this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
611 points (87.1% liked)
Progressive Politics
3360 readers
903 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Uncle Tom" means something very specific, not "black man I dislike/disagree with". Using it like that is just racist.
Pretty much. The moment I saw Uncle Tom in the title...
I've never heard that phrase before (also not American, so probably never would have).
I'm guessing it's some sort of reference for a slave collaboration with slavery owners?
Nailed it in one. It's a term derived from the book Uncle Tom's Cabin, which features a black slave of the same name. The character is widely criticized for diminishing the harm and threat of slavery to black people. In short, an "Uncle Tom" is a black person that takes the side of the oppressors against their own people, usually for little-to-no reward other than being "one of the good ones." To use the epithet so liberally just because the person is black is not ok.
It’s honestly insane to me that Uncle Tom came to mean this, when in the novel the character literally refuses to inform against escaped slaves and is flogged to death for it. A quite unfortunate collapse of an extremely complex character in one of the most important novels in the history of abolitionism.
It's definitely been Flanderized pretty drastically over time, but honestly, I can see where it stemmed from, with his "happy" times with the "good" master. While I don't expect Stowe intended it as such, anything but a full bore condemnation of slavery, top to bottom, is understandably seen (at least by modern eyes) as being soft on it, if not outright apologetic. And the character's inclusion in minstrel shows and the general popularity with white people probably didn't help it any on that front.
“Insane” was a strong word, and I actually do understand how it came to mean what it has. It just seems like anybody who knows what it means to be called an “Uncle Tom” who also takes some time to learn more about the character winds up being shocked that he isn’t just some kind of prototype of Stephen from Django Unchained.
It’s always wild when characters in the public perception are very different to in the source material.
Jeckyll & Hyde is another example. Jeckyll is a doctor who drinks a potion which changes his personality into a ruffian. Except he’s not, at least in the original short story.
Jeckyll is always in control and aware of what he’s doing. All the potion does is change his appearance so that he can do the bad things that he’s been doing since he was young without losing his social standing.
The whole point of the story is that his personality doesn’t change at all and that he’s just donning a disguise (albeit a sci-fi disguise) so that he can get away with it without losing his day job.
Yet in every adaptation is basically treated as a werewolf story.
Whoa. That is very specific. TYVM for the explanation.
TBF in the book he’s much less of an ‘Uncle Tom’. It was the movies that changed the character to the servile slavery-lover we all know and hate, and so that’s really where the label comes from.
So you agree, it was used accurately here?
Yeah that caught me way off guard.
He may be too middle of the road but to call him a race traitor like that is absolutely wild.
Like this is a headline I expect to see from a hardcore rightwing publication.
Hey, I get it. Obama wasn't a bad President on the scale of US Presidents, but there are a lot of left wing people who have genuine grievances with him.
I could see anyone who is an advocate for or Middle Eastern themselves be pretty damned pissed at him, considering he dropped twenty-six thousand bombs on seven countries. This was AFTER he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
I was right smack in the middle of the Finance Industry back in the 2008 Crash and paid very close attention to what he did to "rescue the Economy" in the aftermath of it.
Let's just say that the complete total crash from well above most of Europe to near zero of Social Mobility in America and the acceleration of the growth in inequality (especially between people whose income comes from Work vs people whose income comes from Asset Ownership) and subsequent problems with impoverishment of the Working Class which fed the growth of the vote in Far Right Populists like Trump, are all down to which kind of people Obama choose to Rescue and which ones he chose to pay for it.
He didn't just cause grievances for left wing people, he fucked up the US with his choices at a pivotal moment, pretty much plowing, fertilizing and seeding the field were Trumpism grew.
His influence is way more massive than it seem to many, mainly because of the moment in History when he became president made his choices have far reaching effects that structurally pivoted the US Economy which in turn cascaded into changes to the US Politics and Society.
However, as he's a veritable songbird with the gift of the gab (plus Liberals pushed for decade the whole Racist idea that his race made him inherently a better person) a lot of people formed opinions on him based on his race and his speeches rather than on his actions.
You make a lot of great points. It does make me wonder if I to cut Obama a lot of slack because of the color of his skin. I certainly bought the hope rhetoric before I began to see a pattern of the status quo.
I still remember how much hay was made from him being "The first Afro-American President": the Democrats sold the hell out of him being Black as a good thing (not least to get more votes for him from Black Communities) whilst the Republicans sold the hell out of him being Black as a bad thing.
His race kept getting dug up (and, as you see here, still is) and IMHO it together with his truly exceptional gift of the gab obscured the actual character of the man as shown by his actions which were often pretty negative and had widespread negative consequences some of which still resonate today.
In many ways he's a symbol of American politics highly divisive and mainly performative approach to discrimination, IMHO.
Besides being famous for drone striking and murder in the Middle East, Obama's most impactful policy on America was bailing out Wall Street with American taxpayer dollars and surpressing protests against it.
Many corrupt billionaires could have lost their assets in 2008 but Obama is the reason the elite cabal is still alive and kicking. And they were even able to buy the dip.
He is definitely a race traitor and his policies were racist.
Explain.
Ask me nicely
No.
OK fuck off then.
L take
You have zero knowledge of history and this slimy POS.
Another L take
LOL another well funded comment, to be expected from an easily fooled simpleton, defending a horrible warmonger and enemy of the people.
L take
jeez you're a child
american dumb
Legendary, double L take.
You forgot to switch alts lmao, that's such loser energy
He's a sleazy sociopath with the gift of the gab who happens to be Afro-American.
The last part has nothing to do with the rest, both in a negative sense and a positive sense - sleazy sociopaths with the gift of the gab come in all sizes, shapes and colors.
In fact, it's actually a form of Prejudice to expect a black American President to be any better towards Afro-Americans than a non-black one: Racism but "positive", the kind that liberals tend to voice towards minorities whose votes they want to get.
Indeed the last part has got nothing to do with the first, nobody said it had.
It is however relevant since we're talking about Uncle Tom and race.
Another thing I never said, are you not reading my comments or are just misinterpreting things deliberately to find some non-existent racism?
The entire logic of using an "Uncle Tom" on Obama is that he is expected to treat black people better because of being himself black, but is not doing so, "hence" he is like Uncle Tom.
It's Racist to expect that as a black person he would treat black people better both because of the "he's black hence" part (i.e. expecting that what one does depends on skin color) and the expectation that people should help people of the same skin color (which when that skin color is "white" is literally a white supremacist dog-whistle).
In summary, the entire concept of Race Traitor - which for Afro-Americans is encapsulated in calling them an Uncle Tom - is Racist as fuck, which is probably why even the NAZIs would throw around accusations of people being Race Traitors when they were deemed Arians but did not support the NAZIs.
The non-Racist take is to expect that people in positions of power should help people in need, quite independently of the race of any of them. From that viewpoint, which has no "Race Traitor" concept, Obama by his own actions is just another sleazy sociopath.
Obama is literally defending Apartheid and sent 38 billion dollars to Israel which is why I called him Uncle Tom in the title. Fun fact Americans are not the only actual people in this world.
No he is not. You keep making up things.
And so double down while baselessly accusing others of racism, that is really despicable.
Sure mate, that's why he was called Uncle Tom which is a form of slander against Afro-Americans which accuses them of being a Race Traitor, which is literally the idea that one didn't do enough for one's race.
It is more of a pejorative nowadays. This is also not the first tme it has been done
https://usso.uk/research/deconstructing-uncle-tom-abroad-the-case-of-an-american-president/
The context here is Obama has already been criticized in the exact same way by a Palestinian activist. They are probably paying homage to this.
I'm not clear what your point is here. That it's ok because other people did it? That is a poor excuse for casual racism.
If you're just pointing to the term's historical context, that's besides the point. I'm not saying that the term is universally racist, I'm saying that it's racist to use the term in this context.
~~Are you trying to say that Uncle Tom is a racist term no matter what? Because Obama definitely sided with the oppressors and that definitely had negative consequences for black people (as well as a bunch of others). So like, he fits the base definition of the term.~~
Edit: After reading your other comments I think I get it. Obama didn’t do enough that specifically hurt black people, it was always pretty general. Thanks for explaining.
Trying to understand what is really going on here.
This is a repeat of a past well publicised remark of a Palestinian activist. They were basically giving him a nod.
Obama really fucked over the Middle East dropping more than 20,000 bombs and conducted almost a thousand drone strikes that killed mostly innocent people.
I am not sure why it is racist to use it. Is it merely because they are white? Or because it is undeserved?
I think it would be offensive to misuse this term. So my question now would be did they misuse this word.
I have heard Uncle Tom summarized as a person who sides with oppressors against the oppressed thus becoming a traitor.
I personally can see why someone would consider him to be an uncle tom (even if I don't agree with it). Now on the other hand, if they did it because they were critiquing him for his Middle Eastern policy then saying that is actually pretty poetic.
A bit of insider knowledge meant jab at what a lot of people consider to be one of the better US Presidents. Something someone like Obama would immediately recognize.
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one, but I could be reading too much into this.
It's because the term is unrelated to the criticism and is only used here because he's a black man. If the criticism was about how he handled race relations in the US, then it'd be contextually appropriate, though still overly incendiary, imo.
Have you ever heard it used against someone who's not black? No, because it's not a general term for "oppressors" at large or of any race - it has a very specific and narrow use case. It's not an "insider jab", it's calling him out as a race traitor. Do you really think that's ok here?
Also, you keep saying "she". I don't know OPs gender, but Rachel didn't use the term, probably because she knows it's so inappropriate.
I didn't mean to sex Geneva, I went back to correct it to they. It was probably transfer from just reading Ms Rachel.
I don't think it was unrelated honestly. I have seen Uncle Tom used outside black culture many times, particularly in the workplace.
I'm giving you context and specific reasons why it's wrong. "My coworkers use it" is not suitable proof that it's not. Maybe they're racist. Maybe they're just naive. It's at best anecdotal evidence.
TBH, I'm not really sure why you're still defending this after responding to OPs own disproportionate reply about what they meant. If it's a term you weren't familiar with, that's ok, but going out of your way to defend this is a good way to erode any plausible deniability you had.
Uncle Tom can be used unironically to describe a traitor of any group. I know this because this is how people use it.
I was just trying to understand why someone would say that and it not necessarily be racist. I think I understand it now. Obama can definitely be considered an Uncle Tom for many of his actions of betrayal (there were a lot).
I would not call him that though because I to feel it is disrespectful. Considering the death and destruction he caused is it really disrespectful though. This is where I can see someone throwing a rude comment back in his face because of how badly he failed the Middle East.
I don't think you are capable of recognizing this. That is okay.
It's Racist because his race is irrelevant for the kind of person he is.
Further, somebody of a specific race treating people of their own race better than people not of their race is pure and unadulterated Racism, so expecting somebody to have "loyalty to their Race" is literally expecting them to be Racist.
That specific saying is anchored on the expectation of race loyalty and using it for Obama is anchored on the expectation that it's his Race that does or should dictate his behavior, both which - as I explained above - are Racist expectations.
I don't think Obama's race was irrelevant to the kind of person he was, but I think your point may be his race (ugh, I hate saying it like that) did not define him.
I have never heard of racism being derived from something positive like loyalty. If we followed this line of reasoning then anytime someone refers to someone as their "brother" out of a sense of loyalty would be racist?
I think you last point makes some good sense. It is a racist to think his race negatively affects his behavior. This is assuming though the only critique of Uncle Tom is racism, but betrayal exists beyond just racism.
So I think I am back to my original thought. I would not say that Obama is an Uncle Tom, but I think other people could say it without necessarily being racist. In this respect Uncle Tom isn't about applying a label of inferior or superior to a particular race, but about a story about betrayal and class struggle.
People who go around expecting Race Loyalty and hence believe in the idea of Race Treason are being Racist because they have expectations on people which are entirely based on their Race rather than their character as individuals, including that such people should treat others differently depending on their Race.
It's just that some people who think like that see such a posture as "positive" because it's not in favor of their own Race but a different one - treating people differently depending on their race to help other Races is the Liberal variant of Racism, whilst the Fascists want the race that benefits to be their own.
Most people who believe in the first form of discrimination don't see it as Racism, even though as with everything, if some are getting better treatment then others are getting comparatively less better treatment, which would be fine if people in need were getting better treatment and those not in need were not, but when the selection process is based on race rather than actual individual need then many who need don't get better treatment and many who don't need do get better treatment.
Notice how the whole Israel Genocide really brought to light how that "positive" racism wasn't at all positive: there was a lot of positive views and positive treatment for some people merely for being Jewish, quite independently of need or actually deserving it as individuals (which is what makes it Racism). Naturaly the Zionists and Israel weaponized all the positive predisposition towards that ethnic group by passing themselves as the representatives of that group, giving them the room to commit the most Racist Genocide of the XXI Century, comparable only in its cruelty to the actions of the NAZIs, which is still ongoing.
All that "positive" predisposition along ethnic lines towards anybody of a specific ethnicity turned out to have the extremely nasty effect of giving the most murderous assholes amongst that ethnicity the room to commit the most atrocious of acts, exactly because when people are judged by Race not by character, the assholes can hide behind the Race.