Pierre Poilevre sparks a firestorm over racist remark
Sometimes, a metaphor can simply be too cute to pass up when looking for a clever way to dig at a political opponent.
If Pierre Poilevre thought his remarks in the House of Commons today were one of those metaphors he's entirely too stupid to put his evident cleverness to good use
In a bid to remind Canadians that it was Michael Ignatieff who thought up the carbon tax on which Stephane fought and lost an election -- itself a noble act -- Poilevre made a crack that will seem to many to be reminiscent of the "secret black baby" comments used against John McCain, except without the effectiveness.
"On that side of the House, they have the man who fathered the carbon tax, put it up for adoption to his predecessor and now wants a paternity test to prove the tar baby was never his in the first place," Poilevre announced.
Which should have provoked a broad response of "what the fuck were you thinking" from his colleagues in the Conservative party caucus.
Liberal party House Leader Ralph Goodale rightly denounced Poievre's comments.
"In addition to being a pejorative term, which might well prove to be unparliamentary, the parliamentary secretary might consider that there are many authorities both in this country and many others that consider the term racist," Goodale said.
Marlene Jennings later continued the counter-attack.
"As a black child growing up, I was called all sorts of pejorative names based on the color of my skin, including the 'n-word' and 'tar baby' -- and believe me, it was hurtful," she explained. "I am offended by Mr Poilievre's insensitive remarks --and I know leaders in the black community across Canada feel the same way."
If Poilevre has an apology in the works -- which he'd damn well better -- it had better be a god damned good one when Canadians finally hear it.
All Canadians -- regardless of political affiliation -- should be outraged to no end by Poilevre's comments.
Friday, May 29, 2009
6 comments:
Post your comments, and join the discussion!
Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.
All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard this story earlier this evening I was, to put it simply, AGHAST. And then I was very angry. You're right, partisan politics should take a back seat on this one, it should be seen for what it is: An indecency beneath any elected politician in this land - the asshole in question should resign. I have no interest in hearing his apology. I just want him to resign.
Perhaps instead of continuing to use the incorrect connotation, you should be using the correct one:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby
In contemporary usage, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact. The only way to solve such a situation is by separation.
Merriam Webster online has this definition as well:
Main Entry: tar baby
Function: noun
Etymology: from the tar baby that trapped Brer Rabbit in an Uncle Remus story by Joel Chandler Harris
Date: circa 1910
: something from which it is nearly impossible to extricate oneself
Polievre used the term correctly.
The righteous indignation over the use of the term is more like righteous ignorance.
I wouldn't be so fast as to charactarize Poilevre's comments as indecent. Rather, I would charactarize them as irresponsible and stupid.
ReplyDeleteAs for Ken, that explanation doesn't hold. Poilevre spoke of Michael Ignatieff "siring" (fathering) this particular "tar baby". The "sticky situation" analogy doesn't hold. Either that, or I simply wouldn't credit Poilevre as nearly as clever as he seemed to be.
I simply wouldn't credit Poilevre as nearly as clever as he seemed to be.You won't get any argument from me there. I haven't been overly impressed with my MP over the past year or so.
ReplyDeleteMy OED says it's racially offensive and derogatory. Years of common use when I was growing up backs that up - it was never used to mean a "sticky situation", but instead was one in a long line of epithets that my step-father used to describe dark-skinned people and children.
ReplyDeleteNormally, I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt on these sorts of things, but there is no POSSIBLE way that Poilievre didn't know about this term. I am certain it was a calculated move to draw attention to himself.
Well, I've seen sources that corroborate the claims that it's often used to mean a "sticky situation".
ReplyDeleteBut when one looks at the context of in which Poilievre uses it -- in the metaphorical context of human paternity -- it's an explanation that simply doesn't wash.