Talk:Tar-Baby

"Solving the Solution"

The article states that "[t]he only way to solve such a situation is by separation." This seems to be a misinterpretation of the usage. The point illustrated by the tar bay, both in the story and in usage, is that once you make contact with it, you cannot separate yourself from it. In the story, Br'er Fox uses the tar baby to trap Br'er Rabbit. Br'er Rabbit only gets stuck when he loses his patience and strikes the tar baby. It would be more correct to say that "tar baby" is used to describe a situation that should best have been avoided in the first place. AusJeb (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Racial Connotation?

(new) i've hitherto only ever heard the term "tar baby" as a racist slur, in fact i cant imagine it being used as it says it does in "modern times" as a reference to a sticky situation, that cant be too commonplace at this point, i would think americans would see it as a racially charged term.

Critics allege that this a racist term, but the reader can't evaluate the validity of that claim because no explanation of its origin is given. Were there racist overtones in the tale of Br-er Rabbitt (as there are in much of early twentieth-century American pop culture)? Is the mere link between tar and black skin the problem? Did it take on racist connotations through other quotes that aren't provided in the article?

(moved from Talk:Tar Baby)

Shouldn't the metaphor/racial term be under Tar baby, with a dab page at Tar Baby pointing to three places (Tar baby, the novel, and Brer Rabbit)? | Mr. Darcy talk 17:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think so, although I really see no reason to list Br'er Rabbit. The info on tar baby can be removed from that page since it is in the main tb article. And tar baby is not another name for Br'er Rabbit. Unless I'm somehow mistaken?--Rockero 17:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a remnant; Tar Baby was a redirect to Br'er Rabbit before the article on the Toni Morrison novel existed. If we're going to delete that reference, then we could make Tar Baby about the novel with a dab line pointing to the term, and Tar baby about the term with a dab line pointing to the novel. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I was the anon that did the main changes yesterday (see [1]). I think that "Tar baby" would be a better name for the article but it is a minor issue. I think that doing a disambiguation is a bit overboard -- the see macros at the top of the page should be good enough for literature with the same name. I think that the Br'er Rabbit reference can be within article rather than at the top. I would leave the novel at the "Tar Baby (novel)" location. There is also another novel called "Tar Baby" besides the Morrison one -- although I don't know the best name for that. (There was a bit of an edit conflict previously) --Deodar 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a mess--Tar baby (lowercase "b") has a history and so must be deleted. However, there is also some salvageable information there, so it is going to take some time. I think a dablink to the Toni Morrison novel should suffice, which would render a disambiguation page unnecessary. It needs cleanup, so I can't do it now, but if nobody gets around to it, I can probably do it later on tonight or tomorrow.--Rockero 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to just cut-and-paste the content from "Tar Baby" to "Tar baby"? I do not understand why you want to delete "Tar baby" first. That's what I would do, unless there is some guidelines against it. -ben

I've completed the ugly page move via just copying things around and addressing the various directs. It all looks good to me now. --Deodar 03:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to spend way too much emphasis on the disputed 'racial' connotations. Surely it's enough to just mention them rather than give details. DJ Clayworth 17:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the racial connotations are important, because someone unaware of them can get into trouble, as Gov. Romney did. Also, I don't think the racial meaning is "disputed". What is disputed is whether the word should be banned from polite discourse because one of its meanings is offensive. For an analogous situation, see the "porch monkey" dispute in Clerks 2.

As a non-native English speaker, I disagree... I didn't have a clear idea on how the term has been used until I saw the examples... Demf 23:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The negative racial meaning is in dispute. Right now, there is only a supposition of a negative racial interpretation. What is needed is either a textual interpretation showing racial animosity or proof of the term being used as a racial slur. AusJeb 15:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How can it be in dispute? There are plenty of references online. See http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75ginterview.phtml - it's a transcript of a 1975 "Saturday Night Live" episode which uses "tarbaby" as a racial slur. How can anyone truly be calling the use of the word in question? 70.179.158.190 (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an example. While the term is being used there to provoke a response, this is a comedic sketch. Note also, that it is only the second in a series of escalating terms used in the sketch. AusJeb (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree. AusJeb's statement is confusing intent with effect, a frequent defense of injurious terms. Someone employing the term in its original context from the short story could still cause offense to another party, though that offense might well be unintentional. Thus, I would argue that "the negative racial meaning" in in fact "not in dispute." Clearly, many assign a pejorative and racially charged semantic weight to "tar baby." It is the provenance of this, however, that appears to still be under discussion. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How is use of the term injurious? That is what needs to be substantiated. Also, keep in mind that the term is applied to situations and things, not to people. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the term has been used as an explicit or implied racial insult. I'd just like to see some evidence where the term has been used in that way. As for "not in dispute," your assertion that there is a racially charged meaning to the word, in the absence of any evidence, and based merely on the subjective perceptions of a listener is itself a dispute. AusJeb (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the trouble is that you may actually be getting a false impression of the usage. I'm not American, but I had certainly never heard 'tar baby' meaning anything other than a 'mess you can't get out of'. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the term Tar baby, actually started from this story. Brer rabbit saw the tar baby, and assumed it to be a black boy, in the story "he says good morning tar baby," several times, before striking it. Obviously, he wasnt going to kick the "tar baby" if he new it was made of tar. It was made up to look like a black child, Disney acknowledged this fact, as the ride "splash mountain" is based off of this story. The reason I am assuming that this story coined the phrase tar-baby is from this excerpt from the story:

He come mighty nigh it, honey, sho's you born--Brer Fox did. One day atter Brer Rabbit fool 'im wid dat calamus root, Brer Fox went ter wuk en got 'im some tar, en mix it wid some turkentime, en fix up a contrapshun w'at he call a Tar-Baby, en he tuck dish yer Tar-Baby en he sot 'er in de big road, en den he lay off in de bushes fer to see what de news wuz gwine ter be.

Anyone know of any previous usage of the term tar baby meaning a stick situation? --Tekjester 20:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a few restaurants and businesses around here that use the Tar Baby monicker, and I could understand why it would be seen as racist -- it's not so much the story itself, but the depictions of the tar baby itself tends to be very early 20th century stereotypical. I don't know the full story here, of course, and most of these places are managed and run by black families, so I guess it depends on how you look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.136.30 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I have never heard anyone...ever...refer to a black person as a tar baby. Ever. So, then, how exactly is it a racial slur? 65.27.134.29 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

Claims vs. what we know

I'm reverting back one sentence to reflect what we know rather that what public figures using "tar baby" have claimed. We don't know that Mitt Romney, et al. didn't know prior to their employment of the term that it had (slight or great) racial connotations. We only know that they asserted this ignorance after the utterance. Also, why is one necessarily "surprised" that public figures occassionally speak in such fashion? --Patchyreynolds 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In cases like Romney, the mere fact that he used the term is strong evidence that he did not know the racial connotations. A self-interested politician of his background and ambitions avoids any language which he knows may give racial offense. The utterance itself indicates he was ignorant that some people would take offense. Gojomo 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Had Romney been giving a scripted televised address in front of a mass audeince, yes, I would agree. Two factors about this use give me, at least, pause. First, demographically speaking, his Iowa Republicans audience was probably overwhelmingly white. Quite often, off-hand slurs tend to slip out during inadvertant "it's-just-us" moments, something true of sexist remarks, classist remarks, homophobic remarks, etc. I'm not saying Gov. Romney would be consciously racist in front of a predominantly white crowd, just that his guard would have been higher in front of one that differed in racial composition than the one he likely faced. Second, while I agree that Gov. Romney (or his aides) would never knowingly insert a racist remark in a public Q%A period, this remark was unscripted. What an incipient presidential candidate would do if left to plot out a course in advance might be very different than what happens at the spur of the moment. For instance, I don't think Muskie meant to cry on camera in '72 but it nonetheless happened (unless one buys the "melting snowflakes" theory). I agree with your assertion that "self-interested" politicians (is there any other kind?) would be loathe to make the remark openly, yet history tells us they do so all the time. We just can't know, making it, I think, a "claim" left to the reader's inference. --Patchyreynolds 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But Romney wasn't talking about people. He used 'tar baby' in its original (and in my experience, overwhelmingly more common) usage, as a non-racial term, to describe a sticky matter that's hard to drop once touched. Many people (esp. old white Northerners/Westerners like Romney) have probably heard the tern used non-racially hundreds of times, and may not have heard it used as an racial term ever. (For example: searching the NYTimes archives finds dozens of innocuous uses of 'tar baby' in all kinds of news coverage over the past 25 years.) So even if the term has a racial meaning to some people, Romney's particular *usage* in context wasn't any sort of "it's just us" slur. 'Tar baby' does appear to be moving on a sort-of euphemism treadmill towards being a taboo term where it once wasn't. But in such a case, speakers being surprised by its taboo status is exactly the expected, common scenario -- not a manufactured excuse. (In fact, without the surprise and ensuing scold-storm, the news that the term is now taboo would not spread and the treadmill would stop.) Think of it this way: if I'm walking down the street, trip over a tree root hurting myself, and then say "I didn't see it", is it more accurate to say "he tripped over a root he didn't see" or "he tripped over a tree root he claims he didn't see"? The second, rather than being more accurate, actually injects a judgement of insincerity for which there is no evidence or even reasonable motive. Gojomo 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well made. Thanks. --Patchyreynolds 22:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia (in)famous for lists, so ...

I'm afraid that the article at Political correctness doesn't address the phenomenom of people getting dressed down for words they didn't know were going to be found to be racially offensive. For instance, PC doesn't mention the 'niggardly' episode. And the "water buffalo" 'investigation' blows my mind. So... where is the article that describes the mine field that is English, and points to all the words you shouldn't use? Shenme 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Should the repeated POV changes to the "Notable Recent Usages" section be considered vandalism?

After seeing what he is doing on the Mitt Romney page, I think it is safe to refer to his actions as vandalism. -71.216.165.231 23:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kerry Quote

The example Kerry quote should stay. He wasn't quoting anyone in particular, he was paraphrasing the advice of "everybody on my staff, everybody I knew." Surely, they didn't all use the term 'tar baby'. To the extent any of them did, Kerry (another Massachusetts statewide officeholder) felt the term appropriate to reuse to summarize all their advice. It's also a good example of changing perception over the years; clearly the tendency to find offense in the term has grown since 1992. Gojomo 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of quotes

It seems as if the page is now suffering from the sheer weight of quotes, one that has actually buried the rather succinct definition of the term. Are all noteworthy? Can we remove some of these? Are folks in favor of keeping an ideological balance (Ivins and Kerry + Will and Romney), listing the most recent, etc. ?--Patchyreynolds 16:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest keeping the Romney and Snow quotes (as recent examples where someone was criticized for the use) and Kerry and Ivins quotes (as other examples where the use went unremarked), plus note that there hae been many other innocuous uses that generated no controversy in mainstream media coverage over the years (NYTimes, Boston Herald, Boston Globe, Time magazine, etc.) Gojomo 06:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Such lack of controversy is remarkable in itself. I put up the recent quote up by Andrew J. Bacevich that was deleted (as well as the Kerry quote that's still there). Perhaps I should have mentioned then that it's not just the Bacevich quote that's noteworthy, but the fact that the Boston Globe published it as written, with no apparent outcry. Yet the same paper took Romney to task on their front page for extemporaneously using the word during a stand up Q&A session. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? In other words, why should we trust the front page gatekeepers to tell us what "controversial usage" is when they've already shown their lack of impartiality? Maybe there needs to be another short section to address the hypocrisy involved.

Evolution of term

I tightened up the quotes along the lines mentioned in a previous post, but did want to raise a question about the dates of usage. I guess I'm wondering precisely when the term began to assume racial connotations. It it was only recently it would seem to millitate against inclusion of older quotes, if only because the speaker would have to be clairvoyant to foresee a later etymological development. Like many, however, I only know the term in its "Brer Rabbit" usage until lately. Anyone have any information on this? --Patchyreynolds 16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

African American

It is not clear in this article whether the term African American is intended to refer specifically to Americans of African descent or to blacks or people of color generally. Since the Wikipedia is available world-wide, not only in the U.S., I suggest that unless a reference to people of color is specific to American POC, it would be better to use another term: POC, Black, whatever. 24.199.88.57 13:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you're right! Take that, political correctiveness...ivity..osity.

What do you think when you hear or see the terms Asian Americans, Native Americans and etc the term African American refers to Americans who are native african descent. it like someone asking Caucasian Americans is intended to refer to who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.116.91 (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Racist?

Can anybody provide an explanation of why "tar baby" is considered a racial slur at all -- aside from obvious conclusions that one could draw from the denotative definition? Or examples where it *was* used in a racist context? I've never heard it used in such a way that it suggested any kind of racial bias, and I can't find any proof that it generally carries any. MMZach 07:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question..... is it because a tar baby is a human figure covered in tar and tar is black? Can anybody find an internet source that does not reference current news sources? 68.190.48.20 14:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But there are two separate issues at hand: 1) Do many find the term racist and/or offensive?; and 2) If so, how did the term come to acquire this correlation? The first issue appears indisputable at this point is well-documented in this article. Once Republican civil rights figures and the head of the Boston chapter of NAACP speak out against the offensiveness of the term, it's established. In effect, the proof of its offensiveness lies in the hue and cry raised upon its employment. (Unless, of course, one could substantiate with evidence that such remonstration is all part of a ginned up scheme.) Also, the fact that Romney and McCain apologize for their usage acknowledges the offensiveness of the term, their motive or ignorance of this notwithstanding. Continually qualifying the fact that it is an offensive term with the phrase "for some" elides the fact that offensiveness, by its very nature, is never total. It would be just as fair to say, "A burning cross is considered offensive by some." One may argue about the motive or foreknowledge around the censured utterances--and I don't think this article has ever claimed that Romney, Kerry, et al attempted to offend--but the term clearly has reached the status of offense (for some!). The second question, revolving around how the folktale figure acquired this semantic linkage is the question still ripe for examination and scholarship. I would imagine it lies in intertwined reasons joining nineteenth-century literature, national magazine culture, racial stereotypes, literary representations of "Negro" dialect, and yes, the associations with a Disney film now widely condemned for its soft-pedaled racism. Any cultural historians or etymologists with some time on their hands? --Patchyreynolds 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying "burning a cross is offensive to some" is a true statement, but you're omitting some nuance and using it as a false comparison. Burning a cross is a symbol of a terroristic threat to blacks. Not everyone objects to the intention behind the symbol (such as white supremacists for example) but we all agree on what that symbol means. The tar-baby thing is different... not everybody agrees that the word means something offensive. In fact, nobody can produce a single documented instance of anyone ever using this term to degrade black people. Not even the people offended by the term can explain what the supposed offense is; essentially it's just 'we don't like it, don't use it'. If they can't explain the offense, this is just trying to enforce arbitrary speech codes on others. 68.219.43.96 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I doubt that most white supremacists would embrace the term "terrorism" for this tactic, thus defusing the notion that "we all agree" on your reading of the symbol. (Nor, as a matter of fact do most members of white supremacist movements use your label, preferring instead "white pride.") And if you re-read my earlier comment you'll see that you've once again combined what I argue are two separate point to address. The first is whether or not "tar baby" is offensive. The simple fact that so many are offended by the term affirms ipso facto its offensiveness. You might personally find a film dull, might not understand its thrilling quality, might not be able to sensically trace the narrative thru-line creating suspense, but if a bunch of audience members scream, it's scary (or at least retty darn startling). The second issue, the one still ripe for investigation and documentation, is the provenance of this offense. It might be that the folklore character represents the corporeal manifestation of racist stereotypes (e.g., black, dangerous, polluting to the body, etc.). It might be Harris' representation of dialect. It might be its linkage to the Disney film or the antebellum American South. It might be a combination of these or something else altogether. It might even be that members of certain interest groups originally created and subsequently fanned the offensiveness of the term to further their own agenda. All of these could be investigated and documented. The fact that the article as it currently stands does not yet lay out this evolution should in no way eclipse the fact that the term clearly has developed negative racial connotations. As well, intent of use only becomes an issue when notations of use presume a motive. If the article claimed that Sen. McCain meant to debase African Americans, well, yes, we'd have to prove that he deployed "tar baby" with intent to harm. Other than that, whether or not someone intends it to offend in no way mitigates its offensiveness, only their culpability. (And as a side note, though I don't believe the senator meant to use the term offensively, he had to have heard of the earlier Romney flap. It might have slipped his mind, but it's unlikely that he was wholly unaware of the turmoil the term previously caused one of his chief rivals.) Finally, it's not "their" job to "explain the offense" (whoever "they" might be for you); it's our job as writers of the article. This article isn't about the justness of a certain position, but about the why's and wherefore's. --Patchyreynolds 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood my point by latching onto the term "terroristic". Let me clarify it. Burning a cross is a symbol that indicates a threat against blacks. While a slim minority aren't offended by such threats and may even support them, nobody disputes the meaning of the symbol of the burning cross. The tar baby situation is different. The meaning of this symbol is disputed. How do we know what it means? Those who have used it claim no racial offense or association, so no help there. Those claiming to be offended can't describe why it's offensive, so no help there. You could dig up some tenuous academic associations, but if that were the case, wouldn't the offendees come out and say it? This looks overwhelmingly more like the case of niggardly than anything else... the term bears a passing resemblance to something that someone might find offensive, and some have been quick to affirm that offense 66.156.56.202 02:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "tar baby" used to refer to a black person (offensively, or otherwise). Does anyone have an actual quote showing such usage? I'm starting to think it's just an urban myth. The term has always just meant "a difficult, inescapable situation" to me. 69.159.196.72 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a middle-aged American. I have never heard the term not used as a racial slur. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess Uncle Remus stories were never read aloud to you when you were small, as they were for me. From those stories I know quite well that Brer Rabbit represents all of us who are small and have to survive on wits against those more powerful. I know that the tar baby represents a trap for a person's vanity, a trap for the person whose head is too filled with himself, a trap that caught Brer Rabbit because he was too vain that day. I know that these themes go beyond race. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that those stories were never read to me as a child. I do not know what percentage of children are read these stories. I suspect it's low. I maintain my belief that the term 'tar baby' is primarily used in a racist fashion and that whatever its origin in the Uncle Remus stories is, that meaning has been usurped by society at large. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And I am a somewhat older than middle aged American who has _never_ heard it used in a racist context. I suppose it matters who you listen to. CsikosLo (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Virginia Buckingham

Some editors seem to find her viewpoint objectable. I've put it back in unless anyone can come up with a reason why reporting her POV is invalid. 68.190.48.20 16:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many quotes

Suggestion.... under the "Controversial usage" section how about we keep the first paragraph and remove all the bloody quotes and just keep the links to the various articles as references? As it stands now the article breaks NPOV by making an argument that Republicans are being targeted for using the term tar-baby but not democrates. However, a simple Google news search shows numerous hits were Republicans used the term without controversy and where some Democratics were admonished. 68.190.48.20 05:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It feels as if we're beginning down the road from which we got off a few years ago: every time an American politician uses the term, the page names them and notes yet another controversy (this time, a congressman). Any objection to simply folding the latest user into the single sentence we currently have noting past controversies (e.g., [[John McCain, John Kerry, etc.)? ThtrWrtr (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact this latest user is not really notable, I would say; McCain and Kerry were much more prominent politicians. We're not short of examples so I see no need to mention this recent case, but if we do, just adding the name to that list should suffice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Halberstam's Brilliant Use of Tar Baby

A current read of Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest sent me here. I cannot imagine a more brilliant metaphor for the US military fiasco in Vietnam than the author's repeated use of tar baby. What a shame to abandon such a useful literary device for the sake of some unsupported claims of racial slurs. Cowardly, to say the least. G13can 14:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Use "tar pit" instead. I ran across this article whilst considering the use of "tar baby" in an article and wondered if that was wise. I have certainly heard "tar baby" used as an ethnic insult, and having no reason to cling to the old usage have no problems moving on to a modified one. MrG 4.227.248.239 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "quagmire" also works well in that context. CallidoraBlack (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Quake monster

This is not of particular import, so I didn't add it to the article, but the original Quake computer game (1996) had a creature called a "Spawn" that used the internal name "tarbaby" for its script and 3-D model. If someone wants to add a modern usage or pop-culture section, this would make a good addition. Here's one source: [2]. More official sources (like the actual QuakeC script code) can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatfield977 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

US-centric nature of discussion racist implications

The racist connotations of the term tar baby seem to be largely a US phenomenon. I have not been able to identify non-US racist overtones in a moderately detailed search, whereas use of the phrase to indicate an intractable "sticky situation" is not uncommon in British and Australian English. I think there should be some acknowledgement that there are apparently cultural differences in the controverisal nature of this phrase between English speaking nations. As far as I can make out, the phrase is entirely uncontroversial in British and Australian English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.87.254 (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH so that you can add this information without violating core principles of Wikipedia. You cannot simply find uses of the phrase and point to them to prove that the uses are not racist. You must find sources saying explicitly that the phrase is not used with racist overtones in other countries than USA. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a Catch-22: if nobody has ever considered such an implication, why would there be such a reference? All the controversy listed seems to come from US sources. The context of the references makes it clear that there is no racist implication intended by the writers. The appearance of the phrase in mainstream media such as The Australian newspaper without any comment is strong evidence that no racist intention has been understood by the readership. I think the absence of non-US based controversy is an important point to be made in some fahion, otherwise this article presents a very unbalanced US-centric view of the phrase and is frankly misleading to those in other English speaking countries. Perhaps you can accept a compromise wording? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.87.254 (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is one reference which seems to indicate that the racist connotation is limited to a subset of American English speakers: http://www.bookerrising.net/2011/08/john-mcwhorter-is-tar-baby-actually.html

As a non-American, I had no idea until I looked into this topic just now the controversy and tumultuous recent history associated with this phrase. I think there needs to be some way to inform readers that this is a non-existent issue outside the US. It is, of course, impossible to "prove" such a negative, other than by reference to mainstream usage apparently devoid of racist intent and unnassociated with any negative community reaction. To put the issue the other way: in Imaginania there has been terrible controversy associated with the phrase "it takes two to tango", which is considered offensive to conjoined twins. Find a source which indicates directly that this phrase is not offensive to conjoined twins in US English....you will simply have to rely on the same sort of evidence I am putting forward. I understand that there are clearly contending US sociopolitical agendas here, but it is grossly unbalanced that there should be no recognition of the fact that all of this controversy comes from one English speaking country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.87.254 (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In the film book New Zealand Cinema: Interpreting the Past, on page 229, the authors discuss the 1988 film Mauri. They say, "Semmens Senior has no place for such a generous vision, calling Ramiri a 'spook,' stating that the Māori 'hate us' and calling Awatea a 'tar-baby,' later threatening to shoot her and deriding the prospect of miscegenation..." Clearly, the filmmakers present the term "tar baby" as a racial insult. In the 2004 book Queer in Aotearoa New Zealand, the author writes, "My personal experiences of being Maori had more to do with being called 'nigger', 'tar-baby' and 'ju-ju lips'..." By these links, we can see that racist uses of the term "tar baby" are present in New Zealand. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

While it might have been used in a particular location and time in New Zealand, which clearly comes from direct US influence; saying it is current or has ever been somewhat common would clearly be manipulating facts without more substantial evidence. Dlpkbr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

False dictionary quotation

The reference to the meaning of tar baby from the Oxford dictionary including the reference to racist usage is simply untrue and I have deleted it. I have checked my print copies of both the OED and the Oxford D of E as well as the online version. The full entry for the latter is pasted below.

tar baby

▶noun (informal) a difficult problem which is only aggravated by attempts to solve it.

- ORIGIN with allusion to the doll smeared with tar as a trap for Brer Rabbit, in J. C. Harris's Uncle Remus.

How to cite this entry: "tar baby noun" Oxford Dictionary of English. Edited by Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2010. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Western Australia. 27 September 2011 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t140.e0845040> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.87.254 (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In 2008, author Jennifer Lee Jordan Heinert notes in her book Narrative conventions and race in the novels of Toni Morrison that the OED gives a second meaning to "tar baby": "a derogatory term for a Black (U.S.) or a Maori (N.Z.)." I do not think your version of the dictionary is the same as the one used by Heinert or by Shay Riley at Booker Rising. In 1990 in The New York Times magazine, William Safire wrote, "The common colloquial sense today of tar baby is 'a sticky problem, one better left untouched.' However, the OED Supplement adds a second definition: 'a derogatory term for a Black (US) or a Maori (New Zealand).'" Safire republished his article in a book collection four years later. The OED comes in a more complete version with a supplement that must be purchased, and that version is the one being referred to by these various authors. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please provide the original reference for this? I have yet to see this in a primary source (i.e. something published by Oxford University Press, rather than these second hand uses. If there is a statement about what is in the OED, it should reference some form or other of the OED (not Time Magazine!). There are obviously numerous forms of the OED (and variants) out there- perhaps an appropriate statement is one which indicates which definitions are in which editions/versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.87.254 (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is "Little Black Sambo" mentioned under "See also"?

As a folklorist (among other things), I am fascinated by the way tar bay stories are found around the world. Then there is the hubbub about the changed modern use of the term. So is it helpful to include a link to a different children's book? I don't perceive a link to the core of this article. Pete unseth (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nor do I, and unless there is a reputable citation to prove it the link has no business here. I've just removed it. Alfietucker (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Use in Computing?

Tar-baby seems to be quickly becoming a term in computing relating to a hostile honeypot that ties up a hostile robotic probe by either giving it endless pages of data to feast on, or feeding it with an extremely low bandwidth bitstream that ties it up waiting for the connection to close. Quite akin to the original story of the Tar-baby in the Uncle Remus stories. Does anyone else concur this would be appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AE7EC (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Consistent typography

I notice the term is used here sometimes in caps sometimes in lower case and sometimes hyphenated. I think it would improve the page to decide on the typography and stick to it.

1. Is tar baby a common noun or a proper name (Tar Baby) or both depending on usage?
2. If it's both
   1. is it being capitalized/uncapitalized correctly in each usage?
   2. Is the primary topic (i.e. the page title) the proper name or the common noun?
3. Do we want the common noun typography hyphenated or not? Jojalozzo (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tar-Baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/spokeswoman-bachmann-tar-baby-quote-racial-16175625
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225927/http://www.creators.com/opinion/molly-ivins/molly-ivins-october-30.html to http://www.creators.com/opinion/molly-ivins/molly-ivins-october-30.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.click2houston.com/news/5059431/detail.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2&DocId=3936180

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind an explicit citation - with month and year - or, better, a working link - to the Robert Roosevelt prototype of the Tar Baby story. Sussmanbern (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

267 versions of the story?

The claim that Espinosa examined 267 versions of the tar-baby story is quite misleading. In the article referenced, Espinosa, without any evidence at all, discusses the variations between stories. This is a crucial difference, the article listed does not actually discuss any particular 'version' of the tar baby story at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.180.38 (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I am reverting you because Espinosa is the most authoritative source, writing about the topic since 1930's "Notes on the Origin and History of the Tar-Baby story". You can't simply blank out this important work by Espinosa. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The claim made is still grossly misleading and not supported by the source referenced. Espinosa has examined specific examples elsewhere, for example his 1938 article in the journal 'Folklore', but he doesn't come close to examining 267 different stories. 137.222.125.33 (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have updated it although I still think it is misleading. This is my first time editing Wikipedia so if someone could give me some help that would be good. I think it should emphasise the fact that Espinosa presents no evidence at all of any of the stories he supposedly possesses in the article that has been referenced. This article currently reads like there is a scholarly consensus on the tarbaby story and hundreds of other stories originating from India. A few studies from comparative mythologists in the 1930s absolutely does not justify such a view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.180.38 (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)