New Yorker Scrubs ‘Uppity’ Attack On Cruz; Offers Pathetic Explanation to Breitbart

Breitbart wasn’t the first to report on the New Yorker using the word “uppity” to describe Hispanic Ted Cruz, but moments after our inquiry to the author (via Twitter) and the publication of our piece, the lofty left-wing outlet removed the word and through a spokesperson sent the following statement:

[Y]ou may have seen that John Cassidy has updated his post on Ted Cruz. It no longer includes the word “uppity,” and he’s addressed his choice to remove it, in an update that now appears at the bottom of the post[.]

Here is that text:

“Update: In describing Senator Cruz’s aggressive actions during his first year in the Senate, I originally used the word “uppity,” which means, according to Webster’s, “acting as if you are more important than you really are, do not have to do what you are told to do, etc.” However, the word also has some disturbing historical connotations that I overlooked, and in applying it to a Latino politician, I goofed. If I gave any offense, however inadvertently, I am sorry.”

Obviously an apology constructed around “If I gave offense” is not an admission of wrongdoing. Breitbart News asked the New Yorker’s spokesperson if the publication’s editorial guidelines have changed since the 2008 publication of this piece that attacked Republicans — not for using the word “uppity,” but for insinuating (which really wasn’t the case) President Obama is uppity:

Meanwhile, the campaign that claims to loathe “just words” has proved expert at their manipulation, from reversals of policy to the outright lies of some of its attack ads (“comprehensive sex education”) and the subtle racial innuendo of a phrase like “how disrespectful” (used to accuse Obama of making uppity attacks on Palin).

Our second question to the New Yorker is just as simple: “Is it now no longer wrong at the New Yorker to use the word ‘uppity’ to describe an outspoken member of a minority group, or is it wrong only when people take offense?”

We will update this post if we receive a response.

From what we now know, it appears as though the New Yorker editorial guidelines are vastly different for Democrats and Republicans. Republicans who use the phrase “how disrespectful” are bigots engaging in “racial innuendo” — using code words for “uppity.” On the other hand, Left-wing New Yorker writers who outright use the racially-coded word “uppity” to attack a Hispanic Republican have done nothing wrong.

Within the proper historical context, this makes sense. Going back to the days of the Democrat-led and founded KKK and Jim Crow South, the Democrat Party has never seen anything wrong with destroying minorities like Cruz, minorities who threaten the Democrat Party’s hold on Power.

The tactics might be different, but it’s a relentless “othering” campaign that makes an example of any outspoken minority or women who dares challenge status quo.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC               


Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.