“You are totally correct. Of course the word “uppity” has a specific context related to the history of race relations in this country. But I can tell you from my own experience living, studying, traveling and working in many different countries that “uppity”, as the racist concept as we know it here, is used against oppressed minorities in other societies (albeit with their own specific histories, etc., but the concept is the same).”

For the record, none of the Canadians in the room with me right now knew that ‘uppity’ was racially-tinged. None of us had ever heard of it used as a slur.

Thanks, Republicans. You never let me down. Score +1 point for clear, direct speech and -100 for, um, everything else.

I remember when “elitist” was attempted as a barb against John Kerry, it’s like snow calling milk white. I remember thinking “You’re both rich, white and male…wtf?”

It’s like Donna said,

the assumption when we are talking about class equality is that the working class is white and the wealthy is also white.

But when used against Obama, it is the same word but there is a whole other meaning.

Also..wtf, Westmoreland. I need you to explain yourself. You know, I’m downtown (ATL) everyday. I feel like I should pay him visit. I didn’t vote for him, but I’m still a citizen and resident.

Are you saying that Rep. Westmoreland is inarticulate?

…although that’s not why I’m laughing. :)

I disagree that using “bastard” with “black” would not necessarily be racist in America (as we don’t go around calling whites “uppity”, neither do we say “That White Bastard!” as an epithet – I HAVE heard Black Bastard here, though not often.). It would have roughly the same meaning as in the UK (and thank you for giving us another example of racist terminology in your country. Paki is definitely the equivalent of a racist smear here, even though Anna might dispute this).

Dear Anna,

I continue to be flabbergasted by your comments. You don’t think the slander of “uppity” used against you was in any way sexist?! Are Blacks and Asians proportionately represented in the great schools you “all” go to in the UK (who do you mean by “all of us go to” – you mean poor whites in the public housing estates also get to go to great schools, along with Blacks and Asians? Seriously, where are your stats for that generalization?) And I also read the Times online (though not as much). Comments there not much better, perhaps because of a better site monitor, etc., but still there. So that means most of your citizenry are free of racism since they are somewhat more “polite” in the Times, and except for the occasional Paki slur you may have heard, which isn’t really racist, since it is used against an ethnic group, so in your opinion doesn’t count as racist.

Language used to demean and deny humanity, dignity and equality of any group of people in any society (whether a separate race or ethnic or religious group – knowing that race itself is a racist social construct), which then justifies and reinforces institutional discrimination and violence (even if policed and contained by the State) is RACIST, whether the targets belong to a social and anthropological racial category or not. Why, Anna? Because the ugly, caustic, destructive and sometimes genocidal results are the same. And we all pay for it in the end.

I know some people here won’t agree with me, but I really think McCain/Palin may win, and it will be in no small part because of racism, for the same reason far-right and demagogic politicians in many other countries are on the rise and being elected (and who, just like here, also offer their constituents very little way in the of substantive solutions to their economic distress and fears about the future for their families). Fear, racism and ignorance – politicians playing off this – this shit works everywhere, and I am not convinced a majority of Americans in particular are ready to move past it, even after the disastrous Bush Administration.

All I can say, Anna, is, please start visiting the blogs of Women of Color, books and articles on race relations, etc., both by American and UK women and women all over the world, and educate your self beyond the education you got at an allegedly great school in the UK, as well as feminist websites that, as much as I love and learn from them, are basically run by White women. You can read the Times, Feministe, AND Womanist Musings (Canada), Angry Black Woman, Angry Black Bitch, Black Women in Europe, Arab Woman Progressive Voice (Palestine), UltraViolet (India), Muslimah Media Watch, La Chola, Racialicious, etc. (I know I am leaving a lot of great ones off here – it could go on and on). It doesn’t have to be either/or. Caveat: Many feminist and anti-racialist blogs in English are still largely Western-based, but many do a great job of including international news and profiling the work and writings of non-Western-based activists and thinkers. Confessions of a Funky Ghetto Hijabi (Canada) has a good blog roll of lots of sites from all over the world (feminist, activist, community-based, etc.). Check her out!

“they’re a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they’re uppity.”

As we know from that Colbert interview Rep. Westmoreland is no polished rhetor but even for a dim bulb that’s a pretty rockin’ string-o’-words. I mean just in terms of structure, content aside. Break down those twelve words:

“they’re a member” – either “they’re members” or “she’s a member”. “They” is plural, “a member” is singular.

“a member of an elitist-class individual” – can’t make sense any way you parse it, either “an elitist-class individual” (or “individuals”) or “a member of an elitist-class” (or “members”)

(Well there’s this: “The innocent young girl, during her first day as house-servant in Farnsworth Manor, was dusting the knick-knack shelf when Lord Farnsworth himself walked up behind her with his pants off and said, ‘Heh heh, my little working-class cupcake, here’s something I don’t suppose you’ve ever seen before, a member of an elitist-class individual.’ Startled, she turned to see his ancient claw-like hands reaching out to grab her. His eyes were glassy, his mouth agape. She shrieked, threw the feather-duster at him, and fled.”

Surely some young house-maid in one of Senator McCain’s seven or eight or nine houses knows exactly what I’m talking about.)

“that thinks” – “who thinks” or “who think”

“that thinks they’re” – this ain’t rocket-science, Rep. W., get it straight: “that” = just one, “they” = two or more.

“that thinks they’re uppity” – “who are uppity” That’s got to be what Rep. W. meant. Otherwise it’s just crazy. Fact: no one, not even the uppitiest of the uppity, thinks inwardly that they themselves are “uppity.” No one anywhere has ever sung:

Hey look over here, I’m uppity
As uppity as can a man be
Ain’t another soul in all Saint Louie
Half as uppity as me

or

I feel uppity
Oh so uppity
I feel uppity and witty and gay
And I pity
Any candidate
Who isn’t me today

“Uppity” is a word one applies to others, never to oneself.

After you boil out surplus words (“members of an elitist-class individual” => “elitist”) and patch up the grammar and logic errors, you end up with three words instead of twelve: “They’re uppity elitists.”

One last obscure Southron culture note. The unnecessary-to-speak phrase-mate to “uppity” is not “n***er”, it is “n**ra”. Don’t ask me why, that’s just they way these weirdos always say it.

Once race is in play, white people are always superior to black/brown people. Using elitist or uppity against Obama is saying that this n****r thinks he’s equal or better than you, and clearly he is not because black people are always subordinate. The two assumptions are that whites are always equal to each other and blacks are always less than whites.

Yes, this. It sounds like the same language, but it means something completely different because of the racial context. There is no situation in American English spoken by a white person where calling a black man an “elitist” would mean something different – even if the speaker intends something different, the meaning is there, established by a few centuries of white supremacy.

Nearly every time the racial oppression is mentioned on a mainstream feminist blog like Feministe, some clueless white person seems to jump in within the first five comments to say, “Hey, what about ME?” That’s offensive. It derails (And it has derailed, by the way.). Just last week, someone did this wrt the work that Incite! New Orleans was doing to assist WOC in New Orleans. It’s infuriating, and it seems to happen every time without fail.

We interrupt ongoing conversations when we do this, and we behave as if we are entitled to do so. You don’t understand what I’m talking about? Type in “race,” and read the Feministe archives.

And you know what? “Paki” is a racist slur that is used to refer to anyone believed to be of South Asian origin, not just Pakistani people. And I didn’t require British English fluency to pick up on that.

Oh, and? Proud subscriber to the Guardian here. Frankly, I value its perspective and its willingness to sometimes consider non-dominant perspectives to be…utterly fucking refreshing.