One of the problems with dashing off irritated blog entries is that I end up defending stuff that I wasn't clear enough about in the first place. It can easily polarize.

My exchange last night with Lesley in the comments section of my "Tar Baby" post is bugging me this morning.

Both parties were civil, and both (if I say so myself) had good points to make.

However, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and that's because in my original post, I wrote too quickly to get at what I really meant, starting with my initial characterization of Larry Jones. I called him an "ignorant dumbshit."

He's likely not an ignorant dumbshit. That was writing speed and irritation speaking. If I'd taken more time (which I didn't have, but still...) I'd have called him an "opportunist who makes political hay at the expense of others."

That's what I think. "Ignorant dumbshit" isn't--though it does accurately reflect the degree of annoyance I felt at the time.

I also don't like the fact that it may seem I'm saying "Use of the term 'tar baby' is acceptible whenever anybody feels like saying it."

I don't think that. What I do think is that the term has ambiguous meaning in a way that many other racial epithets don't; the "N word," for example, which I'll forego writing out so its presence doesn't derail conversation, can only mean one thing. "Tar baby" is essentially two different terms, regardless of its origin. Context is what clarifies which was meant. Cultural, social, and historical context.

Was he stupid for using the term? I guess. I'm not entirely convinced that's the best characterization; ignorant may be a better one. I don't think I've uttered it since becoming an adult, but I'm not sure I wouldn't, if I were speaking extemporaneously and had to reach into the toy chest of words and images we each have and quickly yank out a reference I felt everybody would immediately understand.

Which, I'm willing to bet, Larry Jones did. He understood. He knew there was no reference to lynchings or terror. He knew it was an unfortunate choice, not unlikely derived from Disney stories in which a little ball of tar is used to trap the bad guys.

That's where my own cultural/historical imagery comes from. It's what I'd be referring to if I ever did use the term to refer to a sticky situation.

Keeping the dual meaning in mind, what would be the most appropriate, productive first response if I did use that term when I was trying to paint that picture? Would it be to proclaim to all within earshot that I'm arrogant?

I think the most sensible response would be to say, Uh, Keith... what did you mean by that?

Then I say what I meant.

Then you explain why it's a problem.

Then I say, "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it that way. I won't say it again."

Then it's done.


[Best of the Blog| News & Notes about CREDO ]