*
<>
But even leaving aside the complications of the Uncle Remus version of “tar baby,” the very notion that this “legitimate” explanation trumps the offensive associations of the phrase is absurd. *Of course, it’s not uncommon in our culture that “white” experience (in this case, experiencing “tar baby” as part of an endearing piece of our literary culture delivered from the mouth of an unthreatening black male) is assumed to offer an accurate reading, while the minority experience (in this case, experiencing “tar baby” as a racial slur delivered from the mouth of a threatening entity) is dismissed as a misreading of events.* But the fact that its common doesn’t make it right.
<>
I think one of the chief flaws of the “outrage at the outrage” in this case is that it relies on a belief that context obliterates connotation. People have appealed to Tony’s context of use as if it were 100 percent conclusive, the final word. But context is most useful for determining denotative meaning. *Connotative associations extend beyond the specific topical context of the conversation.*
<>
*Words and phrases carry connotations that extend beyond the context of their use, and understanding that is an essential tool in the effective use of language.* Consider the example of gw, who when presented with a portrait of Martin Luther King by Coretta Scott King said: “thanks for this beautiful portrait; I can’t wait to hang it.”