Why Some Blacks Don't Get Rove
Published July 01, 2008
What exactly did Karl Rove say in a recent interview about Obama?
Q: Do you see the elitist thing in other ways?
Rove: Obama is coolly detached and very arrogant. I think he's very smart and knows he's smart, but as a result doesn't do his homework.
Rove and the Christian conservatives are all about religion — who has it and who does not. So when his “Obama is arrogant” streamed across the net I knew it was a case of religion colliding with interpretation. And interpretations abound. Rove got it right. But in his article in the Huffington Post, John Ridley got it wrong when he translated it as "uppity". Rove chose his code carefully — “arrogant.” Wow, elegant and to the point. What does it mean?
It means that the war of words over faith has begun with the first shot fired by Karl Rove. The “arrogant elitist,” God forbid, need not be black to get busted on his driving ego-trip. He thinks too much of himself. His pride unfounded, anti-Christ, un-Christian all rolled into one. This scary side of Obama will grow as we get closer to November. He, however, is trying to combat this spider of deceit with a website to fight the smears! John Ridley's title changes "arrogant" to "uppity", but is that right? When was uppity first used? Was it by blacks or black slavers who sought to describe out of control behavior by slaves? I could not come to any conclusions. In any case, it is a word that was born out of social necessity.
Is uppity an individual affliction while arrogant is part and parcel of group connections? I found more than one source citing it as a group sin, making an interesting connection:
"Arrogance is perhaps the most socially acceptable form of sin in the church today,” writes, Kinnaman. We have forgotten that God says that he “opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble,” (James 4:6, NIV). 2 Cor 12:20 suggests that arrogance is a group vice, or at least aided by groups. The passage also suggests that arrogance is a verbal vice (one side of its personality).
If this religious interpretation has merit, it might follow that if Obama is arrogant, rude, and prideful, then blacks (or those around Obama) possess the same character flaw. In fact, while looking for the origin of "Obama brand" (called by one the cliche of the year), my Google search lead right to Obama insiders as the source!
Ridley, in his blog, carefully chose to equate "uppity" with "arrogant." I don't think so. I do think that he did not choose his interpretation as carefully. They are not synonymous. Would that “arrogant” only meant “uppity," but that is not the case. He argues that Rove is using arrogant as a code for uppity and that this shard of political persuasion was intended to highlight that Obama is, well, you know the drill... a black man who does not know his place, thinks too highly of himself and so on. And as GOP radio hosts push the 'Obama has a thin resume' button ad nauseum, it makes arrogant the likely buzzword to describe Barack. So, yes in a 180-degree way arrogant can become uppity, but in the universe of the Neocon it is all about religion.
- Why Some Blacks Don't Get Rove
- Published: July 01, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Heloise
- Heloise's BC Writer page
- Heloise's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
This business about supposed "code words" here as very often is just license for critics to completely make up malicious stuff and put it in the mouths of their opponents. Insisting that accusing Obama of "arrogance" is racist code is simply lying, if I may be blunt.
The context of Rove's remarks in fact works EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Rove was not invoking stereotypes of blacks, but rather of rich country club types. He's making him out to be Randolph or Mortimer Duke in Trading Places.
But then of course absolutely ANY criticism of St Obama is racist, cause if we weren't living in AmeriKKKa, we'd just skip questioning the candidates and having an election and go straight to the coronation.
Yeah, that is sort of one of my points. It is easy to cry foul and say the comment is racist or code for a racist word.
Heard that McCain just shook up his camp. WOnder if he will employ, officially, the Rove guy?
I don't mind criticism of Obama, it's healthy. But to say that everything is racist is just wrong. Rove's words are much bigger than saying the man is "uppity."
Heloise
Again the white man gives a rich white man the freedom to discuss race while the great Reverend Wights truths are "lynched, tarred and feathered"
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye."
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." (Sep 2001)
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." (2003)
"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns." (magazine article)
"Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." (sermon)
"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person."
"Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain't! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty." (sermon)
"The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism."
Jamal - Obama for a New America
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Jamal, I recognize the long and painful history of racism in America, but to suggest that Wrights comments have any basis in anything but to stir the pot not only disagrees with common sense, but also disagrees with the public statements of the candidate that you claim to support.
And it's people like you, who support Obama, and simultaneously agree with what Wright said, that make the rest of us really question whether Obama's claim that he disagrees with Wright is actually true. I personally think he does agree with Wright, even though he publicly claimed not to. How else to explain his attendance for 20 years and his including Wright in his campaign. As well as the cadre of Obama supporters who refer to Wright's comments with a wink and a nod.
I'll add that African Americans who believe this BLT crap are no better than whites who engaged in oppression of blacks following the end of slavery in the US.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Typical and classic racism! Rather than debate the issue of Black oppression by whites you launch personal attacks....Obama has seen first hand what the white man does to the brothers in the South Side...forcing people to live in slums..forcing them to live on food stamps and welfare!
Obama is playing cool but he's lived with the Rev Wright for over 20 years..he knows the truth!
Again the white man discredits a brother for disagreeing with institutional racism...
Jamal
Sure I disagree with Wright so I must be a racist. As info, you're not debating the issue of black racism either. And what's there to debate anyway? I don't agree with racism in any form, including that of Rev Wright.
and FYI, the only personal attack is in the first line. The rest of what I said isn't an attack. It's true. You hurt Obama when you go around spouting this Wright stuff. You discredit Obama's claims not to agree with Wright, and you raise doubts in the rest of us that Obama is sincere when he distanced himself from Wright. Your choice whether to heed this advice my friend, but you can be sure that to those of us who are truly post racial (meaning we just don't care about skin pigment one way or another) are turned off to Obama when we see posts like yours.
FYI...who do you think you are talking to with your condesending remarks? The days of Black men being forced to act and think as whitey tells us is long gone!
Who are you to disrepect the black experience and deny racial injustice. We all know that Obama believes in the words of the Rev Wright. He worked for years in Chicago with the ministry and the peoples in the community. Once he is in power he will take his rightful place and show the racist white government in america that the debt of racism owed to the blacks in America will finally be paid!
And how hypocritical, if you didnt care about "skin pigment" you wouldnt be writing about it!
Jamal
"The days of Black men being forced to act and think as whitey tells us is long gone! "
Comments editor, the above is ok to post, but me calling Jamal crazy isn't? I think you might need to revisit those comment policies. A personal attack isn't the same as a statement of fact.
Jamal, no one is forcing you to do anything. It's funny that you'd characterize my comments as "whitey" "forcing" you to act and think like me. That right there is proof to just how silly your premise is. Keep trying though, I am enjoying the show.
Andy, maybe we could all just get along if You-Know-Who would stop pretending to be Jamal...
Its seems the debate in here is based upon attacking and/or discrediting the person rather than debate the issues and/or ideas...
#12 "pretending" yeas...like others have said in here "Obamas pretending to be - white - black" if you have nothing to add why waste our time with your attacks and inuendos...
Jamal
Personally, I get along with everybody....yeah yeah...whatever...
But as I recall, a lot of people have issues with JOM, I mean Jamal...
It would seem to me that if it is JOM, he must be thinking what he would say as JOM and figuring out how to completely reverse it to say what Jamal is saying...but...that's just me...
So Jamal, to reiterate, by saying that I disagree with Wright, means I am attacking you? By rightly pointing out that your support for Wrights comments is in opposition with everything Obama has said means I am attacking you? And by pointing out that whitey (racial slur that the comments editor didn't seem fit to remove) isn't actually forcing you to do anything is also attacking the person and not the premise? To me, this just sounds like a weak argument from a person with a poorly thought out position. Try again.
And just for the record, I don't think Barack is uppity. Arrogant, yes. That's ok too, isn't having at least some egotism a requirement for being a leader? I really don't have a problem with that.
My problems with Obama stem much more from his platform, the fact that he wants to turn this great country into a socialism (as do most Liberals). You think it's bad for minorities now? Just wait till all opportunity is taken away in the interest of the group.
Rev Wright is just icing on the cake, perhaps a view into Obama's personal views, views too harsh to share with the populace at large. I think most liberals, white or black, may agree with Wright which is what makes his position so salacious. But for most of us, we have gotten over the color issue a long time ago. We just don't care. We are all Americans and all should have the same rights. It's people like Wright that keep reopening sore wounds, not acknowledging the progress that has been made.
Insitutional racism of the early part of the last century is now illegal. Sure, do some people still engage in racism? Absolutely. But if you can't get a job because you are a particular color or race, that's illegal, and you have a recourse. The very fact that we are talking about Obama proves this out. So Jamal, what's your point again?
Andy, it's more that 'Jamal' personifies pretty well an ignorant white dude's idea of what a black nationalist would say. It's a caricature.
Plus the fact that it's JOM's writing style, and there you have it.
Then that means I am the idiot for arguing with a charicature. Next time can you guys warn me?
I'm still burnt up with the comments editor. It's ok to call me whitey, a plain racial slur, but me calling Jamal crazy is against the comments policy? Now it's the white man calling for equal rights!
Guys, I can't tell if Jamal is someone else or not, so he is getting the benefit of the doubt for now.
Obnoxious, you are white, right? You don't know if Jamal crazy or not. Furthermore, you both got edited, so at least you're equal in that regard...
Christopher Rose
Blogcritics Comments Editor
Some people prove their racist views by discrediting the Black Nationalist movement. Let me educate the ignorant...
Black Nationalism is a positive affirmation of the cultural, political, social and economic identity of African people. In its most rudimentary forms, it reacts to the brutally violent and repressive conditions under which African people live. Racism and white supremacy creates an environment where whites are viewed with suspicion, and Black folks are beholden to each other. The most basic expression of Black Nationalist thought is that Black people in America are bound by the common experience of racism and the struggle against it.
Jamal
JOM,
How many 'puters does that liberry have?
Ah, plagiarism. Another familiar JOM trait manifests itself...
Whenever he suddenly got all articulate, I would always enjoy Googling a select phrase from the comment in question to find out where he got it from.
Guess what...
Obnox @ #18: Think of it as your intellectual warm-up for the day.
Again the white man attacks the messenger rather than debate the issues...what is a JOM? Why does the black man get attack for not using footnotes when most of the whites posting here are blatantly claiming others works as there own?
"white man calling for equal rights" - thats a joke...in this new world white men will pay for their hate and slave monger ways...
Jamal
"Again the white man attacks the messenger rather than debate the issues...what is a JOM?"
No attack intended, JOM. Just wondering how many computers your liberry has...
Again the white man attacks the messenger rather than debate the issues...
Those drivellings of yours are issues?
Christopher,
Your logic is failing. With all due respect, and I do understand how rough it must be to be comments editor, that I am white does not mean it's ok to call me "whitey." That's a racial slur. I'm sure you'd edit me for calling Jamal the equivalent for his race. As an aside, as a Jew, there are plenty of whites that would disagree that I am white.
I don't think calling someone crazy who is quoting Rev Wright is a personal attack. It's just an obvious observation. Calling someone a slur based on their race is a clear personal attack.
I coudl care less about blacks and Rove - but I want to see if this Jamal dude shows up at my articles. If I see one nasty crack about welfare and free cheese....
Actually, Obby, it is your logic that has failed.
The actual quote was "The days of Black men being forced to act and think as whitey tells us is long gone!"
This was a statement of opinion and not a personal attack at all.
Christopher, he was responding to me. He was saying what you quoted because he felt that I was telling him how to act by deriding his support for Wright. Look at his later posts where he continues to defend BLT.
Furthermore, if the roles were reversed, if I were using the N word, but not directly aimed at him, I am SURE you would have edited me. It's not equal treatment any way you look at it.
Obnox, much as it pains me to come to JOM's defence (for such is who 'tis, Chris, whether you like it or not!), I have to agree with the comments supremo here, and not just in my capacity as his assistant.
As long as it isn't directed personally towards another commenter, the N-word is usually allowed to stand. You'll see plenty of examples of it, and other similarly charming epithets, on the thread of any article that tackles the subject of race - this one, for example.
Doc, without proof you can not be certain who it is. I don't care either way but so far it is debatable.
Obby, you have no way of knowing what this person was thinking but that isn't the point. It wasn't a personal attack. End of story.
So JOM,
How many computers does your liberry have?
Just for the record, Clav, apart from his latest - which seems to be from a different location altogether - all of 'Jamal''s comments today have been from the same IP address.
They must have kicked him out of the liberry.
Christopher,
I do know what he was thinking, as he actually typed it on the keyboard and then hit the "Publish" button. He straight up quoted the worst ramblings of Wright and then big up'd himself for doing so. Do I really need to know every thought in his head to make a case that he is indeed insane? I think this evidence stands alone.
And when I challenged his quoting of Wright, he responds to me with
"FYI...who do you think you are talking to with your condesending remarks? The days of Black men being forced to act and think as whitey tells us is long gone! "
That's pretty clearly calling me whitey, a slur considerably worse than me calling him crazy (for quoting "crazy uncle" Wright). Look, I don't care, it's clear you aren't going to change your view. It just lowers the quality of the discussion on the board and seems rather indiscriminant to me. It's not like I went on a Moonraven style rant consisting of several strings of carlin's 7 words in various configurations. And plenty of those were allowed to stand in her day.
Stupid as his comment is, he isn't calling you "whitey" unless you are telling the "black man" how to act and think.
Jordan, once again your eminent common sense is wasted on those with axes to grind. Is politics the new pop?
I tend to cure my boredom by making fairly obvious statements to people that have no room for them. It's kind of a bad habit I need to break.
Oh, and pop > politics.
Some whites don't get Rove either.
"Then that means I am the idiot for arguing with a charicature."
Good grief, what a set-up. I'll leave that easy lob for someone else.
Heloise,
Are you saying that Rove was alluding to Obama being an uppity Nigger?
I think that those Whites that would be moved by that notion already see him as such and don't need Rove to tell them that. They weren't going to vote for him anyway.
If you are saying that Rove is trying to tag him a lacking humility and therefore not godly, republicans have never promoted humility as a trait to be admired. They hiss at all of the noble ideas like charity and compassion (thought Carter was a wuss and loser). Being godly is really not the goal. Talking about being godly is more admired. "W" is no more an evangelical than my cocker spaniel. I grew up evangelical and I know the language. He's a poser, a really bad one at that. They (the evangelicals) know it and look the other way because they like the affiliation to power.
Alright folks, last time....
No one says "whitey". Might as well shout "jive turkey" while doing the robot, with a pick in your afro while wearing 3 inch heels and a pimp suite.
If you want to out yourself, use the term "whitey". We will then know you are White.
Nicely put, Zedd, and thanks for confirming my suspicion*.
As you may have gathered, we have a pretty good idea who 'Jamal' really is, but not enough to kick his sorry arse to the kerb one more time.
(British spellings inserted in honour of Independence Day!)
* See comment 17.
ROFLOL Zedd!
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/78617)
Any evaluation/criticism/opinion by Rove can only help Obama. And Rove calling someone else arrogant is laughable.
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."