NationStates Jolt Archive

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has recently released a whiny book and a 60-Minutes interview that makes clear his lack of character. He shows himself to be a man devored by fear, loathing, and racial bitterness.

Among other ridiculous things, he writes that he had grown up fearing the Ku Klux Klan’s lynch mobs but “my worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony.”

As described in Clarence Thomas' whiny book (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5197979.html), Justice Thomas lacks a proper judicial temperment.

Nobody Knows the Lynchings He’s Seen (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin):


The New York Times
October 7, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Nobody Knows the Lynchings He’s Seen
By FRANK RICH

WHAT'S the difference between a low-tech lynching and a high-tech lynching? A high-tech lynching brings a tenured job on the Supreme Court and a $1.5 million book deal. A low-tech lynching, not so much.

Pity Clarence Thomas. Done in by what he calls "left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony" — as he describes anyone who challenged his elevation to the court — he still claims to have suffered as much as African-Americans once victimized by "bigots in white robes." Since kicking off his book tour on "60 Minutes" last Sunday, he has been whining all the way to the bank, often abetted by a press claque as fawning as his No. 1 fan, Rush Limbaugh.

We are always at a crossroads with race in America, and so here we are again. The rollout of Justice Thomas's memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," is not happening in a vacuum. It follows a Supreme Court decision (which he abetted) outlawing voluntary school desegregation plans in two American cities. It follows yet another vote by the Senate to deny true Congressional representation to the majority black District of Columbia. It follows the decision by the leading Republican presidential candidates to snub a debate at a historically black college as well as the re-emergence of a low-tech lynching noose in Jena, La.

Perhaps most significant of all, Mr. Thomas's woe-is-me tour unfolds against the backdrop of the presidential campaign of an African-American whose political lexicon does not include martyrdom or rage. "My Grandfather's Son" may consciously or not echo the title of Barack Obama's memoir of genealogy and race, "Dreams From My Father," but it might as well be written in another tongue.

It's useful to watch Mr. Thomas at this moment, 16 years after his riveting confirmation circus. He is a barometer of what has and has not changed since then because he hasn't changed at all. He still preaches against black self-pity even as he hyperbolically tries to cast his Senate cross-examination by Joe Biden as tantamount to the Ku Klux Klan assassination of Medgar Evers. He still denies that he is the beneficiary of the very race-based preferences he deplores. He still has a dubious relationship with the whole truth and nothing but, and not merely in the matter of Anita Hill.

This could be seen most vividly on "60 Minutes," when he revisited a parable about the evils of affirmative action that is also a centerpiece of his memoir: his anger about the "tainted" degree he received from Yale Law School. In Mr. Thomas's account, he stuck a 15-cent price sticker on his diploma after potential employers refused to hire him. By his reckoning, a Yale Law graduate admitted through affirmative action, as he was, would automatically be judged inferior to whites with the same degree. The "60 Minutes" correspondent, Steve Kroft, maintained that Mr. Thomas had no choice but to settle for a measly $10,000-a-year job (in 1974 dollars) in Missouri, working for the state's attorney general, John Danforth.

What "60 Minutes" didn't say was that the post was substantial — an assistant attorney general — and that Mr. Danforth was himself a Yale Law graduate. As Mr. Danforth told the story during the 1991 confirmation hearings and in his own book last year, he traveled to New Haven to recruit Mr. Thomas when he was still a third-year law student. That would be before he even received that supposedly worthless degree. Had it not been for Yale taking a chance on him in the first place, in other words, Mr. Thomas would never have had the opportunity to work the Yalie network to jump-start his career and to ascend to the Supreme Court. Mr. Danforth, a senator in 1991, was the prime mover in shepherding the Thomas nomination to its successful conclusion.

Bill O'Reilly may have deemed the "60 Minutes" piece "excellent," but others spotted the holes. Marc Morial, the former New Orleans mayor who now directs the National Urban League, told Tavis Smiley on PBS that it was "as though Justice Thomas's public relations firm edited the piece." On CNN, Jeffrey Toobin, the author of the new best-seller about the court, "The Nine," said that it was "real unfair" for "60 Minutes" not to include a response from Ms. Hill, who was slimed on camera by Mr. Thomas as "not the demure, religious, conservative person" she said she was.

Ms. Hill, who once taught at Oral Roberts University and is now a professor at Brandeis, told me last week that CBS News was the only one of the three broadcast news divisions that did not seek her reaction to the latest Thomas salvos. Mr. Kroft told me that there were no preconditions placed on him by either Mr. Thomas or his publisher. "Our story wasn't about Anita Hill," he said. "Our story was about Clarence Thomas."

In any event, the piece no more challenged Mr. Thomas's ideas than it did his insinuations about Ms. Hill. As Mr. Smiley and Cornel West noted on PBS, "60 Minutes" showed an old clip of Al Sharpton at an anti-Thomas rally rather than give voice to any of the African-American legal critics of Justice Thomas's 300-plus case record on the court. In 2007, no less than in 1991, a clownish Sharpton clip remains the one-size-fits-all default representation of black protest favored by too many white journalists.

The free pass CBS gave Mr. Thomas wouldn't matter were he just another celebrity "get" hawking a book. Unfortunately, there's the little matter of all that public policy he can shape — more so than ever now that John Roberts and Samuel Alito have joined him as colleagues. Indeed, Justice Thomas, elevated by Bush 41, was the crucial building block in what will probably prove the most enduring legacy of Bush 43, a radical Supreme Court. The "compassionate conservative" who turned the 2000 G.O.P. convention into a minstrel show to prove his love of diversity will exit the political stage as the man who tilted American jurisprudence against Brown v. Board of Education. He leaves no black Republican behind him in either the House or Senate.

While actuarial tables promise a long-lived Bush court, the good news is that the polarizing racial politics exemplified by the president and Mr. Thomas is on the wane elsewhere. Fittingly, the book tour for "My Grandfather's Son" began just as word of Harry Dent's death arrived from South Carolina last weekend. An aide to Strom Thurmond and then to Richard Nixon, Mr. Dent was the architect of the "Southern strategy" that exploited white backlash against the civil-rights movement to turn the South into a Republican stronghold.

Mr. Dent recanted years later, telling The Washington Post when he retired from politics in 1981 that he was sorry he had "stood in the way of rights of black people." His peers and successors have been less chastened. One former Nixon White House colleague, Pat Buchanan, said on "Meet the Press" last weekend that it was no big deal for Republican candidates to skip a debate before an African-American audience because blacks make up only about 10 percent of the voting public and Republicans only get about a tenth of that anyway. It didn't occur to Mr. Buchanan that in 21st-century America many white voters are also offended by politicians who snub black Americans — whether at a campaign debate or in the rubble of Hurricane Katrina.

Republicans who play the race card may find that it has an expiration date even in the South. In 2000, Mr. Bush could speak at Bob Jones University when it still forbade interracial dating among its students, and John McCain could be tarred as the father of an illegitimate black child in the South Carolina primary. No more. Just ask the former Senator George Allen, the once invincible Republican prince of Virginia, whose career ended in 2006 after his use of a single racial slur.

Mr. Thomas seems ignorant of this changing America. He can never see past his enemies' list, which in his book expands beyond his political foes, Yale and the press to "elite white women" and "paternalistic big-city whites" and "light-skinned blacks." (He does include a warm mention of Mr. Thurmond, a supporter in 1991, without mentioning that the senator hid away a child fathered with a black maid.) Always eager to cast himself as a lynching victim, Mr. Thomas is far more trapped in the past than the 1960s civil-rights orthodoxy he relentlessly demonizes.

The only way he can live with his various hypocrisies, it seems, is to claim that he's the rare honest, politically incorrect black man who has the guts to tell African-Americans what no other black leader will. Thus he asserted to a compliant Jan Crawford Greenburg of ABC News last week that everyone except him tiptoes around talk of intraracial crime and out-of-wedlock births.

This will come as news to the millions of Americans who have heard Mr. Obama, among other African-American leaders whose words give the lie to this bogus claim. But the fact that America's highest court harbors a justice as full of unreconstructed racial bitterness as Clarence Thomas will prove more eye-opening still.

That prick uses race as a shield to get away all sorts of bullshit.

Thomas is fine person. Give me an un-biased article, or I'll start using Michael Savage to support my arguments.

always nice to see a supreme court justice demonstrating his complete inability to be impartial.

Thomas is fine person.

On what do you base that assertion?

Thomas is consumed by bitterness and hatred and it clouds his judgment.

Moreover, he is a dangerous loon. Remember from this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=531200&highlight=clarence+thomas) that he tried to rule that students have absolutely no free speech rights?


Give me an un-biased article, or I'll start using Michael Savage to support my arguments.

There is a big difference between a New York Times op-ed piece and the garbage spewed by Michael Savage.

You can quote Mr. Savage if you like, but it will only reflect badly on you.

(BTW, if you click on the link to the NYT articles you will find multiple further links documenting what is said in the op-ed.)

Ah, yes.

Clarence "Pubic Hair" Thomas.

What a pillar of the community.

he writes that he had grown up fearing the Ku Klux Klan’s lynch mobs but “my worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony.”

I'm glad to see he's got a sense of proportion.

the thing that always bugs me about thomas is that he never seems to see that the only reason he is on the supreme court is that he is black. he got the post in a kind of "super affirmative action" where bush1 needed to replace a black justice with a black justice who is a republican. there may have been some other candidates out there, i dont remember that far back but it must have been an extremely short list.

Thomas is consumed by bitterness and hatred and it clouds his judgment.
On what do you base that assertion? Oh right, the article you showed. Sorry.

Moreover, he is a dangerous loon. Remember from this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=531200&highlight=clarence+thomas) that he tried to rule that students have absolutely no free speech rights?
I actually do disagree with this. Students, being minors, really don't have free speech rights. The question wasn't whether the kid was having his freedom of speech violated but whether the school could suspend him for something done off of school grounds.

Thomas is fine person. Give me an un-biased article, or I'll start using Michael Savage to support my arguments.

Because nutrionists are the bastions of great thinking in todays society;)

On what do you base that assertion? Oh right, the article you showed. Sorry.


i dont know about his judgement, im not a legal scholar but i did see the 60 minutes interview and the man is bitter.

Long post is Long.

Thomas always struck me as the crazy one of the 9. This just re-enforces what I already thought about him.

Also if I was him I would be more afraid of a lynch mob than a liberal zealot "draped in flowing sanctimony". One is gonna kill you while one will give you a rude talking to.

Thomas is fine person. Give me an un-biased article, or I'll start using Michael Savage to support my arguments.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Also, to the person who started the thread, congrats on the oh-so-subtly racist thread name.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Also, to the person who started the thread, congrats on the oh-so-subtly racist thread name.

I'm a bit confused by the thread title. "Uncle Tom" is a slur describing a black sell-out, who does exactly what the whites want. But you yourself are saying Thomas is a race-baiter. How can he be both?

I'm a bit confused by the thread title. "Uncle Tom" is a slur describing a black sell-out, who does exactly what the whites want. But you yourself are saying Thomas is a race-baiter. How can he be both?

It's easy, espescially for Thomas. He race baits whenever people criticize him, for his sexual impropriety or otherwise, and then under cover of race-baiting, he generally does things that serve the interests of powerful, white corporate types, and are often detrimental to the average black person.

It's easy, espescially for Thomas. He race baits whenever people criticize him, for his sexual impropriety or otherwise, and then under cover of race-baiting, he generally does things that serve the interests of powerful, white corporate types, and are often detrimental to the average black person.

Ah, I see. That makes sense, and doesn't seem far off from what Clarence Thomas actually does. Thank you.

It's easy, espescially for Thomas. He race baits whenever people criticize him, for his sexual impropriety or otherwise, and then under cover of race-baiting, he generally does things that serve the interests of powerful, white corporate types, and are often detrimental to the average black person.

Sure....if you identify the average black person as being uneducated, poor, and lacking in ambition. Surely you don't mean that?

Listen, I'm not a Clarence Thomas fan, but I wanna gouge my own eyes out every time I see some white asshole in a flowing gown of self-righteousness play the same race game as David Duke. Sorry. That's just the way I feel.

It's easy, espescially for Thomas. He race baits whenever people criticize him, for his sexual impropriety or otherwise, and then under cover of race-baiting, he generally does things that serve the interests of powerful, white corporate types, and are often detrimental to the average black person.

1. Sure you'd criticize Thomas because he's a Republican, and rail on him for his ALLEGED sexual harassments, and for being "bitter". But if he were a Democrat you'd call anybody who criticizes him a racist bigot, you'd overlook his "sexual harassments" (and cry "RACIST!" at anybody who talked about them), and if you ackowledged his bitterness you'd say he was "entitled to his bitterness because his ancestors were oppressed", blah, blah, blah, etc., ad nauseam. Double standard. Politically correct liberal bias.

2. Give me some examples of things Clarence Thomas does that "serve the interests of powerful, white corporate types, and are often detrimental to the average black person". And no, merely being a conservative Republican doesn't count.

And no, I am not saying Thomas is sinless (though YOU would if he were a liberal Democrat).

1. Sure you'd criticize Thomas because he's a Republican, and rail on him for his ALLEGED sexual harassments, and for being "bitter". But if he were a Democrat you'd call anybody who criticizes him a racist bigot, you'd overlook his "sexual harassments" (and cry "RACIST!" at anybody who talked about them), and if you ackowledged his bitterness you'd say he was "entitled to his bitterness because his ancestors were oppressed", blah, blah, blah, etc., ad nauseam. Double standard. Politically correct liberal bias.

2. Give me some examples of things Clarence Thomas does that "serve the interests of powerful, white corporate types, and are often detrimental to the average black person". And no, merely being a conservative Republican doesn't count.

And no, I am not saying Thomas is sinless (though YOU would if he were a liberal Democrat).

Your theory might have some validity if I were a liberal. /fail

I actually do disagree with this. Students, being minors, really don't have free speech rights. The question wasn't whether the kid was having his freedom of speech violated but whether the school could suspend him for something done off of school grounds.

I'm not sure with what are you disagreeing -- is it with my characterization of Thomas's position in Morse v. Frederick or with my criticism of that position or something else altogether. Regardless, I spot two potential problems with your thinking here.

First, according to everyone else on the Supreme Court and on past decisions, students do have free speech rights -- they just aren't as robust in a school setting as those of adults in other settings. Take for example, Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist. (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/393/503.html), 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which clearly held that students do not check their rights at the schoolhouse door and they do have First Amendment rights in school.

Second, you seem to have the majority opinion (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf) (pdf, pp. 4-18) confused with Thomas's concurrence (pp. 19-31).

The majority starts by acknowledging Tinker and that students do in fact have free speech rights. The Court concluded, however, that a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

Justice Thomas takes an altogether different and disturbing view: that Tinker and its related cases should all be overturned because "the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools." In other words, students have no First Amendment speech rights whatsoever!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Also, to the person who started the thread, congrats on the oh-so-subtly racist thread name.

Pray tell, what exactly is racist about calling Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom?

I'm a bit confused by the thread title. "Uncle Tom" is a slur describing a black sell-out, who does exactly what the whites want. But you yourself are saying Thomas is a race-baiter. How can he be both?

Trotskylvania has already more than adequately answered this, but I'll add my two cents.

According to Wikipedia (which I admit I don't normally rely on), Uncle Tom is "commonly used to describe black people whose political views or allegiances are considered by their critics as detrimental to blacks as a group." Clarence Thomas definitely fits that category.

First, according to everyone else on the Supreme Court and on past decisions, students do have free speech rights -- they just aren't as robust in a school setting as those of adults in other settings. Take for example, Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist. (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/393/503.html), 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which clearly held that students do not check their rights at the schoolhouse door and they do have First Amendment rights in school.
I forgot about Tinker v. Des Moines, that's true. However, in general minors do not necessarily have the same rights as adults. For example, principals may search student property without a warrant (New Jersey v. T. L. O. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/tlo.html)), "breaking" the Fourth Amendment.

Second, you seem to have the majority opinion (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf) (pdf, pp. 4-18) confused with Thomas's concurrence (pp. 19-31). The majority starts by acknowledging Tinker and that students do in fact have free speech rights. The Court concluded, however, that a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict
student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably
viewed as promoting illegal drug use. Justice Thomas takes an altogether different and disturbing view: that Tinker and its related cases should all be overturned because "the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools." In other words, students have no First Amendment speech rights whatsoever!
I didn't know Thomas had his own concurrence, so I can't say I had the two confused. However, I was thinking of the majority opinion. Thank you for clarifying.

The Uncle Tom thing is out of bounds. Not just from a racial standpoint, but a literary one. After all, the character didn't complain about his mistreatment by his master.

Anyhow, Clarence Thomas is a jerk with a chip on his shoulder the size of Texas, and it doesn't matter what color he is. Or even his ideology. He's just a dangerously unbalanced man to have on the bench of this nation's highest court. Whether you believe Anita Hill or not, his reaction to the controversy has said more about him than he's said in 15 years on the bench (but that's not much to begin with). George H.W.'s need to play to the loony wing of his party while maintaining the appearance of political correctness overrode his sense of duty to America when he threw this weirdo in front of the Senate.

1. Sure you'd criticize Thomas because he's a Republican, and rail on him for his ALLEGED sexual harassments, and for being "bitter". But if he were a Democrat you'd call anybody who criticizes him a racist bigot, you'd overlook his "sexual harassments" (and cry "RACIST!" at anybody who talked about them), and if you ackowledged his bitterness you'd say he was "entitled to his bitterness because his ancestors were oppressed", blah, blah, blah, etc., ad nauseam. Double standard. Politically correct liberal bias.

2. Give me some examples of things Clarence Thomas does that "serve the interests of powerful, white corporate types, and are often detrimental to the average black person". And no, merely being a conservative Republican doesn't count.

And no, I am not saying Thomas is sinless (though YOU would if he were a liberal Democrat).

1. Nice doubletalk. Thomas is bitter because of alleged racism against him that doesn't really exist. If he were bitter about actual oppression, you are right that I might be more sympathetic. But to complain about "high-tech lynchings" and carry such tremendous anger and resentment for 16 years is beyond the pale.

2. Well, here (http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/43accuse.html) is one analysis of Thomas's voting record that albiet a bit over-dramatic is telling:

[Y]ou have continued in human rights cases to vote systematically in favor of assertions of government power and against claims of individual liberty, especially in the context of criminal procedure where you rule in favor of the government nearly 90% of the time. (The grim statistics are in 31 Hastings Const. L. Q. 499 (2004) and 32 Hastings Const. L. Q. 909 (2005)). Typical examples:

■ In Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), you were one of the four dissenters from the decision of the Court. In your judgment, aliens imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay were beyond the reach of the writ of habeas corpus.
■ In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), in which the Court held that due process required that an American citizen, detained without charges indefinitely and incommunicado in a high-security military prison as an “enemy combatant,” solely on the authority of President Bush, be given meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for his detention, you were the only dissenter. You were the only Justice to hold that Hamdi should be denied habeas corpus relief outright and the only Justice to conclude that it would be constitutional to deny a detainee both access to counsel and notice of the factual basis for the government’s determination that he was an “enemy combatant.”
■ In Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), you were one of the four Justices who dissented from the Court’s decision, which invalidated an outrageous police protocol for custodial interrogation under which police, in violation of the Miranda decision, would deliberately not give the Miranda warnings to suspects until after they had been interrogated and confessed.
■ In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), you were one of the four Justices who dissented from the Court’s decision that the execution of youths who were under 18 at the time of their capital crime is unconstitutional.
■ In House v. Bell, 126 S. Ct. 2064 (2006), you were one of three Justices who dissented from the decision of the Court to permit a death row inmate to proceed on his federal habeas corpus petition where newly discovered evidence, including DNA evidence that directly contradicted the case the prosecution presented at the inmate’s murder trial, indicated the inmate was innocent.
■ In Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006), you were part of the five-Justice majority which held that when police violate the Fourth Amendment by effecting no-knock entry into a home to serve a search warrant, the evidence obtained inside will now be admissible in court.
■ In Kansas v. Marsh, 126 S.Ct. 2516 (2006), you wrote the opinion for the five-Justice majority upholding a statute which permits a death sentence to be imposed where the mitigating factors and the aggravating factors are in a state of equipoise.
■ In U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 126 S.Ct. 2557 (2006), you joined three other Justices who dissented from the Court’s decision that denying a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to retain the counsel of his choice is always reversible error.
■ In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006), you dissented from the Court’s holding that the military commissions established by President Bush to try suspected terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. In your judgment, the kangaroo court procedures permitted by those military commissions were perfectly legal.

Anyone seen the Boondocks TV series? (I don't know if he is in the comic)

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/3539/chiefjusticeruckuspw2.jpg

Pray tell, what exactly is racist about calling Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom?

Would you consider the term wigger/race traitor racist terms?

Would you consider the term wigger/race traitor racist terms?
Wigger is about as racist as Uncle Tom.

Would you consider the term wigger/race traitor racist terms?

For one African American person to call another African American person an "Uncle Tom" it is the same as calling them a "house ******" or an "Oreo". It means you think they sold out and/or are a servant to the Man. However, it doesn't make much sense in this case because Justice Thomas is at the apex of his chosen field, he's already been as advanced as a judge can be, he's one of nine and one of only a very few in the history of the court he sits on. Obviously he is not a servant in somebody else's house, he owns his own house (in the manner of speaking for the term used).

I think we can assume that either The Cat-Tribe is a member of a minority group in America and feels justified using a minority slur against Justice Thomas because he must think that the Judge got there by selling out his race, OR, perhaps, we should be questioning the "bitterness" of somebody else here besides just Justice Thomas in this thread.

On a side note: I do understand why Anita Hill would (and did) come out with her own editorial recently in her own defense, and well she should and good for her. She's obviously a very smart and intelligent professional in her own regard. It's surprising that Justice Thomas says she was an 'average' worker and yet he hired her on two different occasions (once might be a mistake, twice lends itself to implying that you liked working with her...) And vice versa, it's surprising that Anita Hill says Justice Thomas was such a prick, and yet, she accepted employment from him on two different occasions as well (once might be a mistake, twice means she liked working for him or she liked how it progressed her career or objectives...) Either way, odd now that they both say in hindsight that the other was less than sufficient.

Your thread title doesn't exactl go a long way to refuting this ridiculous claim on Thomas' part. Calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is just as lame and racially motivated and ridiculous as calling someone a "lazy ******" or whatnot. Just that it comes from a different point of view.

Pray tell, what exactly is racist about calling Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom?

Point One: The dictionary defines it as an ethnic slur.

Uncle Tom
–noun Disparaging and Offensive.
a black man considered by other blacks to be subservient to or to curry favor with whites.

noun
1. (ethnic slur) offensive and derogatory name for a Black man who is abjectly servile and deferential to Whites
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uncle%20tom

Point Two: It's offensive in this case in that it assumes that blacks can be "sell outs" to their "race" period.

Cat, I'm dissapointed in you for this. :( Usually you're much clearer thinking than this shows.

The Uncle Tom thing is out of bounds. Not just from a racial standpoint, but a literary one. After all, the character didn't complain about his mistreatment by his master.

That's the point people are trying to smear others with when Uncle Tom is used. In this case,

Would you consider the term wigger/race traitor racist terms?

Yes.

Wigger is about as racist as Uncle Tom.

As is "house ******".

As is "house ******".

Whatever honky.

Has anyone ever considered that offensive?
Maybe before the Jeffersons.

I didn't know Thomas had his own concurrence, so I can't say I had the two confused. However, I was thinking of the majority opinion. Thank you for clarifying.

If you ever read Thomas' opinions - concurring or dissenting - they seem to always argue that every precedent every decided by the court that is germane to the issue should be overturned. Sometimes, he's actually arguing with cases decided in the early 1800's. In fact, I remember at least one case in which he attacked Marbury vs. Madison, for crying out loud.

His opinions, even when concurring, generally have almost nothing to do with the majority opinion except the end result of that specific case.

Whatever honky.

Has anyone ever considered that offensive?

Has anyone ever considered that offensive?

Only when defending some well known (usually white) person for saying "******", eg 'I don't compalin about "honky"', regardless of the usually racist content of the sentence/context accommpanying the "n-bomb".

As for Clarence, he seems to be an asshole of the first degree for a number of reasons, unrelated to the whole "sold out to the man" crap.

Justice Thomas takes an altogether different and disturbing view: that Tinker and its related cases should all be overturned because "the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools." In other words, students have no First Amendment speech rights whatsoever!


How on earth do you stretch "no free speech in pubilc schools" to "no free speech whatsoever"?

If you ever read Thomas' opinions - concurring or dissenting - they seem to always argue that every precedent every decided by the court that is germane to the issue should be overturned. Sometimes, he's actually arguing with cases decided in the early 1800's. In fact, I remember at least one case in which he attacked Marbury vs. Madison, for crying out loud.


Good on him.

Good on him.
You sure got alot of posts for a joke account.

Thomas is fine person. Give me an un-biased article, or I'll start using Michael Savage to support my arguments.

In truth, I agree. I heard his interview on Limbaugh (I was in the car with dad. I had zero choice) and yes, I want an unbiased article and not some op-ed.

You sure got alot of posts for a joke account.

That's 'a lot'. :D

How on earth do you stretch "no free speech in pubilc schools" to "no free speech whatsoever"?

by including the word 'students'

the thing that always bugs me about thomas is that he never seems to see that the only reason he is on the supreme court is that he is black. he got the post in a kind of "super affirmative action" where bush1 needed to replace a black justice with a black justice who is a republican. there may have been some other candidates out there, i dont remember that far back but it must have been an extremely short list.

Extremely? At least two: Robert Bork (too extreme), Douglas Ginsberg (used weed).


I actually do disagree with this. Students, being minors, really don't have free speech rights. The question wasn't whether the kid was having his freedom of speech violated but whether the school could suspend him for something done off of school grounds.

The US Constitution and the SCOTUS disagree.

1. Sure you'd criticize Thomas because he's a Republican, and rail on him for his ALLEGED sexual harassments, and for being "bitter". But if he were a Democrat you'd call anybody who criticizes him a racist bigot, you'd overlook his "sexual harassments" (and cry "RACIST!" at anybody who talked about them), and if you ackowledged his bitterness you'd say he was "entitled to his bitterness because his ancestors were oppressed", blah, blah, blah, etc., ad nauseam. Double standard. Politically correct liberal bias.

2. Give me some examples of things Clarence Thomas does that "serve the interests of powerful, white corporate types, and are often detrimental to the average black person". And no, merely being a conservative Republican doesn't count.

And no, I am not saying Thomas is sinless (though YOU would if he were a liberal Democrat).

If, if, if, IF. Holy balls, am I tired of that crap. IF you can't point out an example of the behavior you're implying, then YOU HAVE NO POINT. Worse, you're completely full of shit and are trying to IF your way into the argument. You're done.


On a side note: I do understand why Anita Hill would (and did) come out with her own editorial recently in her own defense, and well she should and good for her. She's obviously a very smart and intelligent professional in her own regard. It's surprising that Justice Thomas says she was an 'average' worker and yet he hired her on two different occasions (once might be a mistake, twice lends itself to implying that you liked working with her...) And vice versa, it's surprising that Anita Hill says Justice Thomas was such a prick, and yet, she accepted employment from him on two different occasions as well (once might be a mistake, twice means she liked working for him or she liked how it progressed her career or objectives...) Either way, odd now that they both say in hindsight that the other was less than sufficient.

Wait -- so, you'd never choose to work with someone who was a prick even if it would advance your career? And you're thereby implying that NOBODY in their right mind would? Are you insane? Do you have any idea how many people have no real choice BUT to work for pricks? Anita Hill chose to go for advancement over her personal feelings because she looked at the big picture and thought long term. Conversely, Clarence Thomas is the one who had far less long term consideration in choosing to hire Hill twice.

In short: I want to advance. The overwhelmingly best and fastest way to do that is by working for a prick. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to choose working for a prick. Conversely: I AM a prick. I get to pick and choose who I want to work for me. This person is a prude (or a bitch or whatever he might have thought...up to and including "nice ass" and the like). I DON'T have to hire her if I don't want to. But she's the best candidate. I'll hire her (and then I'll go ahead and say she was an "average employee" later, despite evidence to the contrary...like me hiring her twice when I can hire anyone I want).

Hill's volition was far more tied to necessity than Thomas', and could be reasonably said to be tied to necessity, whereas Thomas' was certainly not.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Also, to the person who started the thread, congrats on the oh-so-subtly racist thread name.

Trust me: Cat-Tribes is not racist.

Whatever honky.

Nice debate there. Welcome to ignore.

Has anyone ever considered that offensive?

Yes.

Only when defending some well known (usually white) person for saying "******", eg 'I don't compalin about "honky"', regardless of the usually racist content of the sentence/context accommpanying the "n-bomb".

Just out of curiosity, are you refering to my use of "******" in putting the pejoratives "Uncle Tom" and "Wigger" in the proper context, ie being equally offensive and pejorative as "house ******".

As for Clarence, he seems to be an asshole of the first degree for a number of reasons, unrelated to the whole "sold out to the man" crap.

If such is the case why is a pejorative ethnic slur acceptable in the title?

Nice debate there. Welcome to ignore.

I though this was empty racial epithet day.

Just out of curiosity, are you refering to my use of "******" in putting the pejoratives "Uncle Tom" and "Wigger" in the proper context, ie being equally offensive and pejorative as "house ******".

Right wing radio DJ trying to excuse right wing columist/vice versa was what I was thinking of, tbh.

If such is the case why is a pejorative ethnic slur acceptable in the title?

Personally, I wouldn't consider it as similar to "******". It seems to be used in somewhat the same sense as "West Brit" or "Shoneen".

...
Personally, I wouldn't consider it as similar to "******". It seems to be used in somewhat the same sense as "West Brit" or "Shoneen".

It's not compared to "******," it is compared to "house ******" the whole term.

Compare this
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Uncle+Tom&page=1

To this
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=house+******

Ah. Any chace you'd have a linky?



Not familiar with either of those terms. And note, I didn't compare it to "******". "Uncle Tom" is synonomous with "house ******" (and usually "sambo"). All three are ethnically charged pejoratives impling that someone is "betraying" their "race" by thinking differently than how they are supposed to. That all persons of a given "race" are supposed to think alike and agree, is of course inherently racist. Hence my dissapointment in Cat.

I'm not so sure it's as much a matter of "toeing the party line" as it is working to the detriment of that community.

Right wing radio DJ trying to excuse right wing columist/vice versa was what I was thinking of, tbh.

Ah. Any chace you'd have a linky?

Personally, I wouldn't consider it as similar to "******". It seems to be used in somewhat the same sense as "West Brit" or "Shoneen".

Not familiar with either of those terms. And note, I didn't compare it to "******". "Uncle Tom" is synonomous with "house ******" (and usually "sambo"). All three are ethnically charged pejoratives impling that someone is "betraying" their "race" by thinking differently than how they are supposed to. That all persons of a given "race" are supposed to think alike and agree, is of course inherently racist. Hence my dissapointment in Cat.

Students apparenlty have no life outside schools, huh?

Student lives? Rarely.

by including the word 'students'

Students apparenlty have no life outside schools, huh?

It's not compared to "******," it is compared to "house ******" the whole term.

Compare this
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Uncle+Tom&page=1

To this
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=house+******

Or for something actually credible (comparatively).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_tom

I'm not so sure it's as much a matter of "toeing the party line" as it is working to the detriment of that community.

Well, it didn't start out this way, but today "Uncle Tom" is certainly a strong pejorative for "race traitor".

Today, the term "Uncle Tom" is still considered a strong insult among African-Americans. Earlier this year, two black authors published "The American Directory of Certified Uncle Toms: Being a Review of the History, Antics, and Attitudes of Handkerchief Heads, Aunt Jemimas, Head Negroes in Charge, and House Negroes Against the Freedom Aims of the Black Race." In the book, Richard Laurence and James Lowe charge a number of prominent African-Americans, including Oprah Winfrey and Secretary of State Colin Powell, with being "Uncle Toms," or traitors to their race.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1029/p17s02-legn.html

Uncle Tom. Sellout. Race traitor. Minstrel. Self-hater. Sambo.

African Americans, who have known for centuries that living, breathing, groveling, shuffling characters walk among us who actually match these caricatures, have been put on notice that it is taboo to point out the obvious.
One would think white media and politicians would have enough to do, policing the racist statements of their own group. Yet instead of deploying their censorship squads to suppress explicit and implicit white supremacist speech – which flows like a daily tsunami from George Bush’s Confederate/Republican Party and all its unofficial manifestations – corporate media and Democrats make common cause to suppress the free speech of Black writers and artists who dare to confront other Black people who have committed political offenses against African Americans.

How dare these bastions of white power and privilege attempt to act as arbiters of African American discourse! Seldom listening to Black people, they are quick to lecture at Blacks, insanely believing that white institutions – and this includes Blacks who serve those institutions – have earned even a subatomic particle’s worth of moral authority in Black America.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/157/157_cover_black_speech.html

The message here is pure racism - all members of a given ethnic group must engage in group think or be labled hateful traitors to their "race". The acceptance of the biologically supported division of humanity into races is more self destructive than the destructive and divisive labling of "uncle toms", "house niggers", and "sambos" ever could be.

Let's all send him cans of Dr. Pepper with pubic hairs on the top. :)

Well, it didn't start out this way, but today "Uncle Tom" is certainly a strong pejorative for "race traitor".

That's actually what I meant. There is a concept of being a traitor to a country. Does this imply that all citzens of a country "must engage in group think"? Nay, surely there's somewhere in between where you can disagree with a country and not be a traitor?

Now, to be fair, there are those that follow the "you're with us or against us" (where have we heard that?) idea, but, what with our lack of groupthink, that's not what everyone means by "uncle tom"

Ah. Any chace you'd have a linky?
.

Nein, but this isn't far off

http://www.getunderground.com/underground/columns/article.cfm?Article_ID=1501


Not familiar with either of those terms. And note, I didn't compare it to "******". "Uncle Tom" is synonomous with "house ******" (and usually "sambo"). All three are ethnically charged pejoratives impling that someone is "betraying" their "race" by thinking differently than how they are supposed to. That all persons of a given "race" are supposed to think alike and agree, is of course inherently racist. Hence my dissapointment in Cat.

My understanding would be that its the "selling out" to a hostile party thats the problem, not that all of a particular race should act the same way, thus the comparison to West Brit/Shoneen. You may feel free to disagree.

That's actually what I meant. There is a concept of being a traitor to a country. Does this imply that all citzens of a country "must engage in group think"? Nay, surely there's somewhere in between where you can disagree with a country and not be a traitor?

Now, to be fair, there are those that follow the "you're with us or against us" (where have we heard that?) idea, but, what with our lack of groupthink, that's not what everyone means by "uncle tom"


Yes, thats what I was (rather unsuccessfully) trying to say.

I'm not so sure it's as much a matter of "toeing the party line" as it is working to the detriment of that community.

I would have said that, if you hadn't stolen it from my head......

Students apparenlty have no life outside schools, huh?

not as students

Student lives? Rarely.

not as students

I would have said that, if you hadn't stolen it from my head......

Seems to be a habit.

Extremely? At least two: Robert Bork (too extreme), Douglas Ginsberg (used weed).


nice post in the parts i didnt quote.

when i said the list has to have been short, i certainly dont mean that there were few people qualified to be on the supreme court. i dont even mean that there were few black people qualified to be on the supreme court--im pretty sure that even in '91 bush could have drawn up a solid list of good black candidates.

but what he needed to do was to find a black REPUBLICAN candidate with solid conservative credentials, a record as a judge and who was reliably anti-abortion.

that had to be a fairly short list.

nice post in the parts i didnt quote.

when i said the list has to have been short, i certainly dont mean that there were few people qualified to be on the supreme court. i dont even mean that there were few black people qualified to be on the supreme court--im pretty sure that even in '91 bush could have drawn up a solid list of good black candidates.

but what he needed to do was to find a black REPUBLICAN candidate with solid conservative credentials, a record as a judge and who was reliably anti-abortion.

that had to be a fairly short list.

Whoa, calm down, there. I misread the post I quoted (I'm doing that a lot today...). I thought you meant a short list of candidates overall. Black candidates to replace Thurgood Marshall would indeed have been a very short list in 1991.

OK, my attempt to use a humorous and edgy title backfired and I regret it. For two reasons:

1. Although we could argue about how offensive "Uncle Tom" really is, people's comments (some noted below) and some soul-searching on my part have led me to conclude it is a racially offensive term. Thus, I shouldn't have used it. Period. I apologize.

2. Using the term caused this thread to be hijacked by discussion of the title and slur and caused the substantive points I was making to be lost.

The Uncle Tom thing is out of bounds. Not just from a racial standpoint, but a literary one. After all, the character didn't complain about his mistreatment by his master.

Good point. Although the argument would be that the masters that Thomas serves are not the ones he complains about. But I agree the literary reference isn't quite apt.

Your thread title doesn't exactl go a long way to refuting this ridiculous claim on Thomas' part. Calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is just as lame and racially motivated and ridiculous as calling someone a "lazy ******" or whatnot. Just that it comes from a different point of view.

Another good point. I don't agree that "Uncle Tom" and "lazy ******" are equally offensive, but I grant in hindsight that they are both offensive.

Point One: The dictionary defines it as an ethnic slur.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uncle%20tom (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uncle%20tom)

Point Two: It's offensive in this case in that it assumes that blacks can be "sell outs" to their "race" period.

Cat, I'm dissapointed in you for this. :( Usually you're much clearer thinking than this shows.

You make good points and I am sorry to have disappointed you.

Trust me: Cat-Tribes is not racist.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but this should be a lesson that all of us must be careful not to commit racists acts and thoughts.

For one African American person to call another African American person an "Uncle Tom" it is the same as calling them a "house ******" or an "Oreo". It means you think they sold out and/or are a servant to the Man. However, it doesn't make much sense in this case because Justice Thomas is at the apex of his chosen field, he's already been as advanced as a judge can be, he's one of nine and one of only a very few in the history of the court he sits on. Obviously he is not a servant in somebody else's house, he owns his own house (in the manner of speaking for the term used).

I'm not going to argue with you about whether the term Uncle Tom applies to Clarence Thomas because I regret having made that assertion.

I do think that Justice Thomas actively works against the interests of the poor, disadvantaged, and minorities.

I think we can assume that either The Cat-Tribe is a member of a minority group in America and feels justified using a minority slur against Justice Thomas because he must think that the Judge got there by selling out his race, OR, perhaps, we should be questioning the "bitterness" of somebody else here besides just Justice Thomas in this thread.

See, here is where you are using the thread title as an excuse not to discuss my substantive comments about Justice Thomas. Taking a shot at me (justified or not) is an easy alternative to actually defending Thomas.

On a side note: I do understand why Anita Hill would (and did) come out with her own editorial recently in her own defense, and well she should and good for her. She's obviously a very smart and intelligent professional in her own regard. It's surprising that Justice Thomas says she was an 'average' worker and yet he hired her on two different occasions (once might be a mistake, twice lends itself to implying that you liked working with her...) And vice versa, it's surprising that Anita Hill says Justice Thomas was such a prick, and yet, she accepted employment from him on two different occasions as well (once might be a mistake, twice means she liked working for him or she liked how it progressed her career or objectives...) Either way, odd now that they both say in hindsight that the other was less than sufficient.

First, here is that editorial by Anita Hill for those that are interested: The Smear This Time (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html?ex=1207022400&en=50c31c3dc53591fc&ei=5087&excamp=GGOPclarencethomasharassmentnews&WT.src h=1&WT.mc_id=-S-E-GG-SEM-KP-1048183028-CT-NA-clarence_thomas_harassment_news)

Second, we could argue about Hill's allegations and the corroborating/contradicting evidence separately. I agree Hill has reason to complain about Thomas's renewed attacks upon her, but I don't really intend that to be the topic of this thread.

Whoa, calm down, there. I misread the post I quoted (I'm doing that a lot today...). I thought you meant a short list of candidates overall. Black candidates to replace Thurgood Marshall would indeed have been a very short list in 1991.

oh did that sound angry? i didnt mean it to be.

when the people you mentioned werent black i decided that i needed to clarify my point.

all members of a given ethnic group must engage in group think

That's not remotely what it said.

The acceptance of the biologically supported division of humanity into races

Hardly. It is the recognition (not the same as "acceptance") of the socially-enforced division of humanity into "races."

I'm skeptical of the worth of the "race traitor" concept... but the fact remains that someone like Clarence Thomas working against freedom and equality for Blacks has a particularly insidious effect, because people can point to him as support for their agenda of rolling back the gains for racial justice over the past few decades.

The reactions among many in the gay community to the "ex-gay movement" is much the same, for similar reasons.

If you ever read Thomas' opinions - concurring or dissenting - they seem to always argue that every precedent every decided by the court that is germane to the issue should be overturned. Sometimes, he's actually arguing with cases decided in the early 1800's. In fact, I remember at least one case in which he attacked Marbury vs. Madison, for crying out loud.

His opinions, even when concurring, generally have almost nothing to do with the majority opinion except the end result of that specific case.

Exactly. Thomas's judicial philosophy appears to come from the Stone Age and seeks to returns to those times.

His opinions tend to be bizarre. An example:

■ In Hudson v. McMillian (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=503&invol=1), 503 U. S. 1 (1992), the Court held that the eighth amendment cruel and unusual punishments clause is violated when prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm to an inmate, whether or not significant injury is evident. The plaintiff inmate had proved in federal district court that while he was in handcuffs and shackles two prison guards had, when there was no need to do so, punched him in the mouth, eyes, chest, and stomach, as well as kicked and punched him from behind. As result of this episode the inmate suffered minor bruises, swelling of his face, mouth, and lip, loosened teeth, and the cracking of his partial dental plate. The inmate had been awarded $800.00 in damages against the two guards and a prison supervisor who watched the beating but did nothing except tell the two guards “not to have too much fun.” Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Scalia joined. In his dissenting opinion Justice Thomas argued that (1) a use of force that causes only insignificant harm is not cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) the cruel and unusual punishments clause regulates sentences, but not the treatment of prisoners. Justice Thomas’s dissent is notable for its “combative, faintly mocking tone.” Note, Lasting Stigma: Affirmative Action and Clarence Thomas’s Prisoners’ Rights Jurisprudence, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1331, 1345 (1999). In that dissent, Justice Thomas claimed that “[t]oday’s expansion of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause beyond all bounds of history and precedent . . . and another manifestation of the pervasive view that the Federal Constitution must address all ills in our society.” He added: “The Eighth Amendment is not, and should not be turned into, a National Code of Prison Regulation.” 503 U. S. at 28. Justice O’Connor, speaking for the majority, reproved Justice Thomas in these words: “To deny, as the dissent does, the difference between punching a prisoner in the face and serving him unappetizing food is to ignore the ‘concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency’ that animate the Eighth Amendment.” 503 U. S. at 11. Justice Thomas’s dissent in this case prompted an editorial in [I]The New York Times labeling him “The Youngest, Cruelest Justice.” The Youngest, Cruelest Justice, N. Y. Times, at A24 (Feb. 27, 1992).

(link (http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/41thomas_2d.html) from which quote came and which has many, many more examples)

(here is a link to the NY Times editorial The Youngest, Cruelest Justice (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2D61E3AF934A15751C0A964958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court))

You make good points and I am sorry to have disappointed you.

Good stuff Cat. Well done. :)

That's not remotely what it said.

It is when you crack the code.

Hardly. It is the recognition (not the same as "acceptance") of the socially-enforced division of humanity into "races."

The term you want is ethnicity. Race was originally intended as a biological term, and it's outlived it's usefulness in talking about humans. "Recognising" that it is exists accepts that it is a valid term. It is not.


I'm skeptical of the worth of the "race traitor" concept... but the fact remains that someone like Clarence Thomas working against freedom and equality for Blacks has a particularly insidious effect, because people can point to him as support for their agenda of rolling back the gains for racial justice over the past few decades.



The reactions among many in the gay community to the "ex-gay movement" is much the same, for similar reasons.

Not the same. Black "race traitors" are still black. Change that to "passing" and you'll have an argument.

*snip*

Exactly, Clarence Thomas is a crackpot who doesn't belong anywhere near the bench, not because I disagree with him or because he is 'conservative' but because he is fucking insane. Scalia is almost as bad but doesn't quite get there by himself.

I actually do disagree with this. Students, being minors, really don't have free speech rights.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly found otherwise.

It is when you crack the code.

Sorry, I prefer to actually listen to what people say over making baseless accusations.

The term you want is ethnicity.

What's "ethnicism"?

No, the term I want is race.

Race was originally intended as a biological term,

So? Original intent is a pretty bad standard for determining the proper meaning of words... meanings shift.

and it's outlived it's usefulness in talking about humans.

Ignoring something doesn't make it go away.

"Recognising" that it is exists accepts that it is a valid term.

Forget the terminology. The point stands.

Not the same.

I didn't say everything is exactly the same in both cases. I made a very specific analogy... Clarence Thomas and his like, like the "ex-gay" movement, have a delegitimizing effect on their groups' respective struggles for justice and equality that whites and straights could never imitate.