Talk:Uncle Tom's Cabin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Uncle Tom's Cabin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 20, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Earlier talk

Many writers have credited this novel with doing much to inflame the passions of Northerners to work for the abolition of slavery, although other writers dispute the novel's influence. How can we best make it clear that this reference to Northerners relates to those of the northern United States? --Sam

I think it's clear from the context. On another point, why is there an ISBN number? ISBNs are for specific editions; there must be hundreds of editions of UTC in the world. I'm going to remove it. --Angr/탉 19:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

At the top of the article, there was a link to a non-existent page about some song:

This is an article about a novel. For one of Warrant's popular singles, see Uncle Tom's Cabin (song)

I removed it. 154.20.80.177 17:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eliza A slave (personal maid to Mrs. Shelby), she escapes to the North with her five-year old son Harry after he is sold to Mr. Haley. Her husband, George, eventually finds Eliza and Harry in Ohio, and emigrates with them to Canada, France, and Liberia.

You can't emigrate to three places. Did they emigrate to Canada, France and then Liberia? Never read the book, but if that is correct, please change the article. --Taejo 10:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plot?

I think that without a small resumé of the plot the article is not informative enough. I didn't read the book and this article doesn't tell me on the place and time of the events or on the relationships between the listed characters. Could anyone add a plot section? Thanks. GhePeU 11:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. Please look it over and let me know if it is sufficient. Thanks. --Alabamaboy 12:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I also added a criticism and stereotypes section to the article. Obviously this was greatly needed.--Alabamaboy 13:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the new sections. GhePeU 15:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plot: Legree

Am I correct that Legree is a northerner who moved to the slaveholding South? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain. Here's [1] an interesting summary of the character. You may be correct, but if this is true it was mentioned in passing in the book and is not a major detail of his character. Can you find something on it?--Alabamaboy 12:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. Here is a quote from PATRIOTIC GORE by Edmund Wilson: "Simon Legree is not a Southerner: he is a Yankee, and his harsh inhumanity as well as his morbid solitude are evidently regarded as charicteristic of his native New England." Stowe was very possibly indicating that such cruelty is not a trait od the south alone.--Saxophobia 02:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long-suffering servant

"…dutiful, long-suffering servant faithful to his white master or mistress…": is he really faithful "…to his…master or mistress…"? It seems to me that he's more (1) resigned to Christian suffering and (2) rejecting of rebellion or even resistance (like George Harris's) against even as unjust an order as he finds himself living under. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The inspiration for Uncle Tom

According to this recent news story, there was a real person named Josiah Henson who was the inspiration for the Uncle Tom character [2]. Here is a link to his autobiography [3]. The Josiah Henson article mentions this detail, but shouldn't the Uncle Tom's Cabin article mention it as well? BlankVerse 04:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely should be added. And I guess the AP story can be cited if we can't get anything better, but I'd sure like either something academic or something from Stowe herself to document that he was an inspiration. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Influence on British foreign policy?

The article claims "In addition, some have claimed that the book so affected British readers that it kept Britain from joining the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy." I think this should be removed because 'some have claimed' is very vague. Is there anyone in particular who has claimed this? From this article we do not know if the book was widely read or even published in Britain. Although the article claims UTC was the second best selling book of the 19th Century, this was certainly not the case outside of the USA and I think it unlikely it would have had any impact on British public opinion. WhizzBang 10:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would the British join the war anyway? They were very definitely opposed to Slavery, having abolished it in the 1830s. 15:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
They were opposed (in principle) to slavery, but definitely leaned toward the South diplomatically during the war. Remember, the South was the "low tariff" side, and the British were, at the time, the world's leading manufacturing country. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a rather well-known historical fact that the main factor that kept British (and French) from joining the war on the side of the South was Russia expressing it's strong support of the North. Not some book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.182.56.5 (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
I always love uncited "well-known historical facts", especially ones that are not well-known and may not be facts. - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotypes: Novel vs. stage plays?

The section on stereotypes is good, but I think it should be tied closer to the Uncle Tom shows that toured the country and remained popular until about 1900. At the very least, the discussion of stereotypes should include the text from the Tom shows section. Our common conception of Topsy, for instance, comes less from the book and more from the minstrelry that quickly infected productions in the 1850s and 1860s. Though Topsy speaks with an unfortunate dialect in the novel, she's much less of a caricature and even something of a conscience. Tom was also negatively affected in stage productions. He certainly lost the Christ-like nature Stowe intended for him and became more like the "Uncle Tom" we think of today: In the novel, Tom gets beaten to death for refusing to reveal the whereabouts of two fugitive slaves. Considering that Stowe did not authorize these productions, I would argue that the worst stereotypes can not be attributed to her. --Idols of Mud 16:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. Why don't you attempt the rewrite you suggest? - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Credited with starting a war

"...and is credited with both helping to start the American Civil War and helping to fuel the abolitionist cause in the United States."

Credited with helping to start the American Civil War? Doesn't this sound odd to anyone else? I don't think this is the correct way to phrase this... it's like saying "This book was instrumental in the death of nearly a million Americans" --Bri 12:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln seems to have credited her with being a catalyst of the war. Maybe the book was instrumental in the death of millions, so what? Srnec 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is, of course, nonsense. While "slavery" is considered the be the primary canned response as to the reasons of Civil War, it is still nothing more than a relatively recent politically-correct propagandist invention. Any educated person knows prefectly well than the reasons of Civil War were purely economical and "slavery" by itself was not a factor in it at all. Needless to say, Lincoln himself understood that perfectly well. He couldn't have possibly said anything of that nature.

<sarcasm>Ah yes, the Battle Hymn of the Republic ("as He died to make men Holy / Let us die to make them free") came so long after the war. And, of course, Southerners fired on Fort Sumter because they were afraid that a Republican adminstration would alter tarriff law.</sarcasm> Not that slavery was, by any means, the sole cause of the war, and certainly Lincoln was not the radical Republican many in the South imagined him to be — he would surely have preserved the "peculiar institution" if he could have saved the Republic that way — but it is hard to imagine the fractiousness having been the same without the issue of slavery. Lincoln's remark about "the little lady who started the war" may have been an exaggeration, even a gross one, but the very fact that he made it indicates that it is not only a "relatively recent politically-correct propagandist invention". - Jmabel | Talk 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

Parts of the plot were clearly lifted from http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/uncletom/summary.html. Compare Eva's death in each.

There are many similarities that also concern me, even though this could have came about from both plot summaries describing the same original story. However, to err on the side of caution I have rewritten the plot section. Good catch. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotypes

Is it correct to say that she employed stereotypes while simultaneously arguing that the stereotypes are the result of the popularity of her work? Srnec 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


I think the statement: "The affectionate, dark-skinned female mammy (through several characters, including Mammy, a cook at the St. Clare plantation)." is false. Mammy is a mulatto woman (meaning she's not dark skinned) and she isn't a cook either. She's more like Marie and Eva's caretaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.156.88 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Read the book

READ THE BOOK BEFORE YOU READ THESE. YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING WITHOUT READING THE BOOK FIRST!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.142.168.244 (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006.


[edit] Technical

The link for Eva, from the plot section of the artciel, is being removed. It only redirected to the top of the page, taking the viewer farther from the information on the character. Feel free to write me. Cdelosr1 10:36 22 Aug (USA CENTRAL)

[edit] Moral Values

I believe that Tom did what is right because he accept the fact that he is a dark one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.1.80.65 (talk • contribs) September 13, 2006.

[edit] Gangs of New York

I haven't seen Gangs of New York, but are the actors in the scene referred to actually in blackface (exaggerated, stereotyped: big lips googly eyes, all that)? Or are they just white people playing black people? - Jmabel | Talk 23:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cruikshank

Shouldn't there be some explanation of why the title page illustration shows Cruikshank as the author instead of Stowe? Did she first publish under a psuedonym and was it Cruikshank? Or Smith? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.135.227.163 (talk • contribs) October 26, 2006.

Stowe always received full credit; Cruikshank drew the illustrations for the British edition. Rjensen 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where was it a best selling novel?

The article says it was the most frequently sold book of 19th century after the bible with some puny 300.000. Does that represent USA? If it does, it certainly should be noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.167.242.144 (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

The source cited in the article states "It was to become the second best-selling book in the world [italics mine] during the nineteenth century, second only to the Bible". A bit of Googling suggests good reason to believe that:
  • "By the end of the first year, 300,000 copies had been sold in America alone; in England 200,000 copies were sold." - Slave narratives and Uncle Tom's Cabin, Africans in America Resource Bank, PBS. So that "puny" 300,000 is in one year in one country.
  • Taking the longer term: "In England alone over a million copies were sold." Harriet Beecher Stowe, Spartacus Schoolnet.
  • The Vassar College Libraries seem to think that figure for England is an underestimate: see Ronald D. Patkus and Mary C. Schlosser Aspects of the Publishing History of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, 1851-1900. Also, they mention "According to Bullen’s introduction to the 1879 Houghton Mifflin edition, Uncle Tom’s Cabin had already been translated into over 37 languages. 14 German editions appeared in 1852, and in 1853 17 French editions and 6 Portuguese editions appeared."
So the worldwide claim seems at least highly plausible, not one source idiosyncratically saying something others disagree with. - Jmabel | Talk 22:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that this was the best-selling novel in the world in the 19th century? Also, I hear that in the 19th century, this novel was the best-selling in the world. Furthermore, this novel sold better than any other in the 19th century. ...It occurs to me to wonder whether the article actually needs to make this statement *four times*. Perhaps one or two of those could be trimmed? I'm reluctant to actually do the trimming, 'cause I think it'll take more careful thought than I can muster right now, but I'm hoping someone else will be willing to do this. But don't forget: this was the best-selling novel of the 19th century! Just in case you weren't sure. --Elysdir 20:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh...

Could somebody revert this page to before whoever came in ended up putting "nigger" and "porch monkey" laced throughout the entire article? There's way too many epiteths for me to comb through the article and correct them all myself.

I am afraid that function is currently down, and it would be much appreciated if you could simply continue combing through the article and trying to repair it to the best of your abilities. Thank you.N9philim 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Race-related articles are often vandalized. The way to fix it is usually to go through the article history and restore the last good version. - Jmabel | Talk 21:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SECTION ON FILM ADAPTATIONS IS INADEQUATE AT BEST!!!

The film of Uncle Tom's Cabin that featured Herbert Lom as Legree was of very high quality. I wonder why this article does not mention it in the section on film adaptations. Among other things, the film portrays Tom as Stowe described him rather than as he is usually misunderstood -- I mean, not as a sychophant who "sucks up" to white people but as a Christian who loves the sinner while hating the sin, and allows himself to be sold down the river because otherwise his whole people (those on the plantation) would suffer. And Topsy not as the stereotypical "pixie" but again as Stowe created her, near-autistic from abuse and neglect. It's a very good film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.16.211 (talk • contribs) 20:30, February 2, 2007

Then add it! - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up and semi-protected article

I just finished cleaning up a ton of subtle vandalism, mostly the deleting of information by anonymous editors. Because this article is a frequent target of this type of subtle vandalism (which is hard to detect) I've semi-protected the article. If anyone has any issue with this, please let me know. But this is too important an article to allow this to continue to happen. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Congrats on bringing this article up to GA status! It's really quite good. I did some work on this article a while back and it was in sad shape, it's nice to see how this has improved. Since I passed this as a GA, I thought I should point out a few things that might be improved. This article certainly has the potential to be a FA and it should be. Here are a few issues:

  • I think a few more images could be added.
  • There are a few one-sentence paragraphs that should be expanded of merged.
  • The sections on "Tom Shows" and "Cinematic Versions" need citations.
  • The See Also section is fairly useless as most of the topics are already linked in the article.

Overall, it's a lovely article! Keep up the good work! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll work on these issues in the coming months. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that the bulk of the remarks about "Tom Shows" could be cited from Lott. At the time I added most of that material, we weren't usually using inline citations. Have a look at my edits from late July and early August 2005. - Jmabel | Talk 21:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. It'll probably be a while before I can add the references to that section but when I do I'll do as you suggest. Best, --Alabamaboy 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hiya ppl

I would like to know more on Uncle Tom's cabin. I am writting a newsletter on this subject.


Thnx Kacey


[edit] Going for Featured Article status

I have just completed a major revision to this article. Since this article is already at Good Article level, I'm aiming for Featured Article status. Please critique the article and give your opinion here (I also hope people will help improve the article where they can). Best, --Alabamaboy 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'd add is that it would be nice if the images were staggered somehow. It seems odd that they're all on the right. Maybe align one or two left? Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll fix that. Thanks.--Alabamaboy 23:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The article made it!--Alabamaboy 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work - literature articles are difficult to bring up to featured status. -- Stbalbach 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I also commend all of the detail and hard work put into this article; very, very good job! I've read the book twice (once for pleasure and once for school) and even I didn't know some of the info listed here.  :) I'm truly impressed. María (habla conmigo) 00:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Unfortunately, the article is also a magnet for vandalism and I'm sure being on the main page is going to increase that vandalism a hundred-fold. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The FA status is deserved--good work! I might highlight St. Clare's function in the novel a bit more, as this character is a proxy for the ambivalent reader. Billbrock 15:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection should be redrafted or not? Please help form consensus at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection#Consensus. DrKiernan 09:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Evil" and "Ideal"

In a number of places on this article, there are unattributed uses of this term. The term 'evil' cannot be neutral, it's making a judgment. The term 'ideal' is used without attribution as well as well as commentary regarding the "redeeming attributes" of Christianity, which, of course, is also not neutral. I've placed citation tags where I've felt appropriate. I am pretty sure you will find few people who have anything positive to say about slavery but that doesn't mean we can refer to anything as 'evil' and expect it to be neutral. :bloodofox: 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an overreaction. For example, there's no need to tag a statement such as "the book's arguments about the evils of slavery", since the book does, in fact, argue that slavery is evil. (In other words, the citation is the text itself.) Fumblebruschi 02:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Such a statement needs a citation from the book itself or a rewording to reflect that it is directly a reference from the book. Basically, the statement needs to fully reflect that. The term "evil" gets thrown around quite a lot on Wikipedia with little abandon. :bloodofox: 02:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe it is an overreaction at all, as I agree with Bloodfox. (See my response below under another heading). But that statement along with "Christian love and faith" implies that Christians are the only people with the kind of love and faith necessary to overcome such evils as slavery. Even though the book implies this very thing. But it is commentary and is POV and should be removed, IMO. So, something taken from the book itself to assert the sentiment should replace it, or remove the sentence completely. (It wasn't there in an earlier version.) - Jeeny Talk 05:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added in a citation for Eva being portrayed as an "ideal Christian" and also put that phrase in quotes. As I said in the other section on this page, the views of slavery as evil and of Christian love and faith are from Stowe herself and are a major theme of the book. It's easy to provide citations to all this b/c these issues are discussed in almost any commentary about the novel (and I thought I'd provided enough cites, but I've now added more in). Best, --Alabamaboy 12:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian love and faith...

Today, someone added quotes around the "Christian love and faith" bit in the lead, along with a {{who}} tag. After an extensive search on Google and checking out this page's history, it seems that this is definitely not a quote from a single person. See this edit for the original addition of this line into the article. I'm going to remove the quotes around this bit and change the {{who}} tag to a {{fact}}, which seems more appropriate in this situation. --- RockMFR 04:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That was me. My reasoning was that it needs attribution if it is to stay. It sounds like a personal interpretation of an editor and either needed a quote source directly from the source material or a complete rewording for neutrality. :bloodofox: 04:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed it from a fact tag to a who tag because I saw that quotes where added (that were not there when I looked last) and I searched the "quote" too, and did not find anything either. I had problems with an earlier version using the word "showing" that implies only Christians are loving and faithful and changed the word to "asserting", for lack of a better word, and to not removed the sentence. The new word "espouses" and the quotes may have been added by the same editor? I don't know, but I also have a problem with that word, as it is just as POV as "showing", to me anyway. Maybe that sentence should be reworded, or a better word (I can't think of one that is NPOV), but one that does not seem to claim only Christians are good and faithful? - Jeeny Talk 05:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I just removed the word "Christian" and the fact tag. Hopefully this is a compromise for a NPOV, and a need for a citation. - Jeeny Talk 05:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was me. I agree with you and simply removed the sentence since it was clearly an editor's observation. If something like that is going to fly, we're going to need specific words referenced from the book or it's going to have to be an outside reference to someone commenting on it. :bloodofox: 06:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think "slavery is evil" is universal, in regard to the type accounted in the book, anyway. So, in that, I respectfully disagree with you on removing the word "evil" from the article. I objected to the implication that only Christians can overcome evil. The author is very clear about "showing" the "evil" of slavery, though. <shrug> - Jeeny Talk 06:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your edits but added a reference where it actually reinforces the assertion of the evil of slavery and the author's intention. Here's a link where it references her view to support the use of the word "evil". I can get more if needed. There are many that show the author's intent to show the evils of slavery. :) - Jeeny Talk 07:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not our place to state any sort of judgement towards slavery. It doesn't matter what we think. It matters how the book depicts it and thus we subsequently must reference it appropriately like anything else. Any sort of non-neutral statements like that are either going to have to be either direct quotes from the book or a referenced commentator and worded appropriately to reflect this. We can't go around calling anything 'evil' here and expect any sort of neutrality to come of it. :bloodofox: 07:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added back in a modified version of this sentence with several solid citations. The first is from the Spark Notes to the book itself, where it states the novel is about the "destructive power of slavery and the ability of Christian love to overcome it..." I've also added in another reference along these lines from the humorous (but accurate) Complete Idiot's Guide to American Literature. The final citation is from a scholarly book, with references to an influential scholarly essay on UTC. I used these references b/c they are extremely to the point on this issue, but I can also provide a similar reference from the introduction to the novel (but I'll have to snag that copy back from the library first). The article isn't trying to say that Christianity is the only way to overcome slavery. Instead, that was Stowe's belief, which is why the statement include the word "asserting" b/c Stowe was the one asserting that. While we may disagree with Christianity being the only way to overcome slavery, the fact is that Stowe believed this about Christianity and made it a major theme of the book. I hope the changes I've made work for everyone. Best,--Alabamaboy 12:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job! I went to bed troubled about removing "Christian" from the article, as I've read the book many times, and know there is a strong Christian "message" throughout, and "shows" the "evils" of slavery. Though without references it was commentary, and especially implied that Christianity is the only way for one to overcome evil -- even though the book does imply this. Yet, I know one does not have to be Christian to appreciate the book, and also agree with the message of "love and faith". It was a dilemma! I'm glad you added the references. It wouldn't have accurately portrayed the book without the words "Christian" and "evils of slavery" as it is the major theme of the book! :) - Jeeny Talk 15:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope the references I've added work for people. Because this was a contentious issue, I added multiple cites from books at different scholarly levels. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Best-Selling Novel of the Nineteenth Century"

I don't think this can be right. According to the official Wikipedia list, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is ranked 44th. There are several other books that have been printed earlier and have sold more and others later in the 19th Century. Now, these might have reached or gone towards this status earlier or since the 1800s, but I doubt that they all sold fewer copies in that particular century and regained ground since. As an example, the "Book of Mormon" was published 22 years earlier and has sold 120 million copies to "Uncle Tom's Cabin"'s 28 million. It is therefore likely that it sold more in the 19th century. Also, in the article on "Ben-Hur" it states that it soon overtook "Uncle Tom's Cabin" as the best-selling American novel at some point between 1880 and 1936 (when it was overtaken by "Gone With the Wind"). 88.109.213.26 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement is correct and has a number of reliable citations to back it up. That said, there are a number of 19th century novels which sold well in the 20th century and may have overtaken UTC's total sales (Moby Dick, for one, Ben-Hur for another). But since those novels sold most of their copies in the 20th century, that doesn't change the statement about UTC. Best,--Alabamaboy 12:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there is a completely reliable source, it can only be estimated. I was simply appyling logic.88.110.250.80 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Logic is rarely as reliable as people think :-). But with regards to the sources, there are a large number of them which state that the book was the best-selling novel of that century.--Alabamaboy 18:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide effect

the novel had a profound effect on worldwide attitudes toward African Americans and slavery

To me this implies it has a profound effect on attitudes toward African Amercians and slavery throughout the world. I'm not saying this isn't true but more evidence would be ideal. It appears the book was widely translated, the first American novel to be translated into Chinese for example (although when this occured is not quite clear although given the years the translator lived in I guess late 19th century or early 20th century). We can presume then that it was widely read. And it was obviously one of the thing's that had a great effect on the attitudes to towards African Americans and slavery in the world in general but directly and indirectly. But this doesn't really answer the question whether it had a profound effect on the attitudes in all countries. I'm especially thinking of Asia here. Did it have a profound effect on the attitudes in Japan? China? India? Siam? The Ottoman Empire? Saudia Arabia? Egypt? For that matter what about Russia? Or the Nordic countries? Nil Einne 17:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out the article now. I've specifically stated that the novel "had a profound effect on attitudes toward African Americans and slavery in the United States." That said, there is some evidence that the novel also impacted views of slavery around the world. In the contemporary and world reaction section, the article states that the 1930 Amharic translation was "created in support of Ethiopian efforts to end the suffering of blacks in that nation." If more referenced facts like this are found, they can be added to this section. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The book, and the plays it inspired, also helped propagate a number of common stereotypes...

From the introduction "The book, and the plays it inspired, also helped propagate a number of common stereotypes". I am dubious over the word propagate. Propagate implies that the stereotypes were already sterotypes before the book, and they spread in use due to the book. This may or may not be true, but if it is true a citation is necessary. I have read the alternative position that the characters from the book later became sterotypes because they were frequently used by other authors later. Unless there is good evidence for one position or the other, the introduction should not take a position. Sad mouse 18:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I originally had the word "create" in the lead but someone rewrote that in the last 24 hours. I've now changed the word back to "create," which is what most of the scholarly articles state and is a word backed by a number of citations in the article. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Baldwin disbambig?

Great read. But the James Baldwin link is to a dab, and it's hard to tell from the list which JB is being referred to. Anchoress 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've made the correction. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
NP. Anchoress 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'White man's uncle tom's Cabin'

Well googling only showed one reference and it was me but in that reference (a review of the book in question) I put the expression in quotes. I believe it was a fairly well known characterization of the work (The Jungle) around the time of publication and since. Ah yes: changing the query to 'upton sinclair jungle "Uncle Tom's Cabin"' yelds 35,000 hits. Really, people ought to check before deleting someones work at least that much (as a simple googling). Lycurgus 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Googling the phrase "White Man's Uncle Tom's Cabin" yields zero hits. I also searched a number of academic and scholarly books for that phrase and nothing turned up. Unless you can show a reliable reference supporting that this phrase is used by a number of people, it shouldn't be in the article. Best,--Alabamaboy 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstandings

I think the popular image of this book (reflected in the article) is inaccurate. The character of Tom, as written by Stowe, is not at all a passive man who seeks favors from his masters. He's a Christian who "loves the sinner and hates the sin". He looks for the day of redemption but refuses to be hateful or vindictive. He seems to me to constitute proof that nonviolently opposing love to hatred is not something the US civil rights movement just imported from Gandhi and Tolstoy but has roots in African-American culture.

Tom refuses to flog a fellow slave, and in return gets flogged himself. He refuses to reveal the whereabouts of fugitives and in return is beaten to death. He allows himself to be "sold down the river" when his cop-out white master Shelby decides on it, because if he didn't, evil would fall on all the slaves at the Shelby plantation.

Topsy isn't a "pickaninny stereotype". She's near-autistic from abuse and neglect, her back is crisscrossed with scars, and she steals because she thinks she's supposed to--having experienced next to no nurture or love. She's an indictment of white society from the word go.

This article should talk more about the character of George Harris, the back-to-Africa man, whose father is white but who says he utterly rejects the white element in himself and that "rather than wish myself one shade lighter, I would wish myself two shades darker." He is a strong, dignified, and very articulate man and he was always my favorite when I read the book as a kid.

The article should talk more about the sixteen-year-old female black woman (I forget her name) whom Legree buys away from his mother to serve as his sex slave. Southern readers were especially outraged by this portrayal; they claimed such things never happened!

Stowe's father was of course Henry Ward Beecher, the abolitionist preacher and Underground Railroad "conductor". The house she was raised in was abolitionist command central, and every incident and character in the book is based on fact. She later proved this in her supplementary book about the writing of the novel.

Also, the article should mention the film of Uncle Tom's Cabin made (I think) in the 1980's, with Herbert Lom as Legree. It's a pretty good rendering of the story. Tom129.93.17.135 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publication Date

There is no way that the first book could have been published on March 20th 1852. The final chapter wasn't printed in National Era until April 1, 1852 according to John R. Adam's biography of her life. Even the announcement for the publication wasn't made until March 25, 1852 (5 days after the said publication date on Wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.235.23 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 19 November 2007

The fact that the final chapter wasn't published in National Era until April 1 doesn't preclude the book being published March 20. Although it wasn't printed in National Era until its April 1 issue, Stowe must have written it well before then. Here's a web page with these same dates. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate references

I'm not sure what the guidelines for citations are in Wikipedia articles, but endnotes 8 and 50 are exactly the same. Is this necessary? Same with 43 and 62. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jxw13 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "permanently ingraining these stereotypes into the American psyche."

There is no such thing as an "American psyche". A psyche is a quality solely possesable by an individual. Therefore suggesting change to "American culture". --84.137.15.81 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eliza crossing the ice?

Isn't the most famous scene from Uncle Tom's Cabin that of Eliza crossing the ice? Shouldn't this be mentioned in Uncle Tom's Cabin? There are many illustrations of this scene (e.g., Image:Eliza-Crossing-the-Ice-Morgan-1881.jpeg, and the article could use more illustrations. Eubulides (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)