Something along the lines of:
It doesn’t have to be Br’er rabbit, but it goes like this:
A bear and a rabbit are both taking a shit in the woods. The bear asks the rabbit, “do you have a problem with shit sticking to your fur?” The rabbit replies, “No, why?”
So the bear wipes his ass with the rabbit.
Damnit, ninjaed
nm
That is truly sad. The brave little boy goes us against a tiger and wins. Because his name has been misused, we throw away a great story.
I realize that Perception Is All, and people now have these ideas in mind, but there’s really nothing essentially racist about the Tar Baby or about Sambo, as has been pointed out on this Board before.
As mentioned above, the stories of Br’er Rabbit are Trickster stories. Joel Chandler Harris didn’t invcent them – he’s one of those who put them in print, in transcrived dialect. He wasn’t the only one to do so – he had contemporaries doing the same trhing, but nobody except folklorists remember them. The storieds themselves were traditional folktales that were imported from Africa, where the same tales exist to this day. There you can find stories of Hare and Anansi the Spider that are virtually identical. In one story, it’s Anansi who gets caught by the sticky calabash baby. The Tar Baby was called that because it was made out of tar, not because it was black. These stories, after all, were told by black people to other black peiople – nobody was putting anyone down. And in the original African version, the substance the “baby” was made out of isn’t even black.
As for Little Black Sambo, as has been noted before, the story is originally set in India (ain’t no tigers in Africa), and Sambo, despite the name (and the names of his family members) is Indian. The British called them “black”, too. As far as I can recall the story, nothing about it is remotely racist.
The problem is that “Tar Baby” and “Sambo” themselves are now irretrievably linked to racist terminology and ideas. I sure as heck wouldn’t tattoo them on myself. Not when, only a few years ago, a lot of people vilified Snapple for putting what they thought were “slave ships” on their bottles of iced tea. (They were clearly depictions of the Boston tea Party, which actually made sense, but the the idea of “slave dships” had gotten out there.)
Sorry, that should have been “What, you decided not to go with the Tar Baby?” with an facetious incredulous smiley. This would be meant to suggest that tattooing a character from an African-American story on a white guy is probably not a good plan, regardless of whether it was from the first half of the story (the Tar Baby) or the second half (the briar patch).
That said, as I’ve been thinking about it, it does occur to me that a subtle approach might work. Like a bunch of brambles and briars, with a pair of rabbit eyes peeking out from within the thorns. That would be interesting.
So you know these people? Wow. I’m curious, Argent. Have black people given you a lot of hell in your life? You say some things sometimes that make me wonder.
I grew up less than half a mile away from the Wren’s Nest. Along with Stone Mountain, a school field trip there was almost a yearly thing. I grew up with a very Afrocentric mother who was practically paranoid, seeing racism in every corner.
Br’er Rabbit never once pinged on her radar. And lemme tell you, there would have been hell to pay if it had.
To the OP, never censor yourself based on the opinion of uneducated or ignorant people. If you want to get that tattoo, get it. Most people, including black people, are not going to know what the hell it even is, most likely. And those that do will either be down or they won’t. I don’t think they’ll judge you based on that tattoo regardless. If you were racist, you wouldn’t be hanging out with them, right? And if they are misinformed about where Br’er Rabbit comes from, you can use it as a teachable moment.
You’re more likely to be negatively judged for having a tattoo at all. If that’s not going to stop you, then the content shouldn’t either.
No, no, not at all. I’ve always gotten along great with all the black friends and acquaintances I’ve had, and never noticed any constant harping on “this or that is racist!” (I’ve heard far more of that - usually unwarranted - from privileged whites!) It’s just that the OP said this:
Knowing that, I think - those types tend to be pretty protective of their culture (and I don’t blame them.)
If someone got a Jewish or Masonic tattoo - no matter what ‘significance’ it had to their lives - but wasn’t a Mason or a Jew, I’d feel similarly peeved and think they were a poser.
getting any kind of tattoo is questionable. 30 yrs ago I got a heart (ala Janis Joplin). Now it looks like a chili pepper. :dubious:
I thought Jewish ppl couldn’t get tattoos or they can’t be buried in consecracted ground? (I could be so wrong here…always wondered where that left Holocaust survivors.)
From what I understand, it’s not as big a deal as some make it out to be. I’ve heard from various people that cemetaries don’t really enforce that these days. More and more people are getting tattoos and I expect this restriction to be eased away in the coming decades, if indeed it is ever really enforced nowadays.
I see many Jewish tattoos nowadays (probably on some non-Jews, as well as actual Jews). I mean, look. A lot of Old Testament laws are not really seen as meaningful to Jews anymore. But still, Jews want to honor certain traditions or meaningful symbols for their culture. I think any non-Jew getting those kind of tattoos is…well, kind of a poser.
I’ve never seen a Masonic tattoo on a non-Mason but that would certainly piss me off - I mean, I’m glad people are interested in Masonry, but the order has a prohibition on displaying any Masonic symbols until attaining the third degree of Master Mason. Now, this rule obviously doesn’t mean anything to non-Masons, but still. If Masonic symbols interest you, then join a Lodge - and they’ll mean even more to you, once you do that. Then wear the tattoo with pride. But until then - you’re a poser!
Zip-a-dee-doo-da…zip-a-dee-day…
That tatoo’s racist in almost every way!
I’m 25 and never heard of Br’er Rabbit until now. Interesting! I knew that ‘tar baby’ was a derogatory term but never knew the background story behind it.
I don’t think such a tattoo would be inherently racist, but it is easily misunderstood. I’d avoid it for that reason.
I always thought it was Burr Rabbit, or maybe Briar Rabbit. Never read a story or had one told to me that I remember, and never heard of Tar Baby either. I grew up in the north mostly.
Considering that the Splash Mountain ride at Disney is themed on the Br’er Rabbit stories and the final plunge is into the briar patch I’d say you are safe. If someone could in any way have taken it to be racist it would have been changed many years ago.
When I was little, I had a bunch of books based on Disney movies and cartoons, and some of my favorites were the Br’er Rabbit ones. (They didn’t even mention Uncle Remus). It wasn’t until I was older that I learned the racist connections.
Do you have a picture of what you’re planning on getting?
How exactly is “tar baby” considered racist? Was it a common slur in the Jim Crow era? Is it because a tar baby appears to have black skin? Or is it just the roundabout associations with Uncle Remus?
I’d agree and say only trash have tattoos, but I was slapped around for it years ago. 
And yet, here you are to say it anyway.