In my previous post I mentioned that I was writing a book. It's provisionally entitled Uncle Tom: Race, Law & Culture. Below is a basic sysnopsis of what I'm trying to prove throughout the book.
This book is devoted towards proving three points. First, we owe the law to Uncle Tom’s existence. The first pejorative usage of Uncle Tom I have unearthed dates back to 1900. It is likely that Uncle Tom was used in the final years of the nineteenth century, a period during which segregation and disfranchisement was declared constitutional and the justice system gave silent sanction to lynching. Times like these convinced many blacks that group solidarity was a precondition to improving their plight. Group cohesion was necessary in order to change the law, reform legal institutions and elect public officials, who, with few exceptions, essayed to ensure the maintenance of white supremacy. Without racism, codified by law, there is no Uncle Tom. Without laws and judicial interpretation thereof which subordinated blacks to second class citizenship, blacks would not have needed to create an epithet that was aimed at making sure no blacks crossed the line and acted in a manner which hurt the group’s ability to reach racial equality.
Second, knowing the various ways the law, the justice system and national, state and local policymakers have either subjugated blacks or has been unresponsive to blacks’ desire for true equality animates the black community’s use of Uncle Tom. After examining how the law affects blacks during a particular period, one can trace how blacks will use Uncle Tom as a weapon in an often inadequate arsenal amassed to radically reform American society so that blacks can feel as equal participants in American democracy.
Moreover, as the laws changed so too did the manner in which blacks used Uncle Tom. Black Americans’ issue with the law has changed throughout time as has the law itself. As the law evolved, so too has the manner in which Uncle Tom has been used. Uncle Tom oftentimes is but a reflection of the legal character of a particular period. Being devoted to integration would not have gotten one called an Uncle Tom in 1940. In fact, not fighting for integration at the time would have been deemed the opposite of what an Uncle Tom connotes. But in the 1960s, black militants routinely lambasted integrationists as Uncle Toms. The change in the legality of segregation did not lead to a change in blacks’ socioeconomic status and younger blacks began to become frustrated with their integrationist leadership. Younger blacks averred that integrationists were leading them astray and hence they were deemed Uncle Tom. Here, I’m principally concerned with establishing how the use of Uncle Tom changes to mirror the changes in the law.
Third, I deal with the position advocated by many that epithets used to mark racial treachery, particularly Uncle Tom, should no longer be used. Formal equality is the law of the land; overt discrimination is no longer permitted. Yet, equality in results is obviously still yet out of reach. The very reason why Uncle Tom was first employed, to help realize equality, is still extant. I argue, therefore, that in light of these truths, Uncle Tom still has a place in contemporary society. But, as in previous decades it should be used as a response to the legal challenges blacks face. More than ever, Uncle Tom is now used as a catch-all insult against blacks instead of a term that is meant to make a political and social point. Uncle Tom should not be abandoned, but reformed.
Posted by: |