Reading Test # 2

Blog # 1
John Ridley’s blog “How Bad is ‘Uppity’?” expresses the author’s obvious anger and irritation due to the use of the intended word “uppity” by Rove, Westmoreland, and Goddard to describe the perceived “arrogant” attitude of Barack Obama and Ron Allen. The author simply assumes that Rove was calling Obama “uppity” when actually using the word “arrogant”. The implications of “uppity” lead to the racist tensions as used in “uppity nigger”, a part of a phrase. The colored author finds the use of the word “uppity” offensive when used to describe the egotistical Barack Obama. The culpable name-caller only meant to refer to Obama’s personality, not to start any tensions. By “decoding” Rove’s word choice, the author proposes something different. And when Ridley states “And sometimes eggplant just means eggplant”, he should leave it at that. Rove says “arrogant” and he means “arrogant” not necessarily “uppity”. I see where Ridley may have been upset had Rove actually spoken the word “uppity”, but because he did not, let’s just leave it there. Ridley does have valid points in describing the use of that word by others, who it seems like, actually used that word to describe Obama and Allen. But then again, a word is just a word. “Uppity” was originally used by blacks to speak of other blacks who they felt to be too self-assertive (www.dictionary.reference.com). Now-a-days, uppity is defined as “affecting attitude of inflated self-esteem; haughty; snobbish; rebelliously self-assertive”. What language was used once should not be incorporated into the means of language used today. Times have changed. The American Civil War was and will always exist in history; this does not mean that the situation from then is the same today. Thus, anybody can be labeled “uppity”. It should not be offensive or significant UNLESS the person uses the “N” word with it, in a case which is unacceptable! The author is lastly a bit valiant and snobbish by saying that the word “cracker” also exists in the dictionary. That word has direct connotations with the white race, while “uppity” does not.
Analytically and thoughtfully speaking, the author presents a clear point of view and a purposeful objection- he is aggravated by the use of the word “uppity” to describe haughty and in this case, colored people. The problem is stated and direct information is provided, in the form of event details, names, etc. His conclusion is made based on his opinion, although nothing is resolved. Assumptions are stated but somewhat biased. For instance, Ridley assumes that Rove meant to call Obama “uppity” when he said “arrogant”. Thus the consequences in revenge by calling the other people “crackers”, in the end, may just leave more room for tension and argument. The author’s thinking does meet some intellectual standards, however. The point is clear and his thoughts are relevant to the issue at hand. His logic is based on his own opinion and is therefore biased. Likewise, there is breadth to his blog- he incorporates the other point of view opposing his. His presumptions are not completely fair; in the end, he finds revenge by writing that the word “cracker” exists and can be used to refer to the people who utilized the word “uppity” when referring to a colored person. This is unfair because “uppity” does not necessarily mean “black, arrogant person”, where when used in slang, “cracker“ means “a poor white person living in some rural parts of the southeastern U.S.” Thus race is important in one but not the other.


Blog # 2
Mary MacElveen discusses her view on Sarah Palin’s refusal to face the media during the Republican campaign. MacElveen opens up the discussion with a very bold and daring statement, which I find quite hilarious and true: “given these past eight years of failed leadership, it is understandable (why she does not want to come out).” The author assesses that “we the people” have a right to know what’s going on and to know WHO we are voting for and what those candidates stand for. How will we vote for someone whose ideas are not publically known? The answer is: we won’t. So why is the Republican party still running? MacElveen points out that Palin might even get to the president’s seat herself, since McCain is aged, and to be quite honest, that scares me. The author postulates that Palin is “cramming” for her debate with the Democratic vice-president choice, Biden; perhaps that is why she is avoiding the media now. Oh but don’t worry Sarah, they WILL get you. There is no way a candidate can stay out of the limelight. It is pointed out by the author of this blog that anyone can express an opinion but to enforce it one must have reasons and answers to “why?” or “how?” this idea will be carried through. Biden questions what one can talk about when he or she “cannot explain the last eight years of failure.” Republicans do not see the campaign as being about issues. MacElveen obviously disagress as do I. Campaigning is ALL about issues concerning the everyday lives of Americans and how these issues are to be solved by the candidates.
The author of this blog is apparently frustrated by Palin’s lack of appearance on TV, her point of view clearly expressed as opposing the Republican decision. The purpose is obvious as well; she wants to express her ideas and feelings on this subject. The question at issue is very current- the presidential debates have begun, only about a month and a half until official voting, and Palin’s views are still secret, not known by the people of America because of her refusal to appear on TV. The author‘s thinking has a great extent of clarity and relevance. However, we cannot know for sure if her statements are accurate and precise, because her blog lacks breadth; only her point of view is expressed on this subject. Perhaps if her blog included Palin’s view on why she was avoiding the media, the blog would be fairer.