****** in the woodpile.

Beerina said:
I don't know if you could get away with that. There are those who don't like the child's rhyme, "Eenie meanie minie moe. Catch a tiger by it's toe. If he hollers, let him go." because apparently "tiger" wasn't the original word.
Click to expand...

I'd heard "catch a monkey." Probably worse than "tiger."
 
It's totally ridiculous to be in the public eye and say something of this magnitude, you'd have to be totally clueless to come out with something like that, even by accident. It's on the level of Mayor Vaughn of Royston Vasey in the League of Gentlemen being unable to stop swearing whenever he's being interviewed on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGXeF8YlEgw
 
Bob001 said:
I think the idea is along the lines of "unanticipated, unwelcome surprise." Like an "unknown unknown." Maybe the speaker could make a new phrase: "Rat in the garbage can?" "Snake in the tent?" Etc.

Interestingly, there's a whole wiki page on the phrase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******_in_the_woodpile
Click to expand...


Your link won't work with the asterisks in it.

From the page you were trying to link to:

"The original meaning had to do with the complexion of a newborn's skin. If a white woman had a baby with dark skin, it might imply the father was a black man."[2] You did not see the "****** hiding in the woodpile" but now you know.
Click to expand...
 
Bob001 said:
Not sure what you're asking. "Huckleberry Finn" has been censored in some circles, or banned from school classes. Ridiculous, but true.
https://nypost.com/2015/12/14/schoo...us-novel-because-students-felt-uncomfortable/
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/jan/05/censoring-mark-twain-n-word-unacceptable
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/06/watkins.twain.nword/index.html
Click to expand...
All these links refer to HF being deemed unsuitable to be studied in schoolrooms. There are plenty of books that aren't thought apprioriate for classrooms, but making that decision is hardly the same thing as censorship, although I agree it's ridiculous in the case of HF.
 
Craig B said:
All these links refer to HF being deemed unsuitable to be studied in schoolrooms. There are plenty of books that aren't thought apprioriate for classrooms, but making that decision is hardly the same thing as censorship, although I agree it's ridiculous in the case of HF.
Click to expand...


Bob001 only offered you a few examples, which happened to relate to classrooms. This was part of the most recent furor over the book, because of its use as a study example in American literature.

Maybe this will be more enlightening.

Ever since its publication in 1884 The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain has been controversial with the use of “offensive” language, events, and satire. The book has continually been censored and banned from public libraries and school, in fact, Huckleberry Finn was one of the 10 most frequently challenged books in the 1990s, and the most challenged book in 1995-1996 (Bolton). Censorship of books in general is not okay because books are the richest way for people to “learn and discover things in and about their world” (Bolton). The novel has been banned from multiple libraries, uses some language that will forever be debated, causes a mix of personal and political issues, and is actually being republished.
Click to expand...
​
If you refer to that link you will learn that it was banned from the Public Library of Concord, MA as far back as 1885, and from the children's section of the Brooklyn Public Library in 1902.

I seem to recall having seen somewhere an ALA compilation of the many times and places where Huck had been successfully banned, as well as those where the attempt to ban it had been made. But my first cursory attempt to locate that on the web for this post was unsuccessful.

Be assured, it has not been objected to only for use in classroom studies. In fact, that is relatively recent. It has been banned in school and public libraries, and many attempts have been made to ban it in others.

One thing which I find interesting is the various different reasons for the banning.

For example. The two early public library bannings I mentioned above were not because of the use of uncomfortable or potentially divisive words like the "N" word, which nobody saw any problems with because they were common parlance at the time, but rather for depictions of coarse language and behavior which might exert a bad influence on and encourage imitation by the children who read it.
 
Beerina said:
I don't know if you could get away with that. There are those who don't like the child's rhyme, "Eenie meanie minie moe. Catch a tiger by it's toe. If he hollers, let him go." because apparently "tiger" wasn't the original word.
Click to expand...

I am constantly amazed by the amount of people in Australia who consider the n version of this still acceptable.
In their defence it's either, oh it's just a word, or it doesn't mean anything or I didn't mean anything negative by it.
None of them like it when I point out that as nearly 50, I wasn't brought up to use it and I certainly knew how offensive it was. THey also tend not to be so keen on being asked would they use it around an African american?
 
quadraginta said:
Gosh. I wonder if I should have put the embedded link in NSFW tags. :o

You don't normally think to do that with links to Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter. The autocensor replaces a naughty word with asterisks wherever it occurs in your post. Also in links. Also within NSFW tags. :o
 
What really frosts my grill about this is that Anne Marie Morris excuses herself by saying that her comment (n-word in the woodpile) was "unintentional". Now I can, and do, swear like a sailor but the only unintentional swears I use are those which are in my general vocabulary.

I will use **** and **** and **** with impunity, but race-based swears such as the n-word or the p-word are so far from my mind that I never use them. She has to be using that phrase on a regular basis to say this "unintentionally"

Being suspended is really not enough IMO; she needs to resign and a by-election held.

Still, it probably makes a nice change for her partner and election agent - usually he's the one in trouble for racist language.
 
Giordano said:
My understanding is that the expression was more accurately: "the ******" in the woodshed" and implied a secret past sexual liaison leading to a "tainting" of one's gene pool. It is therefore manages to be racist and deeply offensive at multiple levels.

As to the OP- yes, suspending the MP would be the minimum I would see as appropriate. What one blurts out reflects what is rattling around one's head.
Click to expand...
Yes. Your understanding is correct as to the term and its effect an the people who use(d) it.
 
I think the only time I ever encountered the phrase 'in the wild' was in a children's book, one of the Jennings and Derbyshire series but I don't remember which one. (The offending phrase was spoken by a teacher to which the lad responded "No Sir, that's Derbyshire, he's just a bit dusty!").
 
Brainster said:
How would they like being associated by people with someone like Andy Capp? Well, of course they were appalled and I said that's the kind of person who uses the n-word in the US.
Click to expand...
Is there another Andy Capp? The one I know from the cartoon is a feckless layabout, fond of drinking and gambling but not especially known for racism.

angrysoba said:
I have heard my grandmother use it. We were watching a TV drama (it may have been a murder mystery - perhaps Miss Marple or something like that) about 25 or 30 years ago, and when she thought she knew who the murderer was she blurted out, "There's the ****** in the woodpile!"

She wasn't trolling us - we assumed it was oldspeak and passed over the incident in silence.
Click to expand...
Well, Christie originally used the word in title of the book that was called And Then There Were None in the US. The use of the word was regarded differently in the UK in 1930s (and even much later, into the 70s at least).

For a politician of a major party to use the word today, and in such a way that appears to suggest they habitually use it without thinking, is another matter entirely. She's only 3 years older than me, so for most of her life it's not been an acceptable expression, even leaving aside the awareness you'd expect a politician would have regarding such things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom