This brief sketch of how blacks have been treated within the law establishes how often black legal claims lost to competing societal interests. Professor Derrick Bell calls this phenomenon the “interest convergence dilemma.” In short, the principle dictates that, “The interest of blacks in achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it converges with the interests of whites.”[1] This enduring legal posture undoubtedly impacted black Americans and, more specifically, black culture. Booker T. Washington’s racial uplift strategy was one such response to the pervasive racism which abounded during the late nineteenth century. His intellectual rival, W.E.B. Du Bois, crafted the talented tenth idea, a strategy to help black Americans achieve economic parity in a country dedicated to ensure it never materialized. Marcus Garvey advocated that blacks leave this hostile land, and immigrate to Africa. Black preachers often taught blacks to ignore the pervasive racism and instead concentrate on the afterlife where they would be free from the racial subordination they faced in America. While some elite blacks tried to fight racism by distancing themselves from poorer black in attempt to show themselves as a member of the “better class.”[2]
This book is concerned with another such response – the Uncle Tom dilemma. Constantly beset by whites who were determined to deny them basic citizenship rights, militant blacks focused on ensuring racial loyalty. They wanted to prevent any black person from cooperating with their oppressors at the expense of the race. Many blacks felt beginning around of the turn of the twentieth century that Jim Crow and racism could not survive unless blacks were compliant. Compliance could either take the form of lack of resistance or actively working with those whites committed to white supremacy. Militant blacks, therefore, began to be increasingly concerned that fellow race members were betraying the group by either working with whites to maintain white hegemony or by silently accepting a second class status which guaranteed it would continue. Some blacks wanted to ensure that no race members were conniving with the enemy for either personal gain or because they identified with their white oppressors.
Blacks, relegated to a subordinate class, needed a myriad of tools to combat their subjugation. Uncle Tom was one such tool. A necessary but not sufficient condition to improving their plight was to ensure that two things occurred. First, blacks needed to resist subordination. And second, blacks had to prevent any black person from doing the bidding of racist whites seeking to maintain the status quo. Whites could more easily dominate if blacks either accepted their fate or if some race members betrayed their community for their own self interest. Much of the progress blacks made in this country can be linked to mass group mobilization and protest efforts. The Montgomery bus boycott in 1955, for example, headed by Dr. Martin Luther King was so effective precisely because the entire black population in the community pulled together. If there were a critical mass of blacks who chose not to boycott; or if some members decided to work as double agents, then surely the boycott would have proved unsuccessful.
If there were many blacks who were willing to cross the line and betray the group or acquiesce to their own subordination, then making racial gains would be perpetually unreachable. Indeed, such blacks would prevent the group cohesiveness vital to mounting a sustained challenge to racial subordination. It was, therefore, imperative that blacks clearly demarcated the contours for acceptable behavior. There needed to be set parameters for actions and each member needed to know what was and what was not permitted. In response to a society that unwaveringly denied blacks equality, militant blacks began to think of themselves as a group and decided that true race members would resist the shackles of white supremacy and vow never to work on behalf of racists.
It is not enough, though, to simply draw a line and demand that fellow race members not cross it. Blacks needed a weapon to enforce group loyalty. Indeed, it was essential to have a device to coerce conformity. This is was the purpose of Uncle Tom. Uncle Tom developed into the most searing epithet a black person can be called. The first time I have seen Uncle Tom being used pejoratively was in 1900 by Bishop James Milton Turner. A decade and a half later, the epithet constantly appeared in militant black newspapers to scold blacks who supported segregation or those who capitulated to racism. And no one was off-limits. The three most influential blacks in the early twentieth century, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois and Marcus Garvey all experienced the enduring opprobrium that attends to Uncle Tom.
It is deeply unlikely that Turner was the first to use Uncle Tom as an epithet; I fathom that the term was probably bandied about starting in the previous decade as southern states began enacting more Jim Crow laws which the Supreme Court declared constitutional in Plessy. That is to say, Uncle Tom was birthed as a response to the pervasive segregation and the second class citizenship to which the highest court gave imprimatur.
It is no coincidence that Uncle Tom’s career began after Reconstruction, a time where whites began instituting laws and policies designed to oppress blacks. This was the first of three definable periods of Uncle Tom’s use in this country. And as the legal problems blacks encountered evolved, so did the use of Uncle Tom. Said differently, one can ascertain how Uncle Tom is used by looking at the state of the legal system and blacks grievances thereof.
The first period starts in 1900 and ends in 1959. Uncle Tom was used in various ways. The most common usage was to castigate those who did not sufficiently resist segregation. It was also used against those who were deemed as placating to white lynch mobs. Uncle Tom was also used to assail black men in the workforce who were depicted as being servile towards their white bosses. Black clergymen, too, were constantly the targets of Uncle Tom accusations because they were seen as teaching blacks not to fight back against their oppressors. Additionally, those blacks associated with Herbert Hoover were branded as Uncle Toms. Hoover, despite getting a majority of blacks in both of his presidential campaigns, was almost always antagonistic to black progress. Blacks in Hollywood, as well, suffered the indignity that inevitably attends Uncle Tom when playing roles which were considered demeaning to the race. These roles reinforced stereotypes which endorsed racial inferiority a conclusion which helped sustain laws which kept blacks subordinate.
The second period is from 1960 to 1975. This epoch begins with southern states’ defiance in desegregating public schools. Segregated social facilities were still the norm in the Deep South. Southern recalcitrance largely propelled the usage of Uncle Tom during this period. There were two main ways in which Uncle Tom was used, and a few other subsidiary ones. The first was integrationists using Uncle Tom against those blacks who were not sufficiently anti-segregation, even after Brown. The second was black militants castigating integrationists for betraying the race for wanting closer associations with whites who, militants averred, never wanted to radically remedy their racist past to create an egalitarian future. The militants attacked both those who sought integration and organizations devoted towards eradicating the remnants of Jim Crow through the use of interracial coalition politics. Malcolm X is featured prominently during this period. The second way comprises most of the Uncle Tom uses during this epoch. During these years, there was an increased hostility between the black community and police officers. Blacks thought those entrusted with protecting and serving the community were racist. In response, police forces began hiring black officers to serve in black neighborhoods. Those blacks that took such positions, however, were constantly derided as being an Uncle Tom too.
The third and final period starts in 1976 and continues to this day. Overt racism is more relic than reality and the overwhelming majority of Americans agree that racial discrimination towards blacks is wrong. With federal laws preventing discrimination, formal racial equality is reality. That does not mean, however, that there is equality between blacks and whites. Whatever is deemed worth having, blacks generally have less. There is a debate as to what should be done to help blacks reach equality. This is the main legal question during this epoch and by appreciating this, one will understand how Uncle Tom is typically used. During this period, the epithet is typically used against those who are considered to be black conservatives. With blacks voting for the Democrats at a least a 9 to 1 ratio, those blacks who are more sympathetic to the Republican point of view often find themselves dismissed as sellouts. Also, those blacks who are seen as not supporting black candidates, too, are often derided as Uncle Toms. Being too connected with a justice system, which is perceived as being unequal, additionally, makes one vulnerable to Uncle Tom accusations.
This book is devoted towards proving three points. First, we owe the law to Uncle Tom’s existence. As mentioned, the first usage of Uncle Tom I have unearthed dates back to 1900. It would be highly improbable that it was the first time Uncle Tom was used pejoratively. It is likely that Uncle Tom was used in the final years of the nineteenth century, a period during which segregation was declared constitutional and the justice system gave silent sanction to lynching. Times like these convinced many blacks, particularly militants, that group solidarity was a precondition to improving their plight. It was necessary in order to change the law, reform legal institutions and elect public officials, who, with few exceptions, maintained 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 an epithet that dissuaded blacks from violating group norms 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 Uncle Tom is wielded as a weapon in an often inadequate arsenal amassed to radically reform American society thus making blacks feel as equal participants in American democracy.
Moreover, as the laws changed so too did the manner in which blacks used Uncle Tom. Blacks’ issue with the law has changed throughout time as has the law itself. As the law altered, so too has the manner in which Uncle Tom has been used. Uncle Tom often is but a reflection of the legal character of the times. 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 reflect 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 be banned. Although formal equality is real, equality in results is obviously still yet out of reach. Equality between the races is still proves elusive. The very reason why Uncle Tom was first employed, to help realize equality, still exists. I posit, therefore, that Uncle Tom still has a place in 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 politically and socially point. Uncle Tom should not be abandoned, but reformed.
Michael Klarman in his scholarship argues that the law was a symptom of white supremacy. The law, he posits, is usually a reflection of broader public opinion. The law, though, was not as influential in the subordination of black people as some assume. White racists attitudes towards blacks were the controlling factor in the domination of black people, not the law. And, according to Klarman even if the law did not reflect white society’s priorities, blacks still would have been subjugated through other means. In short, he maintains that the law was not the central catalyst in black subordination which could have been accomplished in other ways.
One sympathetic to this argument, then, might argue that Uncle Tom is actually a response to white racism, not the law. If, hypothetically speaking, the law completely embraced black equality, yet blacks would still have been second class citizens because whites disfranchised them through extra legal means, then the actual problem was white supremacy.
The problem with this argument is that in order to maintain their hegemony in a society that embraced true equality, whites would have had to increase the amount of racial violence to unimaginable levels to terrorize blacks into subservience. In a society where segregation was illegal, but still reality because whites were willing to kill scores of blacks to enforce it, blacks would not have fought for integration. They, instead, would have adopted Black Nationalism much sooner and stuck to it more strongly. And, if they sought to use Uncle Tom to foster black unity, the race would have been much more likely to use the 1960’s Black Nationalist conception of Uncle Tom – as an assault against those seeking closer relationships with whites.
More important, though, blacks, in their fight for racial justice had two options: legal or social protest. Social protests were largely unavailable to blacks; the cost of retribution was too high. Legal challenges to disfranchisement were the only reasonably safe way to challenge white supremacy. If blacks began challenging their subordination through legal means, it is safe to say that Uncle Tom was a response to the law and not directly white supremacy.
The first chapter in this book is dedicated towards understanding how Uncle Tom has been defined. Also, the first chapter details exactly how the titular hero from Uncle Tom’s Cabin was transmuted into an epithet designed to mark racial treachery.
The following six chapters are dedicated to the three different epochs wherein Uncle Tom was used differently: 1900-1959, 1960-1975 and 1976-present. Two chapters are devoted to each of the three epochs. The first chapter details how the epithet was directed at non-famous blacks while the second chapter is devoted to tracing how the epithet was used against their renowned peers. The first chapter is split up into smaller discussions tracing the various racial transgressions Uncle Tom was used to castigate. The second chapter is split up into the various vocations of the influential blacks who were called an Uncle Tom during each respective period.
The final chapter is dedicated towards exploring what exactly black folk should do with Uncle Tom in American society which obviously does not mirror the American society in which Uncle Tom was spawned. While not equal by any standard of measure, blacks have made significant gains. Those gains notwithstanding, Uncle Tom should not be abandoned, but reconfigured to deal with our new reality.
Posted by: |