"Uppity" - Article

An article e-mailed to Daniel in the Black Democratic Coalition for publication. VERY insightful.

With this - and the inspiration of the so-called "debate" last night - I will compose a poetry piece of the same title as Ron's article. Well Done! TGP, 17 April 2008

A bonus: very FOXY news...






**********

Daniel-

This thing with Hillary Clinton accusing Obama of being "elitist" reminds me of the shenanigans they pulled in South Carolina, only worse. So, please consider the following for publication:


Uppity
By Ron Horne
April 15, 2008

Interesting how Senator Hillary Clinton paints Barack Obama as an elitist. This son of a Kenyan, fatherless at the age of two, raised by grandparents of a teenage mother, is elitist. This Harvard Law Review editor who, instead of going for a U.S. Supreme Court clerkship or quarter million dollar wall-street law firm salary, worked as a civil rights lawyer and community activist in the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago for a fraction of what he easily could have made, is an elitist. And Sen. Clinton? She’s lived in the White House, has two posh homes on the east coast, and, between her and her husband, the former President of the United States, has racked up $109 million in the last eight years. Folks, that’s $13,625,000.00 per year on average. According to Reuters News Service (3/25/08), “Obama's income with wife Michelle jumped in 2005 with the re-release of his first book ‘Dreams from My Father,’ which brought him $1.2 million, and in 2006 when his second book ‘The Audacity of Hope’ earned more than $500,000.” So, he went from a quarter million to nearly two million in five years. The Clintons make over $13 million every year. Hillary and Bill-$109 million; Barack and Michele- $2 million. Sen. Clinton ran as the Democratic incumbent to the presidency, like she was the heir to the American throne of the Clinton dynasty . . . until, of course, the American people said otherwise. And Obama is elitist? Clinton said that the caucuses and primaries in the small rural states, those states where Obama won, don’t matter, don’t count. Rather it is the large, populous, urban, cosmopolitan states that matter. She basically said that rural America doen't count and Obama is elitist?

Hmmm. $109 million vs. $2 million. White house v. brick house. First Lady v. first brutha. The elitist argument may work for Clinton in the “Alabama” portion of Pennsylvania (James Carvilles’ characterization, not mine), but in North Carolina, as well as other highly populated Black states and cities, Black voters will read her attack as code for something many accomplished and aspiring Blacks have been called by their White counterparts in both high and low society: Uppity. You know, uppity, as in Uppity Negro. For those too young to be familiar with the phrase, it means a Black man or woman, who doesn’t realize their “place” in the social fabric, i.e., beneath whites in terms of what he or she is “allowed” to do. He’s elitist, she says, thinks he’s better than you. Translation: despite his hard work and educational and professional achievement, you are better than him. Here I have been living and working in Washington, First Ladying in the White House, getting funding together from lobbyists to run my coronation campaign, waiting my turn. Then all of a sudden, this young buck comes in, unknown to most, hasn’t lived in the White House, hasn’t “suffered” under the trappings of the presidency, hasn’t paid his dues to be known, yet he comes in here with his Harvard degree and law professorship, holding those big tent rallies like some kind of black Baptist minister getting people all stirred up when it is MY turn to be president. Who does he (that BOY) think he is?

Uppity. Black people of a certain generation know exactly what that means: second class, lower class, racially undeserving, ambitious beyond your station, not knowing your “place”. As the first Black “post racial” candidate (a term that, to my knowledge, has never been applied to White candidates), Barack Obama cannot, and will not, say what many Black people will inevitably take from the latest Clinton tactic. Frankly speaking, he’s cool like that. He will do what he usually does, make simple comparisons and appeal to the basic fundamental needs of all people of all races that are not being met by the current political and governing system where the Clintons are heavily entrenched. It is no wonder that in a poll last week more than 25% of women who had supported Clinton now think less of her as a result of her campaign tactics. It is no wonder Clinton is losing to Obama by margins of 7, 8, and 9 to 1 among Black voters. It is no wonder that Clinton trails in delegates, votes, and states as of this writing. She says what she needs to say and does whatever she needs to do to win. And while they may not fall cleanly and distinctly into the categories of lie, cheat, and steal (i.e. lie about sniper fire, cheat on the Michigan and Florida primaries, steal pledged delegates), her campaign has and is effectively burning a bridge between herself and the Democratic party’s fundamental constituents: Blacks, Hispanics and Women. She continues to pursue the Rev. Wright issue (while his statements have been labeled as “hate speech”, no one has addressed the truth of his statements [we did bomb Hiroshima, Vietnam, and Iraq; Blacks have been medically experimented on by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) from 1932 and 1972, there is resentment in the Middle East due to the effects of our funding of Israel on Arab Palestinians]), the 3 a.m ad (there’s a Black man lurking around the corner in the dark), and whether he is Christian or Muslim (“so far as I know”). She decries NAFTA and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement (which appears to have benefitted Hispanics, although some may differ on this point) and flip-flops on issues, displays emotional schizophrenia, and relies on her husband’s record (the good parts) as her curriculum vitae, something many women, and feminists in particular, find especially irritating.

As for Obama’s statement itself, according to MSNBC.com, he was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working-class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Like the statements of Reverend Wright, his explanation also has a historical foundation. The Rosewood Massacre (http://www.displaysforschools.com/rosewood.html) resulted, in part, from the economic hardship of the white segregated town of Sumner and the economic success of the black segregated town of Rosewood, Florida. The catalyst was common for the south: black man accused of violating a white woman. But the economic climate between these two towns in the same county led to the massacre and abandonment of Rosewood by its Black residents and businesses. Today, this country is filled with segregated “sundown towns” where blacks cannot live despite the money to do so. And numerous towns in this country have instituted or tried to institute anti-immigration ordinances to prevent immigrants from getting jobs or renting property including Riverside, New Jersey, Valley Park, Missouri, and Farmers Branch, Texas. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/nyregion/26riverside.html).

Despite these documented circumstances, Clinton chose to do the politically expedient thing: parse the words instead of the facts. Certainly, if she learned nothing else from her husband’s campaigns (or the Bush campaigns thereafter), she had to have learned that Presidents win elections via their base first, even if they need swing and independent voters. The take-no-prisoners conduct of her campaign could leave her bereft of a large portion of that base support were she to somehow garner the Democratic nomination. Of course, on the bright side, since Senator Clinton has clearly opted to utilize the tactics expected to come from the Republicans in the general election, after the last primary in June Obama will be able to argue, as he already has on occasion, that having weathered the Clinton storm he has proven that he is vetted and electable. Ironic since, by her own actions, Senator Clinton may succeed in putting this uppity Negro in his place . . . The White House.