Nuance
Posted on May 28th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
Jim Antle replies:
Okay, here is how a reversal of the statement would read: “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn’t lived that life.” The title of the speech? A “White Judge’s Voice.” (Or maybe a “White Judge’s Burden.”)
I am willing to bet that most people would regard the above statement as racist. If criticizing Sotomayor means we don’t get white judges who talk like this, even really conservative ones appointed by Republican presidents, I’m not really sorry about that. Sotomayor’s case is obviously more nuanced — there actually is a Latin culture and identity of which she is a part and entitled to celebrate, while a white person talking about the richnes of his whiteness (as opposed to his Scottish, English, Italian or even Southern heritage) is living in a white nationalist fantasy world — but as the country grows more diverse, the concepts of particularly white, black, and brown colors of justices become even less desirable. Sotomayor does not have to be an actual separatist or anti-white racist to contribute to a style of judging where race looms larger in our country’s legal system.
Jim might very well win that bet, because the word racist has been so overused and abused over the years that it is fast approaching the status of the word fascist to mean “someone or something I don’t like.” It has become one of a few catch-all labels used to express contempt, and it has become less of a descriptive term and more of a pejorative one. What most people would think about that sentence is a product of the social conditioning they have received for decades, which is the conditioning that conservatives normally find so irritating and which many are now reinforcing to back up an otherwise rather weak argument against a single Supreme Court nominee. Jim might continue the thought by saying, “Most people would regard the above statement as racist…and they would be wrong.”
If Sotomayor’s case is more nuanced, why don’t we use a more nuanced comparison when reversing the statement? If being a part of a certain white ethnic group is something that one is “entitled to celebrate” in a similar way, would we consider it racist for an Armenian or a Russian or German-American to express a similar pride in his heritage and express the hope that it would inform his judgments in such a way that he would be a better judge than someone not from that background? Perhaps the son or grandson of Russian emigres has a more keen appreciation for the rule of law because his family escaped from the grip of a totalitarian state; he does not take for granted what most of us and our ancestors have always known. Perhaps the grandson or great-grandson of German immigrants would be more attentive to the predicament of ethnic communities that are tied in the public’s mind with a foreign enemy in wartime. For that matter, perhaps the descendant of old-line English settlers deeply values the American constitutional heritage because he sees it as being inextricably interwoven with the heritage of his own ancestors, and so his support for the fundamental law has added significance for him. One could come up with other examples, but I think these already make clear that the statement in question–on which so much of the resistance to Sotomayor seems to be based at this point–may be many things, but racist is not one of them.
Filed under: politics
A statement like this does shock the senses, but this reverse construction is sortof meaningless, since the original quote in context was an argument for diversity for diversity’s sake. The argument is satisfied in the speakers favor as long as they are personally not the status quo. This is something that deserves an actual argument.
But I think a big part of understanding her statement is that she’s saying that having knowledge and awareness of your ethnic background is what makes you an good jurist, not having a particular background over another. I suspect a white person would be entitled and generally welcomed by everyone if they expressed the opinion that their Italian heritage or their German-American experience had informed their character and made them better judges. The assertion that being knowledgeable of one’s white background and, uh, “heritage” is meaningless, because there is no such thing as a white culture, and whenever people invoke “white culture and heritage” in speech, it’s not to talk about the proud history of white people, it’s always a rhetorical game to more properly define the Other. There is no such thing as a shared White experience in the United States, that would in turn form the basis for a White culture or heritage. White people don’t pass on white traditions from father to son, mother to daughter; they don’t share a language that they use among themselves. They are not united by a religion or cultural institutions of any kind, and any attempt to do so would be revisionist history, like Aryanism or Pan-Slavism or Pan-Arabism.
Just my opinion. What do other people think?
@jamie, I think you’re on to something. The problem with “white”ness is that it is defined an opposite term – not being brown or the opposite of what some minority group sterotypes. For example, my parents cover things that non-chinese people with the blanket term of “white” (like “White people are much more assertive.”) As a “not” term such “white” is such a catch all word that it is pretty much meaningless as a way to differentiate one person’s individual experience as opposed to the rest of the world. Well the regular use of “white” as a marker with exact connotations and references to specific cultural experiences is for “white supremacy groups”.
On top of the fact that the word does not carry any specific cultural heritage, the word “white” has been historically used in terms of racial purity and is still used as a word to set off “real america” from all those brown people overrunning our country. I think that’s why when (white) people praise “white america” minority groups often knee-jerk react strongly because they feel again the sting of being set apart in a negative way. I’d have dim view of someone who chose to exclaim”white culture is great!” But if someone said “I love the Southern culture!” I’d give them the benefit of the doubt that they meant hospitality, gentility, and SEC football.
Even so I think its clear that the Sottomeyer’s sentence (especially taken out of context) is not the most artful phrase, but I think reasonable when read carefully – especially given the qualifiers of “wise” and “more often than not”.
Personally I really hope that conservatives start using their airtime to hammer her on more substantive issues instead of going bonkers over her assertion that qualified under-represented minorities ought to have a seat at the table because they might actually provide better conclusions.
ps, WOW! Writing about race is such a freaking minefield! I can’t imagine what it’s like for white folks to write about this issue — especially in this P.C. age!
Aren’t people missing a critical component of her speech: Sotomayor was arguing, I think, that in the context of civil rights litigation, oppressed minorities and women have been more effective advocatets and instrumental in bringing about needed change b/c of their experiences with bigotry.
It is in this context that she made the provocative and ambiguous statement that she “would hope” that a latina would arrive at a better decision than a white man — all the while acknowledging that 9 white men issued progressive civil rights rulings in the ’50s & ’60s.
Frankly, I’m not exactly sure what she means by “would hope” – lots of the controversy seems to gloss over this phrase. Any ideas?
If being a part of a certain white ethnic group is something that one is “entitled to celebrate†in a similar way, would we consider it racist for an Armenian or a Russian or German-American to express a similar pride in his heritage and express the hope that it would inform his judgments in such a way that he would be a better judge than someone not from that background?
Well, the thing is, in her speech she wasn’t pointing out a specific national origin. She was talking about a race, a race that includes Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and others.
The thing I haven’t really made clear in my posts is that we all know Sotomayor will be confirmed. Unless she’s caught on video selling crack to second-graders there’s nothing to stop her. However, what can be done is highlight what the left is willing to let by. So, when the left defends her for talking about the aggregate affect of race and gender on policy, it helps legitimize arguments we make in the same vein on immigration or affirmative action.
For that matter, perhaps the descendant of old-line English settlers deeply values the American constitutional heritage because he sees it as being inextricably interwoven with the heritage of his own ancestors, and so his support for the fundamental law has added significance for him.
No, the other odd examples might get away, but THIS guy would be crucified. WASPS are fairest of fair game.
One of the points that your examples miss is that white Americans are an ethnicity unto themselves. Myself, I have ancestors from several countries. I can’t really fit myself into any other category other than “white”. In Sotomayor’s world, where we’re defined by ethnicity, but whites are something of a forbidden category, that leaves a lot of us in a lurch. I don’t have a solution for it, but it is a problem worth noting.
Yes, the WASP probably would be crucified nowadays. Antle’s argument is that this is appropriate and acceptable, and that it would be even more acceptable to do this if he identified himself merely as white.
And on that point I disagree with Antle and agree with you, but he’s right to point out the double standard involved.
The “she’s a racist” furor over Sotomayor is just another example of the near total lack of self-awareness that is crippling conservatism. You can’t make the case that she’s a bigot when you stand silently by as Tom Tancredo compares one of the largest Hispanic activist groups to the KKK, Rush Limbaugh tells his radio audience that Barack Obama isn’t black but an arab or Sean Hannity puts a noted anti-semite on the air to smear Obama.
Mike
Somehow I missed the crucifixion when Justice Alito said, in his confirmation hearings (a somewhat more significant venue, I’d think) that his parents’ immigrant experience would inform his decisions, and make him a better justice. In both cases, they seem to be obvious statements–their background gives them additional information and knowledge that may apply to some questions before them. I have yet to see anyone advance a case where Sotomayor improperly favored a litigant based on gender or ethnicity; and she clearly said she, as a judge, had to be aware of and guard against letting background be an undue or hidden influence.
I think I disagree with Derek on Daniel’s old-line English values example; anything from anyone will outrage someone these days, but I think it would make sense to most. What would bring out the torches and pitchforks would be a WASP claiming his background had sensitized him to the plight of WASPs as an oppressed group, needing special sensitivity from the bench.
Yes, the WASP probably would be crucified nowadays. Antle’s argument is that this is appropriate and acceptable, and that it would be even more acceptable to do this if he identified himself merely as white.
The phrase “descendant of old-line English settlers” conjures up a very different image than the term “WASP.” The first phrase made me think of a friend of mine who grew up in West Virginia traveling around the state as the son of a minister, and who can trace his ancestry back to men who fought in the Revolutionary War. The second phrase made me think of William F. Buckley Jr. yachting around Long Island Sound and speaking with what sounded like a phony upper-crust accent.
And Buckley’s not technically a WASP–the term now just means “stereotypical rich white person from the northeast.” So no one would actually argue for the value of their experience as a “WASP,” but I do think that a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant could speak non-controversially about how his family’s history in the US has informed his life and his outlook.
The phrase “descendant of old-line English settlers†conjures up a very different image than the term “WASP.â€
I understand where you’re coming from, but that’s probably not how it would play.
Reversing the terms of Sotomayor’s statement ignores the obvious fact that “white”-ness and “Latino”-ness are not interchangeable analogs of each other. White people aren’t reminded every day of the fact that they are white. White is the norm. Black people are constantly confronted with reminders that they are black. Black people stop and think about their blackness. Gay people stop and wonder about their gayness. White people never, or rarely, do any of that.
“I understand where you’re coming from, but that’s probably not how it would play.”
I think it would depend a lot on the background of the individual who made the comment. A rich white guy with no particular link to or interest in his family history would have trouble getting away with talking up his pride in his “old-line English” ancestry. Someone from a more modest background, and/or with a genuine interest in and knowledge of his family’s history, would fare better. Jim Webb’s Scots-Irish, not a WASP, but I think he’s a good example of how this sort of thing can be innocuous for white Protestants in general.
By the way, I think one reason Sotomayor isn’t going to have a lot of trouble based on her comments is that, when she talks about her experiences as a Latina she’s relating an almost archetypal immigrant success story: growing up poor as the child of Spanish-speaking immigrants, living in a Bronx housing project, and succeeding in part because of the importance her family placed on education, etc. So when she talks about how her experiences might inform her jurisprudence it seems credible and admirable. A Latino from a wealthy family, a privileged background, etc., would probably not have the same leeway to speak of himself or herself as representative of “the Latino experience,” even though there’s no reason why that particular experience is less valid.
Wally wrote:
White people aren’t reminded every day of the fact that they are white. White is the norm.
Given the demographic trends, that’s not going to hold true for long. So we have two options for the future: strict race neutrality for everyone, or every group gets to identify with and act in their own group interests. That’s why this statement has more salience then it would have twenty or thirty years ago.
Daniel:
Do you really think this is really vital territory that Antle’s ceding? To me, and I think a lot of people, self-identification as “white” is meaningless, it’s just a clever way of saying “not-black,” as in “I would hope that a wise not-black man with the richness of his experiences…”. “White” is a census question, and it doesn’t really map to a community or bundle of experiences in the way that being an immigrant, or a spanish-speaking immigrant, or a Puerto Rican might. This isn’t universal of course; if this were South Africa or Kenya, you absolutely could claim to be a Boer or White Kenyan and that would actually mean something with regard to your experiences. Many of the native people might have some very negative associations with these, but the phrase “white culture” would not be void of meaning in the way that it is in the US. Because in the US it has no meaning, it becomes a codeword.
I guess there’s such a thing as being a “WASP,” but if I were being a sensitive person that wanted to make sure all of my listeners felt like they were all had room to be individual in the way I was, I’d probably talk about my “protestant work-ethic” or my “Yankee ingenuity,” in a polite and self-deprecating way. Of course, how I express it depends on my listeners, and I’m going to say different things to La Raza compared to the Sons of Norway.
Can’t we just ask Sonia if she’s a Latino supremacist, and if not why not, and be done with it? It seems like this entire argument hinges on rhetorical treatment of ideas, and not the ideas themselves. Which I guess was your point.
Here is a brief analysis of all the race related cases where Sotomayor was one of the judges in the panels:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/
All this hubbub over Sotomayor’s statement is a consequence of her being a completely mainstream and unremarkable appointment.
If she had ruled far out of the norm, or had penned a provacative opinion, the media and the GOP would be talking about that. As it is, the only thing left for obstructionists to work with is an off-hand comment.
The Issues we have with the Muslim world – What Obama won’t mention
* Teaching that non-Muslims are non humans, such as Christians are “pigs” and Jews are “apes”.
* Sharia law (implementation) horrors, including oppression of women.
* Honor killings epidemic.
* Playing “victim” while being the aggressor, such as the Arab “Palestinians”, Taliban, etc.
* The genocide campaign by Islamists (like Hezbollah, Palestine – Hamas, Ahmadinejad) on Israel / Jews.
* Persecution, oppression of and apartheid against all non Muslims in the Islamic world (including in S. Arabia, Palestinian Hamas, etc.).
* Persecution, oppression of and apartheid against all non-Arabs in the Arab world, especially of native Egyptians (Nubians), Kurds, Copts, Assyrians, Berbers (native N. Africans), Jews (not just inside Israel), Africans (Africans living in Arab countries and the racist slavery in Sudan, Mauritania… genocide in Darfur).
* The wide justification of Islamic violence all over the world.
* Squeezing the world economy by power of oil prices (OPEC).
* From the 22 Arab countries so far, all range from totalitarianism to corruption, not even one has managed to be real free, equal and democratic.
* The global Islamic radical campaign to dominate the world – untamed by “moderate” Muslims.