People toss around the term “carpetbagger” a lot, often Southern liberals (at least in New Orleans), and I think it’s odd given so many of the so-called carpetbaggers were actually trying to do the right thing:
Although carpetbaggers often supported the corrupt financial schemes that helped to bring the Reconstruction governments into ill repute, many of them were genuinely concerned with the freedom and education of black citizens.
So, yeah, I think it’s a bit off for contemporary liberals to adopt a term coined and popularized by 19th century Southern whites bitter about the end of slavery. I’ll climb out on that limb (see below). I’d say the South could’ve used more carpetbaggers. However, I don’t expect anyone to stop using the term in this fashion–the allure of reductive name calling being what it is.
A cartoon threatening that the KKK would lynch carpetbaggers, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, Independent Monitor, 1868.
Image credit: Wikipedia Commons
Update: For further historical context, go here.
I think it’s odd given so many of the so-called carpetbaggers were actually trying to do the right thing
Never underestimate stubbornness, ignorance, racial hate and did I say ignorance already?
When politicians or others reach back for terms like “carpetbagger” and “outside agitator,” they are not ignorant of the implications or echoes. They know. They mean it. They see nothing wrong with it. They know who it speaks to, who it caresses, who it comforts, and don’t care who it offends. Name-calling stifles debate and supports the staus quo, which is really, really popular in LA.
I think the liberals I have in mind are quite possibly ignorant of the implications or echoes. I linked to a Gloomypants’ post and in it he links to another local liberal blog that uses the term. Gloomy may be a name caller but I doubt he’s being coy with his use of the term. He may have some bankshot reading of history, which I doubt, or he hasn’t thought about the term’s provenance, or he doesn’t care. The post Gloomy links to is by Clio, who wrote (in the context of outside do-gooders like Blakely coming to N.O.): “The people who remain, natives and truly committed people who came after the levee failures, as well as the people who are still streaming in, are up to something great.” I don’t think these guys read my blog, so they’ll probably not clarify for us …
I take back not a syllable.
I guess that makes me the good cop.
I agree, a term too loosely and arrogantly used.
My family is all French Creole on my mother’s side, in the old sense of the term. I was raised around that word and remember my grandmother telling me it meant dishonest people from up North who were her to profit on the distress of others. She also took great pains to explain that most people were good and it was the rare bad ones that deserve the title, not everyone.
This is the way it was explained to me as a child. Your thoughts?
My understanding of the term (one I was raised with) is that a carpetbagger is one who comes in from elsewhere to take advantage of the situation for their own personal gain — on the backs of those left derelict other otherwise disadvantaged by tragedy. Those who have moved in to be a part of the community and to stay or provide some lasting service would therefore not qualify as carpetbaggers. I think it’s a term (like l-l-l-l-liberal, Nazi, facist, socialist, etc.) that’s indeed overused by those who have no idea what they’re talking about. It’s a red flag to me in any conversation.
I’m ashamed to say I had no idea of the racist connotations of the term. I suppose that’s the sad remnant of my southern education and a sorry testimony to my ignorance.
I also strongly suspect that both Misters Clio & Gloomy Pants read your blog, most especially this post, since Ms. Gadbois has featured it on Facebook. This should be a great discussion. Thanks, D.
He may have some bankshot reading of history, which I doubt, or he hasn’t thought about the term’s provenance, or he doesn’t care
If by “Bankshot reading of history” you mean the 7th grade education necessary for one to appreciate the full context of the term, uh yeah, I got that.
At the same time, I wonder what sort of exclusionary interpretation leads one to justify the sort of cynical disaster profiteering under the aegis of genuine work being accomplished by others.
The term “carpetbagger” in the sense that I use it, and in fact in the sense of any modern usage, is a means of accusing phonies. It really does take a leap of forced outrage to interpret that any other way.
I’m forced to agree with Jeffrey here.
Wow Loki agrees with me even though I totally garbled a paragraph there. Sorry about that. Anyway the sense of it is there.
Hey, great to see y’all drop in. However, I admit to being shocked this morning by most of the responses. I was expecting to read something more along the lines of:
“Oh, shit! I can’t believe I was such an asshole! Thanks for pointing that out!”
I’m reminded of something I recently read:
“Early in 2009, the results of of a California Academy of Sciences poll (conducted throughout the nation) revealed that only fifty-three per cent of American adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the sun, and a slightly larger number–fifty-nine per cent–are aware that dinosaurs and humans never lived at the same time.”
Just because you believe something doesn’t make it right. I, too, even as a Northern white boy, understood carpetbaggers to mean “dishonest people from up North who were here to profit on the distress of others.” But when I grew up I learned otherwise.
Words matter. For example, nobody here is going to call Cliff “boy,” even if the intent would be to just say he was one of the boys, a good guy, somebody we all like. He’s male, isn’t he? So what would be the harm? Yeah, right.
I recognize that almost everybody sees carpetbagger as a dishonest person of the North, a phony, etc., and that acknowledging its full meaning would remove a handy tool for battering one asshole or another, but giving into that is a form of laziness–or senseless stubbornness.
Sorry, but “everybody does it” or “That’s just the way I was raised” aren’t impressive defenses. That’s essentially what I’m seeing in this discussion.
We’re talking about a word, folks. Find another, or make up a new one, but don’t expect everybody to jibe with your narrow “intent” when you use a word that has complex and ugly connotations.
I thought I came pretty close to “Oh, shit, I can’t believe…!” I tried, and thanks for pointing that out.
You came closest! You should get a special reward. Maybe some bark shavings, a wing from a bug, a live oak leaf, a lizard’s tail …
So I will freely admit that I never associated the term with racial implications, but I’m still not convinced the term is historically race biased.
My first exposure to the term came while reading Huck Finn, i.e. “The King” and “The Duke”. I always associated it with exploitative businessmen from the north who took advantage of the post-war, ravaged southern states…much like Naomi Klein’s disaster capitalists in the present.
On what basis are you implying that the term has racial implications? This cartoon you posted? I’m not disagreeing with you, this is just the first time I’ve ever seen the term associated with a racial undertones. I read the Britannica definition, but I think it’s kind of splitting hairs.
Do you actually think Jeffery was using the term with any racial undertone? I seriously doubt that. I understand you may perceive the word differently but I can’t imagine you thought he was using it with maleficence.
While were on the subject, have you ever used the term “Eskimo”? You may be surprised to learn that its actually considered a derogatory term to the Inuit. The word essentially translates to “savages who eat raw meat” and was picked up by Europeans who got the name from neighboring Native American tribes who disliked the Inuit.
So, my point is, I think we’re arguing semantics more than anything.
Just my two cents.
No, I don’t think Jeffrey or Clio intended racial undertones. I thought that was clear. That’s exactly why I went to great lengths to point out the pointlessness of intent. All we have is the word on the page (so to speak). The author can’t always be there to explain, you know? That’s not how the author should approach it anyway. That’s where I think there’s a recklessness–not when unaware of connotations, but after the connotation is pointed out and deciding it doesn’t matter. Like your example with “Eskimo.” I didn’t know of those implications. Makes me thankful I haven’t used it on my blog.
As far as historical documentation, nah, I don’t have any. I’m not a historian, but I’ll pretend I am and see what I can find. Another day.
I appreciate the Huck Finn reference. And I agree it’s semantics–to a point.
Now, if I can find historical evidence that supports my point of view, is that going to settle it? Or should I ask: Do y’all think it even matters? I think it does, but I just like to cover my bases that way.
I think it absolutely matters. That’s why I’m asking. I love words and I love history, so it means a lot to me. I was curious about it, I was honestly not aware of the racial connotations with carpetbagger, by I’m now the wiser.
I think there are a lot of words out there that are politically charged that invoke different responses: Tar Baby, Malacca, etc. I really dig etymology so I was just curious.
[…] This post is a response to the discussion in the comments here. […]
I’m not comfortable with the “people generally agree” point of view. Generally speaking, it’s a great front for cowardice. Plus, isn’t it basically the “everybody does it” defense?
Words mean what people generally agree they mean, wherever they came from.
A Carpetbagger is now generally recognized to be an asshole form out of town who is only out for personal gain.
[…] these carpetbagger posts has felt sort of like being the one who has to break the news about Christopher Columbus: […]
Anyway, upon reflection, I think I was right on this one but I regret getting so pissed off about it. I felt like some folks were being willfully ignorant and that got under my skin. And, frankly, the folks here I’ve disagreed with I generally like quite a bit, so I think my disappointment got the best of me.