Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.I think we can immediately dispense with the crazies who think this statement should disqualify Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. It's worth noting that William Rehnquist once endorsed segregation, and yet rose to be Chief Justice of the court.
That said, I think Sotomayor's statement is quite wrong. I understand the basis of it, laid out pretty well by Kerry Howley over at Hit & Run. The idea is that Latinos have a dual experience that whites don't have and that, all things being equal, they'll be able to pull from that experience and see things that whites don't. The problem with this reasoning is it implicitly accepts the logic (made for years by white racists) that there is something essential and unifying running through all white people, everywhere. But White--as we know it--is a word so big that, as a descriptor of experience, it almost doesn't exist.
Indeed, it's claims are preposterous. It seeks to lump the miner in Eastern Kentucky, the Upper West Side Jew, the yuppie in Seattle, the Irish Catholic in South Boston, the hipster in Brooklyn, the Cuban-American in Florida, or even the Mexican-American in California all together, and erase the richness of their experience, by marking the bag "White." This is a lie--and another example of how a frame invented (and for decades endorsed) by whites is, at the end of the day, bad for whites. White racism, in this country, was invented to erase the humanity and individuality of blacks. But for it to work it must, necessarily, erase the humanity of whites, too.
Sotomayor, unwittingly, buys into that logic by conjuring the strawman of "a white male." But, in the context that she's discussing, no such person exists. What is true of the straight Polish-American in Chicago, may not be true for the white gay dude working in D.C. I'm not even convinced that what is true for the white dude in West Texas, is true for the white dude in Austin--or that what's true of the white dude in Austin, is true of other white dudes in Austin. There's just too much variation among people to make such a broad statement about millions of people.
I think this blog offers some context for what I'm writing here. I hope people won't interpret this as an "End of Racism" argument. It really should go without saying that people act on falsehoods all the time. I also don't raise this as an argument for why Sotomayor should not be on the Supreme Court. I raise it because I think a lot of us would do well to challenge our thinking in spaces like this. I know I would.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I agree with your post, but it's worth noting that the 'white men' being referred to aren't the entire race in general, but a subset thereof: white male judges sitting on a federal appellate court. I would be willing to bet that it becomes much easier to accurately stereotype the kind of experiences shared by white male appellate court judges. I'm just being nit-picky there, though; your broader point is well taken.
Digby has a blurb on this in which Sotomayor's commentary is given full context: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/context-by-digby-for-anyone-who-is.html.
She's right, the richness of her experience cannot be discounted. But you're right too, we should look at people as individuals and stop lumping everyone in groups. Sonia Sotomayor faces an uphill battle from people who think she can just put aside her race and gender as soon as she puts on a judicial robe. And let's face it, no one asked John Roberts to put aside being a straight, white, male when he became Chief Justice. He thinks discrimination can end by people simply ending it and laws against discrimination aren't really necessary. I am hopeful that a person who has actually faced discrimination like Ms. Sotomayor will think differently.
It gets even wilder when you go global. Technically, "white" encompasses (most) Israelis and Palestinians, not to mention Iranians and Dick Cheney. Hitler and the dissidents he killed were all white. (Watched "Valkyrie" last night so it's on my mind. Wouldn't mention Hitler otherwise.)
People with relatively pale skin have never been conspicuous for their ability to agree on things, or even to avoid large-scale warfare.
As for the "white male" thing, it's nearly always either "upper class, mostly Anglo-Saxon white males in positions of power" (see the judges example) or "skilled tradesmen in control of the union and trying to eliminate competition." Most white males aren't either of those things, and many have their own grudges against the ones who are.
As opposed to all those other people that have been able to agree on things and avoid large scale warfare?
Moreover, the entire statement is in the context of race and gender discrimination cases. I think she's saying that someone who has experienced discrimination is better equipped to make decisions in those types of cases. It's not so much a racial/gender identity politics statement, rather it's acknowledging that having real-life experience with those issues is important.
As I said before, after those judges decided strip-searching a 13-year-old girl was no big, yeah I think life experience is important.
the Cuban-American in Florida, or even the Mexican-American in California all together, and erase the richness of their experience, by marking the bag "White."
Cubans and Mexicans are White TNC?
As for the rest of your post, I agree with Anna. She says she's being nit-picky but I think she's hit the nail on the head. White males of that stature generally share a lot of things in common.
Eddy,
I threw Cubans and Mexicans in there for a particular reason. The "the" there is important. In other words, there are Mexican-Americans in California who, by their own lights, are white. Ditto for "the" Cuban-American in Florida. It doesn't mean all--the point is that whiteness is more expansive than we think.
Gotcha.
I really agree with the end of this response: "whiteness is more expansive than we think." The "ness" there is important because it brings into play how whiteness can be performed by people who are not phenotypically white. Whiteness is a performative act and can only be understood--indeed "seen"--once it has been performed. A person whose epidermis is white does not always already perform whiteness.
With that said, I actually disagree with TNC's critique of Sotomayer's qualification here. In fact, TNC, this is no strawman (and when did this term "strawman" come back into play?). There is, indeed, a referent for the white male that she mentions. The wise Sotomayor--doubly wise given her female and Bronx steez--is talking about those white males who serve on high courts. And indeed, if you look at the demographics of those on the federal bench they are fairly homogenized in terms of training, background, etc.
Also, I think you conflate white epidermis with whiteness. Furthermore, you conflate race with ethnicity. Race is not only self-constructed; it is also thrust upon you. So whether or not those Cuban guys in South Florida consider themselves white, when they go to that business meeting on Wall Street and have a thick Cuban accent, I doubt he is being constructed as white (as American white).
Furthermore, the capaciousness of whiteness does *indeed* try to occlude the singularity of experience in order to construct a unified whiteness that seeks to oppress Otherness at large. Charles Mills, the Jamaican philosopher who teaches at Northwestern, has a great book called THE RACIAL CONTRACT where he concisely lays out how claims to whiteness does exactly what you say--ignore the lived lifes of different ethnicities in order to make political and social claims. So, one can have black skin and perform political and juridical whiteness.
Now, Sotomayor is talking about men with white skin. And regardless of the different ethnicities you listed here, people who look a certain way have different experiences. Her point was that Brown people face problems simply because of how they look. A white guy from South Boston does not have to face the same kind of discrimination (now if his accent is a certain way and he walks into a meeting of the Harvard Literary Society he, too, might face discrimination. But that is not because he is white).
Whiteness is and never was about what is true. I think TNC you take the skin color too literally. Whiteness is the ability to make certain kinds of social and political claims that people of color have at times not been able to make. But, and Kenneth Burke is right about this, subjectivity is also a *passively* constructed. That means others "tell" you what race you are by how they act. So, yes people who have white skin have different experiences, but when they reach certain places they can all rally around whiteness in order to foster certain kinds of solidarity and kinship. As one who has spent too much time at elite universities (ugh: annoying meeting in 30 minutes), the places that fill the benches of the Supreme Court and Appellate Court, I have seen how the hipster from Seattle, the guy from South Boston, the gay white dude from D.C. and even the white-skinned Cuban kid from Florida with no noticeable accent got together and fostered a community in which people of color were excluded. It was, a "white" "male" community. And regardless of their localized experiences, in their interactions with the Black/Brown Other, they came together to become White and exclude the Sotomayer's, the TNC's, etc.
You are right that a universal "white" does not exist. However, people don't act that way. That is why the Irish, who used to be called niggers and drawn with simian features, clamored to become "white." (See Ignatiev's HOW THE IRISH BECAME WHITE).
Also, I think most of the comments were about race/ethnicity. What about gender? Women DO have different experiences than men and more often then not they negative and oppressive.
(sorry for scattered thoughts)
I'm not sure this is true. I mean I get it in terms history (becoming white) or pure logic, but I can't think of an occasion in the world that is in which a 'white' phenotype isn't always already performed.
Yes, most Cubans in Miami think of themselves as being White, or let me be more precise: a lot of Cubans "used to be White" in the Island and now they are Hispanic as opposed to Anglo or White. This, I think, is a reaction to the fact that the cultural differences are out there and that we aren't perceived as belonging to the Big White American Amalgam. But I think TNC is right and that "Whiteness" will probably expand --as it has done in the past to include Italians, Jews, etc.
Funny this race stuff. In Cuba people with Chinese descent were automatically counted as white and the "one drop" rule makes you non-black. Batista, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista) our last dictator before the Castro dynasty was of mixed race --his nickname was "El Indio". Applying America's standards he would be African-Cuban. So Cubans elected an African-American president in 1940!
But white males do all share the common experience of benefiting from the color of their skin regardless of the other factors in their life, and as Anna points out, white male supreme court justices are particularly likely to have exploited and perpetuated the benefits that come with that skin color. This isn't a generalization of people, it is simply to say that the ability to label oneself as a 'white male' is an advantage in this society, and a justice who is blind to that advantage or who normalizes whiteness is less wise.
In fact, it is very possible that the light skinned Sotomayor benefited on her way through Princeton and Yale in comparison to an equally aspirational dark skinned Nuyorican from the Bronx.
"But white males do all share the common experience of benefiting from the color of their skin regardless of the other factors in their life..."
Is this a joke? I mean, really. Because it sounds a bit like a joke. Especially since you follow it by assuring us that this is not a generalization (which it clearly is).
To assume that all white men benefit from being white men is just as stupid as assuming that no white men benefit from being white men.
It's not a joke. Much attention has been paid to the overt discrimination and disadvantages, but you also have to be aware of the benefits conferred upon you (of which you remain complicit), the sole reason being that you are a member of a group defined by others. Defined by others. That's so important. As an Asian-American male, I am often given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to judging my character. I don't get followed in stores, I often have pleasant encounters in my daily life with store clerks and just people in general, etc. My friend with a similar personality and demeanor has family from Guyana but was born and raised here just as I was. I can't help but sense that people are cautious around him. I've never been asked for identification when using a credit card. I've been with him, when the clerk has asked. It's strange. I would never have noticed something like that unless I was present.
There are many benefits almost unconsciously granted to the dominant group. I would actually reaffirm ollie's claim and claim that all white men benefit from being white men. Unless you have absolutely zero interaction with anyone else in society, you have definitely benefited from being a white male. It's all relative of course. White males have unspoken advantages granted more so than any other group. More than white females, more than black males.
Again, all I am taking issue with is the generalization that makes no room for exception. Indeed, exceptions, plural. Your argument is all well and good, but the risk you run (and ollie ran) in making it is treating white America as if it is a monolith.
Surely, in American society, one is more likely to reap the benefits of racial or gender inequality if they are born both caucasian and male. Nobody is disputing that here. The question is whether we jump from a benign generalization that white men generally have greater societal advantages to the sweeping generalization that all white men benefit from being white men regardless of experience.
What I am saying is that there exist corners of this country where everybody is pretty equally disadvantaged from birth until death. I hypothesize that your frame of reference, like ollie's, and like mine, while rich in its own way, is fairly limited. True, I don't know you. But I think there are places in this country that you've never heard of, where you will never go, the inhabitants of which you will never meet because, quite simply they will never leave. But they're real. And while we can hypothesize all day long about how the dirt poor white kid in Appalachia with an abusive meth addict father and no mother, who will never read at higher than a sixth grade reading level benefits from the some kind of systemic racial inequality (whether or not he's even seen a black person in his life), with respect, you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little bit dubious of your ability to make such a bold and specific claim about something for which you literally have no frame of reference. I'll hope you'll forgive me if I, in fact, call bullshit.
I don't exactly disagree. What you say is obviously correct on many levels. However, I also think it is often appropriate and useful to talk about race in more general terms in many contexts. Whether one agrees with Sotomayor in this statement, for instance, what she is doing is not so much defining a single, monolithic white male but distinguishing White male experiences from Latina female experiences. Its a type of useful shorthand and I don't think she would have any fundamental disagreement with the general point you're making which is basically that we are all defined by more than our race. On the other hand, race does play a big part in our self definition and it is often appropriate to discuss that as well. Even in all of the disparate social and cultural groups you name, their whiteness has a particular significance with respect to a lot of different issues, including the types of issues that Sotomayor is trying to limn.
Co-sign. You just summed up everything I was going to attempt to put into words here.
Sure, considering white privilege as a group-level privilege/advantage is important, but that doesn't discount TNC's point that there is significant variation within that racial group. It might be beneficial to think of it as a gradient of privilege, similar to a continuum of sorts, where not all whites are afforded equal privileges. That seems to be at least part of TNC's point here.
Was this meant as a reply to me? If so, I am not sure where we disagree on any particular. My point wasn't really about white privilege specifically but on the broader issue of racial identity. As I said, what TNC wrote is obviously true on many levels but so is what Sotomayor is saying. Yes, there are variations with any group. Everyone is defined by more than their race and even terms like "white" or "black" are overly simple constructions meant to describe highly complex realities about racial identity. My only point is that that doesn't make racial terminology useless even when used very broadly as Sotomayor does here.
Sotomayor is a Latina female and she is many other things. She is from the Bronx. She is Puerto Rican. She is a daughter and a judge and a second generation American. It is always possible to describe anyone's experience in more detail and no matter how far we drill down, the entire concept of individuality means that experiences will always be different. Puerto Ricans might claim a different experience from Mexicans but then Miami Puerto Ricans have a different cultural experience from Boricuans.
But it is just as true that Latina females of all types are likely to share a certain set of experiences despite their significant cultural differences and those experiences are quite likely to be different from any white male cultural experience. That distinction is meaningful and an important part of the discourse despite the essential truth of what TNC is saying.
Yeah, I was replying to you, just to basically say "I think we all agree, and at times it's beneficial to use blanket racial terminology, but at the same time it's also simplistic."
Yes, the distinction between Latinas and white males is certainly palpable at the group-level, no doubt about it. But using this language undoubtedly obscures heterogeneity within groups, and commonality between groups.
So at some level of aggregation, sure, we can say "the Latina cultural experience is different than the white male cultural experience." But as we delve deeper, that distinction gets blurrier, or at least adds caveats, no? I thought that was part of TNC's point, which coincides nicely with yours.
Whether or not they come from the Upper East Side or from Appalachia, white men have the advantage of always being the top guy on the totem pole in their own social stratum. So although i am not sure exactly where Sotomayor was going with this comment, i am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
White men who offend or hurt others often do so not because they are mean or unkind, but because they are so often unthinking. They have been privileged out of certain situations, and therefore do not think about certain kinds of consequences in various situations. Whether or not they realize it, our environment has been arranged for _their_ comfort, not anyone else's.
Any of you white guys feel like taking this statement on, go right ahead, but this is really one argument where i'd leave the whiny "but we're all not like that!" line at home.
That statement is at least as accurate applied to rich people of whatever race or gender. I'm skeptical of the proposition that "our environment" is in any meaningful way "arranged for" the "comfort" of a white male coal miner rather than the non-white wife of an investment banker. If you've never met a woman or a non-white person who hurts or offends, not out of a mean or unkind disposition but because of a blinkered, unthinking, privileged existence that blinds them to the consequences of their actions, then I submit that you don't know very many women or non-white people.
That white men command a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth -- and that their interests are privileged over those of their non-white and non-male economic peers -- doesn't lead to the conclusion that "our environment has been arranged for _their_ comfort, not anyone else's". All research that I've seen supports the banal conclusion that the interests of the wealthy, of whatever race or sex, are privileged most of all in this country.
More succinctly, this statement:
is where I think you've gone wrong. If you segment by "social stratum", then why not segment by race or sex?
"Whether or not they come from [Miami Beach] or from [southern Texas], [light-skinned latinas] have the advantage of always being the top [woman] on the totem pole in their own [local ethnic community]."
Even if this statement is true, it doesn't therefore follow that the world has been arranged for the convenience of light-skinned latinas.
I'm going to go ahead and assume you have never lived in Appalachia, where nearly everybody is white and the vast majority of white men are nowhere near the top of ANY totem pole. There are plenty of little white boys growing up in Eastern Kentucky with illiterate, abusive parents, living in rusted out trailers in a holler with no plumbing, three hours from the nearest Wal-Mart, and don't even mention a decent hospital. I've met some kids like that and it's like a really sick joke to say that "our environment" has been arranged for their "comfort."
Thanks, got a husband from backwoods Tennessee (mountain farm boy, doesn't get much more hill-billy than that), Got a whole passel of nephews and nieces adopted by inlaws who still live there ( from 15 years of foster parenting), who escaped the very situation you're speaking of. So I have a bit of experience with the group. But thanks anyway.
By the way, those white guys you're talking about-- they're still at the top of _their_ social stratum. It's just not a very high stratum in the scheme of things.
Actually, it gets a lot more hill-billy than western Tennessee, but that's neither here nor there.
Here's the thing: You say white men most often hurt other people because they aren't thinking. To which I reply: so does everybody else.
White men do not have the market cornered on insensitivity or lack of empathy. And no group is reaping the benefits of an empathy surplus. Having been discriminated against does not make one uniquely qualified to serve as a jurist. It simply gives them a unique insight. But we all have that. We expect our jurists to draw upon their intellect, their knowledge of case law, and whatever unique insight they may have acquired in their years to arrive at a sound judgment.
One thing that seems to be left unsaid around here, but is implicit in most of the discussion, is this idea that being a victim of discrimination makes one a better suited to render impartial judgment. Couldn't it just as easily and just as soundly be said that the opposite is true: that being a victim of oppression makes one far less likely to be able to render an impartial judgment? That such a background can give one predisposition to sympathize with one party over another at the outset of a case that would make them eminently less qualified to serve as a judge?
That should have read eastern Tennessee. Oops.
I don't see why it is whiny to emphasize individual differences (read: we're all not like that!), yet at the same time accept TNC's premise that "The problem with this reasoning is it implicitly accepts the logic (made for years by white racists) that there is something essential and unifying running through all white people, everywhere."--(which could be read 'They're not all like that'). Generalizations are seemingly inevitable in this discussion, but it seems that you employ the same reasoning that TNC is warning against. It is difficult to debate a topic when you make a contention (in this case white men's causal root of offensiveness) and then preemptively disallow the logical counterpoint or caveat (i.e. awareness of individual differences).
Yep, i do just happen to disagree with TNC here. Having worked in a very male-dominated field for the bulk of my life, I just think most men are really quite ignorant of the very very different concerns, problems, issues, physicalities, etc, that women face. It is rarely true that women are ignorant of the same in men.
I want to take a little more time to think about this one, but I at least wanted to make a point on first impression--Consider the life experience Sotomayor has had. Consider who her colleagues have been for years (often times rich white males from distinguished families). I'm not saying I agree with her; actually I think her statement is too brief to really judge what she means.
Does she mean that the minority experience is so powerful that it can provide wisdom beyond what any white person could hope to learn? Does she mean that if two people (one white male, one latina) lived similar lives, that the Latina would be wiser because she would inherently have to deal with more identity issues? It seems unclear to me. My best guess is that she seems to be talking about herself (projecting oneself on entire race is rarely a wise move) in the context of pampered white males who had their acceptance letter to Ivy League Law school printed on the same day as their birth certificate.
I also can't help but see this statement as a reaction against the prejudice she likely faced. I keep thinking about that Drudge headline "OBAMA PICKS LATINA." I imagine that Sotomayor often had to deal with people attributing her mere presense to her race; I can understand the instinct to turn that around and use her race as a form of empowerment.
The fact that I can understand that instinct doesn't mean I think she's right. But I do think this statement needs be taken in an extremely broad context.
This may not make much sense, but her statement strikes me a lot like Sarah Palin's "Real America" speech did. There are kernels of truth to what both of them say. Rural and conservative America is generally louder and more enthusiastic about it's pro-Americanism. A woman or a member of a minority hasn't necessarily led a harder life than any random white dude, but they are likely to have encountered some significant roadblocks that the white dude didn't. It's so terribly easy to fall into the trap of making broader judgments of people based on these limited observations.
I think it's wise to eschew either/or fallacious thinking. I can remember doing "diversity training" with a group of students from various backgrounds when one black student said to me that he thought white people, such as myself, as being all alike when I pointed out to the group that being an American who never considered Jesus Christ anything other than a Jewish rabbi set me apart from most of my fellow Americans. On the other hand, as someone who has never viewed the world or religion this way, I do believe I have an advantage in understanding the tunnel vision of a wide swath of Christians in a way they do not. Of course, not every person brought up in a Christian environment is so limited as to believe theirs is the only, or the best necessarily, way of looking at the world, but very few understand how unbelievably privileged that view is in our country.
These arguments, on their face, make sense.
But what she was talking about was the nature of how power can obscure one's ability to see things as they are, or more pointedly, as they are for those who are powerless. It ain't got anything to do with characterizing all white men as one thing - other than having the power of whiteness and maleness, which is the one unifying thing they all share. It's not really relevant how they use it, just that they have it to use. Ignoring this fact endears one to white folks, but its still true.
Sure there are some men who can empathize with a woman. And there are some white folks who empathize with non-whites. But so what?! Essentially, the argument you are making here is that well if we can get the same thing in a white guy that we would get in a woman or a minority, eh, let's go for the white guy. You may not intend to say this, but that's what you are saying.
It's about power. Experience matters. Plessy could be decided because the justices truly believed that separate could be equal, failing to take into account (be it purposefully or subconsciously) the role power plays in the distribution of resources in America. They didn't have any experience with an unequal school and in their minds, sure the government does have the power to make every school, regardless of its makeup, equal. But it would never have done that. The system is inherently flawed.
The same is true here.
The problem with all of this is that once again we are engaged in a conversation about the qualifications of a non-white male who was picked to do a job. We allow this dominant narrative of "non-white femaleness = inherently unqualified" to frame how we have this conversation.
Perhaps a few women on the Supreme Court would have ruled differently in Ledbetter. Who knows. Maybe the law was written in a flawed manner. Who knows.
But why should we trust that white men will just do better?
The fact that a segment of the populace reflexively assumes women and minorities are underqualified doesn't excuse Sotomayor for making a wrong generalization about white men vs Latinas. It ain't any better when our side does it.
Co-sign. This is what I was driving at below. It's harder to slap right-wingers down for making these sorts of generalizations with respect to identity politics when they can point to someone like Sotomayor and say either you're just as wrong as we are or these generalizations aren't such a big deal.
as sgwhiteinfla states below, that's not what she was doing.
But that's neither here nor there, because you both missed the point I was making which is that:
But what she was talking about was the nature of how power can obscure one's ability to see things as they are, or more pointedly, as they are for those who are powerless.
Perhaps there's something in here about the race/class argument. Would a white man from a poor background, raised by a single mother and perhaps dealing with a chronic illness, have a background more like Sotomayor's or more like George Bush's? Race is correlated with class in this country, but not perfectly.
As for white males always coming out on top of the heap -- not if the competition is also white males. Top elites are not necessarily nice to those "below" them, even if those people share similar ancestry. Class and religious differences are also in play.
If anything, I would say that upper class WASPs (establishment types) despise lower class WASPs (Appalachian types) more than any other group. The British upper class also seems unusually hostile to the British lower class, so this may be a carryover.
I totally agree with your point. To be picky and annoying, though: "WASP" stands for "wealthy anglo-saxon protestant," so there's basically no such thing as a "lower-class WASP." You'll hear people say it stands for "white anglo-saxon protestant" but that's a mistake (and redundant).
Not to doubt you Lee, but can you give us some back-up on that WASP definition. I've only heard it the other way. Maybe that's just me.
Sorry WASP is "WHITE anglo saxon protestant". You can be poor as a church mouse and be a WASP.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. And I know I may be late to the party but it still makes no sense. I'm with Lee on this, I think.
If it holds true that the "W" in "WASP" stands for "White" and not "Wealthy", that means there must be non-white Anglo-Saxons out there. Who the hell would they be? Considering the fact that Anglo-Saxon does not mean "English" or even of "English heritage" but identifies a specific race of people that conquered England in the Dark Ages. It has been long identified with "English" because the Anglo-Saxons were the last race of people to fully concur England. But one could take the case of a black man who's African ancestors moved from a colony to the home island several generations ago. He would be both "English" and "of English heritage" but he wouldn't be Anglo-Saxon unless one of his ancestors married an Anglo-Saxon, who themselves would presumably be at least partially white. Thus making him at least bi-racial to some degree. Which ultimately eliminates the chance of a 100% non-white Anglo-Saxon. I do find such questions of race rather tedious but my central point still makes sense.
The image that always came to my mind when I thought of WASPS was rich country-club types. My grandmother's family immigrated from Blackburn, England when she was only a baby. She was 100% Anglo-Saxon, are far as such things can be determined. I know for a fact that she never considered herself a WASP, as she grew up dirt poor in urban New England.
"But White--as we know it--is a word so big that, as a descriptor of experience, it almost doesn't exist."
Feh, next you'll be denying the existence of cucumber sandwiches.
Depends on how broadly you define "sandwich," I guess. Would it be a cucumber sandwich if it was made on a sub roll? How about a baguette, a wrap, or open-faced? Does it count as a cucumber sandwich if it's made on tapioca bread, for the gluten intolerant? Or should we give up on trying to define it altogether, and just judge the food by its taste?
I wasn't aware that cucumber sandwiches were included in the category of food. I mean, yuck.
She wasn't applying her statement to the Supreme Court, but if we were to do so, based upon its current composition, it isn't exactly ground zero for WASPs with all the Catholics and 2 Jewish justices. If you look at the core of the conservative side of Supreme court, you have two Italian-Americans and an African-America. I also don't know that any of them fit the Judge Smails from Caddyshack stereotype, or the eastern WASP elite nearly as much as people like GHW Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, GW Bush or John McCain do.
Also, being Latina in one part of the country is very different than being so in another. I got to know a Latina very well who was from Miami and she said she experienced next to no discrimination in her time in Miami and that Latinos ran the businesses, media and politics, whereas you go to some other areas, Latinos get the shit end of the stick.
In addition to the points that you make, with which I agree, I also find the argument fundamentally weak from the perspective that being close to a situation makes a person necessarily more equipped to hand down justice with regard to that situation. Clearly, a jurist’s life experience gives them a great deal of particular insight to various situations, but it’s quite a leap from there to the claim that the insight alone leads an individual to make more reliably sound judgments than his/her colleagues who do not necessarily share the same background. On the contrary, the argument she should be making, and it may be the argument she intends to make, is that people of diverse backgrounds, identities, and ideologies provide greater insight to the court on which they sit. It’s not that the individual justices judgments are better or worse based on their experiences, but that the judgments of the court are more sound when an equally brilliant mind with different experiences and a different voice is allowed to be heard. Of course, this isn’t what she said. But I'd like to think it's what she meant.
I actually think even more context is needed and a focus on the words Judge Sotomayor actually said.
What I believe Sotomayor to be saying here isn't about painting with a broad brush that encompasses "all white men". I believe she is making a point about white men who do not have a lot of experience dealing with women and minorities on a personal level. To me the key to understanding what she is saying is when she points out that there is no universal standard for what "wise" is or isn't. Many people consider a person who is wise to denote academic achievments alone. I believe that in the totality of her speech she is making the case that wisdom also comes from personal experience. She made the case pretty clearly earlier in the speech that there have been studies that show that women and minorities as judges rule differently than their white male counterparts on the whole. And even in what I quoted she points out that all male courts did not vote against sexual or racial discrimination until 1972 yet they were seen as "wise men".
Now for me its hard to see how anyone can say that this is an absolutist statement especially when she makes allowances that it isn't. Let me quote it again to reiterate.
I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable.
What she is saying is that on the other hand there are also many "wise white men" who do NOT have the capacity for understanding the values and needs of minorities and women for a variety of reasons that she lays out, that a woman who is also minority and has had a wealth of experience with other minorities and women wouldn't be hindered by when judging cases.
And if the problem ISN'T that she is pigeon holing every white man then are we REALLY going to argue against decades of precedent that shows that white men have on the Supreme Court have in fact affirmed that discrimination based on race or sex or sexuality was in fact perfectly fine under the constitution?
The problem, though, is that she is pigeon-holing. The fact that she offers a caveat, the fact that she admits that some white men are capable of showing insight or expressing empathy does not dismiss the reality that what she said is that based on experience and identity alone, more times than not, a Latina will make better judgments than a white man.
This idea taken to the extreme would end with jurists and juries being selected only for cases that relate directly to their experience.
I think the problem is that she implies personal insight and connection is always a good thing, when it could obviously be a corrupting influence if left unchecked. Again, I think the larger point, the point she fails to make is that a diverse court is probably a more sound court. That, in fact, the rulings of both the "Latina" and the "white male" are better because they've been exposed to one another.
Show me where she said that.
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Okay, so some modifiers, I suppose.
1. She says she HOPES it is the case, so she is not stating it categorically. Although, I am not sure the purpose for hoping this to be the case. If anything, why wouldn't you hope jurists to reach uniformly just conclusions.
2. She modifies Latina with wise, but only modifies man with 'white,' so I suppose you could argue that she only hopes a wise latina is making better judgments than an average white guy. However, I read the emphasis she places on biography to imply an 'all other things being equal' sort of argument. Afterall, regardless of life experience, we expect the wise to reach better conclusions than the average in almost all circumstances.
Still, even with these modifiers, what she is saying is that (presumably in cases that relate to her experience) she believes a Latina woman is going to hand down sound justice more often than a white man who, by definition, does not share her experience.
Like I said, I think there's a good argument in there. It's just not the argument she's making.
You forgot the qualifier on "white men" as in "who haven't lived that life". By your own admission there is no way her statement lines up with what you said she said. In point of fact she is talking about a pretty narrow situation that she "hopes" would be the case. That a wise latina woman "with the richness of her experience" would come to a better conclusion than a white man "who hasn't lived that life". That doesn't apply to the "average" Latina any more than it applies to the "average" white man. Lets go by what she actually said than how we took what she actually said please.
I didn't leave out 'that haven't lived that life.' On the contrary, I said that a white man, by definition, does not share the experience of a Latina (i.e. has not lived that life). As a matter of fact, a white man will never live the life of a Latina. He can live under similar circumstances, and while his experience may be rich, it will not be the same. So yeah, the average white man does not share the same life experience of a Latina wise or otherwise.
Mind you, I think this is a fairly small issue. I think she and I and you and I probably agree on the larger issue. But the phrasing itself. The text, formulated for a speech (which may read differently than it would have sounded in the original oration), says something fairly simple. And it's either 1: an absolutely benign and arguably meaningless point; 2: a sloppy way to phrase a larger argument about how experience informs our ability to make sound judgment; or 3: boreline racist.
I do not think it's number 3. I think it's a combination of numbers 1 and 2. If read literally, it's absolutely meaningless. By creating the construct that the Latina in question not only has the richness of her experience but also her wisdom to draw upon, Sotomayor effectively stacks the deck against the hapless white guy who not only lacks the same rich experience of the Latina but whose level of wisdom is never established.
Now, you may think I am going out on a limb to say that I don't think she meant for her statement to be absolutely meaningless. In fact, I think she meant to be making a point about how our experience informs the wisdom of our judgment. That there is such a thing as the wisdom of experience. That being said, the way she phrases the sentence implies that more times than not, the wisdom of experience is not only a net plus for the individual jurist, but that it will result in BETTER judgments than those of some white guy with the wisdom of some other experience. Again, I think this is a fundamentally weak argument.
"She says she HOPES it is the case, so she is not stating it categorically. Although, I am not sure the purpose for hoping this to be the case. If anything, why wouldn't you hope jurists to reach uniformly just conclusions."
BreakerBaker,
I am sure that Judge Sotomayor wishes all jurists would reach uniformly just conclusions. She simply has higher expectations of a judge who is a Latina than a judge who is a white man, since presumbly a Latina's life experience is more likely to have included the experience of being the victim of racial and/or gender discrimination than a white man's life experience. In her view, she hopes that a jurist who may have experienced such discrimination would more sympathetic to people experiencing this plight than a jurist who probably has not. In addition, she hopes that a person who is likely to have experienced an injustice like racial or gender discrimination would be especially committed to rendering opinions that served the ends of justice under the law. (Unfortunately, human nature doesn't often work that way, as TNC has pointed out before.)
Likewise, I am pretty sure that Justice Ruth Ginsburg hopes that a Jewish female jurist would be more likely to reach a just conclusion in cases involving religious discrimination than a Gentile male jurist.
But those expectations are problematic. They imply a certain level of justifiable mistrust of a jurist based solely on the presumption that they have not acquired the necessary life experience to develop a capacity for empathy and understanding of a particular situation. It’s not that she sets high expectations for the Latina, it’s that she sets low expectations for male jurists. In fact, if she means what you seem to believe she means, then the comment she’s making is inherently prejudicial. And while most prejudices are grounded in something that resembles truth, this fact alone does not justify the defense or propagation of such prejudices.
Actually, the more I think about this line, the more I am turned off by it. Again, I don’t think it’s a huge deal, but it does seem to get at a predisposition toward an ideological bent that I do find a bit troubling. It implies empathy toward a specific party in a suit over another is more times than not going to improve one’s judgment. It makes no acceptance of the mirror of that argument, that empathy, left unchecked is corrupting. That empathy must be granted equally, to both sides of every case in order for preserve an impartial and fair hearing.
That is a very good point, but I think you are not too far from what Sotomayor meant to say. It was a statement about wisdom. For Sotomayor, sgwhiteinfla, and also for you wisdom is shaped by personal identity, experiences and connections. For others, wisdom is just an old white man with a beard.
And I do not deny that I think we probably agree on the larger point. I think the phrasing she uses does that point a disservice, though.
Yeah, agreed. Even in context it can be interpreted to "Latina women can make better decisions than white men", which is what the conservatives want people to take away.
Her comments appear to mean "A diverse court can make better and more appropriate decisions because of the variety of life experience we bring to it." Which few would argue with.
What she's saying actually is pretty simple: Not everyone, wise or not, is going to do the extra work it takes to understand where someone else is coming from. But if you've been in the same position, you don't have to do that extra work.
I think the full quote clears up any possible misunderstanding unless folks are being deliberately obtuse. Or nitpicking. The general poit here is indisputable. Our life experiences, including gender and national origins, make a difference - though we can't be exactly sure what difference, in our decision making. And furthermore that given those differences in experience, those who've had a taste of what it means not to be in the category of the universal (white, male, straight, middle class, christian), may make better decisions regarding topics/lives where that distinction is relevant.
After all, the Court is the place where we edjudicate how difference/discrimination/access will be defined/enforced by law. So it matters what your perspective is and how much time and effort, as she puts it, one is willing to or has to put into making determinations that are not only legally sound, but actually just. I thnk the whole thing is pretty straightforward.
I know this is not TNC's point, but I also think that the argument that Supreme Court Justices are not meant to do justice, but only to apply the law is fraking absurd. They should not circumvent the law in order to do what they think is just, but within the bounds of the law shouldn't justice be a top priority?
For this reason the "activitst judge" argument seems ridiculous to me on it's face. What exactly is the judge supposed to do? And who do proponets of this view think benefits if Justices (that is their title, right? Nothing if not a statement of intention or a freudian slip, which amounts to the same thing in this case) try to apply the law and philosophy contained in the Constitution like the recipies in a cookbook? If it's about objective application in which all personal experience is to be held constant, then why isn't someone looking into a Supreme Super Computer?
The truth is, those who argue against "empathy," and "personal story" are arguing against applying any experience that one could not expect to arise from the experience that represents the hypothetical universal identity -- white, male, straight, middle class, christian.
The terms of this debate boggle my mind. Seriously. I boggle.
The judicial branch's job is to interpret the law. Full stop. If our body of laws doesn't address a particular issue, then it's the legislature's job to create laws that do.
Completely agreed. I don't see how that affects my point.
The trick, one supposes is in the meaning of the word 'interpret,' no?
Appeals courts make policy. Period. Full stop. The reason why is as you point out they have to intepret the laws that the legislative branch hands down. What that also means is that some laws may be interpreted in a way different from the legislature's original intent if their intent did not line up with relevant case law or with the constitution. In that event the court would have made policy without having to formulate a bill or a law. But making policy is much different from legislating but conservative critics don't want people to realize that. (not talking about you when I say that). Appeals court can not come up with the laws themselves but interpreting the law at times pretty much equals making policy.
@sgwhiteinfla
I think most reasonable people would likely take issue with the verb use there. That is to say, it is not the role of any level of the judiciary to “make” policy. They hear arguments which relate to an established policy or law, and they determine whether or not specific laws or lower court rulings jive with the higher court’s interpretation of constitutional law and legal precedent. They can interpret the law in a way that broadens or narrows policy restrictions, or deems laws invalid, so it’s obviously clear that the court can and does impact policy by design, but for a jurist to approach the judiciary with the idea that its role is to make policy is both inaccurate and somewhat troubling.
In the sentence in question, everyone will focus on the word 'better', cos that's the active ingredient of a bigoted thought. For me, the crux of the biscuit is the very end of the sentence, "...who hasn't lived that life." This part of the sentence is the part that media outlets have been excising. Watch close - any anti-Sotomayor heads that quote this will drop this part of the quotation. If this part of the sentence didn't exist, it would be a far more troubling assertion, in my view. That's why the right is dropping "who hasn't lived that life" in an effort to manufacture a stronger outrage.
The phrase is important to me because it's quite a common - and accepted - assertion of individuality, used by people of all genders and ethnicities and backgrounds. You haven't lived my life, so you can't tell me how I've lived it, pull rank over me in my own sovereignity. It's a first line of defense against meddlers and haters. If she had led with this sentiment rather than concluded, I don't believe we'd be having this discussion.
Be prepared to re-insert "who hasn't lived that life" into any defenses about this quote.
The 1st part of that sentence frequently gets chopped too:
"I would hope"
That's also very important.
But why would she hope that? Personally, I would hope that everybody comes to equally just and sufficiently fair conclusions.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't buy that as a real distinction. Most white men, have not lived the rich lives of Latina women. Dare I say, none of them have?
As I see it, this is just a sloppy sentence that had no business appearing the way it does in a speech. As I've outlined elsewhere, I don't even think it means anything when read literally. Worse, it can reasonably be read (in context, with or without the last bit) to mean exactly what all of the conservative critics want it to mean.
If she means what I think she meant, it should have been edited out. Or rewritten. It's a bad sentence that begs to be misinterpreted. If it's not a bad sentence, then it's a stupid argument.
White has become the label we give to those who belong to no particular race. Arround the time of the American revolution only the English and Scadinavians were considered white. The French, Spansh, Italians, etc. were 'the swarthy peoples of Europe'. Now we think of Irish and Greeks as white by default. Semitic, Spanish and Asian people may claim whiteness if they wish. All that is required for a group to become 'white' is to stop identifying as other. When a group decides it is not seperate within a generation they are not seperate. The first sign that this is happeneing to a group is intermariage. I would argue that we have reached the point where this transformation is happening to Affrican Americans. By the time my daughter is my age AA's who are still claiming to be seperate from society are going to be as rare and as wrong as my brother's grandmother-inlaw who thinks that as an Italian she is still a member of an oppressed minority and not 'white'.
There was a moment when you could put all the white ethnic groups in the US into one basket (although with some having better positions in that basket than others), and all the non-white groups into another. I think it may have been 1968. We still argue a lot of things in 1968 terms in this country, so why should we surprised if we do the same with race?
The reality both before and after that moment is a lot more complicated.
That basket which you could put all the white ethnic groups into has changed over time. The Irish joined it early in the last century. The Italians joined a bit later. Those who are in and out of the basket has changed over timen not just the divisions within the basket.
Yup, that's what I mean. European groups joined the "basket" at different times, but by about the 1960s they were all in. (Various other groups -- Lebanese, Armenian etc. -- too, at least if Christian or secular.) But no non-European groups were in at that time. Many have joined since or are in the process of joining now.
So, if you take a snapshot in the 1960s, it's all white/non-white. If you go to 1910, though, a lot of people who look white to us would be outsiders. And heading into 2010, you've got a guy from India running Citibank (not that it seems to be helping) and a bi-racial, black-identified president.
Initially, I was going to leave this one alone -- allow wiser and more erudite commenters here respond to this -- but, alas, I could not wait.
I disagree with the premise of your agruement, especially as it relates to AA's in America. It takes more than a group to 'decide' to stop identifiying as other to be accepted as White in America; it takes the acceptance of the majority (the White group)for the ethnic/racial group to become seen as White. (Has anyone read the great book "How the Irish Became White?)
Your agruement makes it all sound so simple -- if AA's simply stopped identifying themselves as "other" then we would suddenly no longer be a different group (would be then be seen as white and given all the extra priveleges that come along with that label?)? I don't think it is that easy.
In fact, I know throughout history (post-slavery and the Jim Crow era) a lot of mixed-raced, almost white blacks who were forced to "pass" into the white world and cut all ties with their relations to do so, would have loved to had this option to simply state that they were no longer "other" to gain the economic and social advantages that they were seeking by passing.
I wish it was as easy as you state for AA's to relinguish our "other" status.
It is not that by simply refusing to identify as 'other' AA's can cease to be seen as 'other'. It is necessary but not sufficient. I saw a scholar (whose name I cannot remember) discussing this in relation to the Latino community and other groups that stopped being part of the 'other' in the past. He proposed that it is a two step process. 1) The group stops seeing itself as different. 2) The majority does so as well. It cannot happen in the opposite order. Step one could not happen untill the end of segregation and violent oppression. Now that legal equality has been achieved it is the next step. The remaining question is, When is it going to happen? I believe it is happening among melenials.
Basically I cosign everything sgwiteinfla said. I would like to highlight something he didn't bold though too:
"Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
Yeah-- to me this speech sounded eminently reasonable, a recognition of different experiences leading to different perspectives.
"The idea is that Latinos have a dual experience that whites don't have and that, all things being equal, they'll be able to pull from that experience and see things that whites don't. The problem with this reasoning is it implicitly accepts the logic (made for years by white racists) that there is something essential and unifying running through all white people, everywhere. But White--as we know it--is a word so big that, as a descriptor of experience, it almost doesn't exist."
All things being equal? That dismantles your entire argument. When and where are all things equal? She is not grouping all white men together in the sense that all white are alike, sharing the same views, attitudes or opinions or even life experiences but the one unifying distinction that white men have is that they have NOT been victims of racism or sexism and therefore will never ever be able to see things from the perspective of minorities and women who have. They certainly can have compassion for the plight of non white males, but they can never full understand their experiences.
the one unifying distinction that white men have is that they have NOT been victims of racism or sexism and therefore will never ever be able to see things from the perspective of minorities and women who have.
You're more correct then not, but there are a few of us "white men" that have been the victims of racism and (sometimes sexism too) understand exactly what it's like to be a minority in a majority culture.
The problem is that most people who grow up "white" in areas where they experience color predjudice don't go to elite colleges that ensure a great future and in many instances are lucky to make it to college at all.
I just got the full quote. How mighty Buchanan of you not to include the full quote, which puts her statement in further context. As she notes, not until 1972, did the Supreme Court rule in favor of the claimant in a sex discrimination case. Do you truly believe it would have taken that long if the court had not been comprised of all white males? Likewise, do you think it would have taken almost one hundred years after the civil war to end legal segregation in this country if the court had men of color who lived the experience? Come the fuck on!
"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."
Don't do this. I quoted the entire paragraph. I offered a link to the entire speech. I began the piece with the following qualification:
Now, you don't have to agree with anything I wrote--all through this thread, you see people debating this. But the "mighty Buchanan of you" comment is a cheap-shot, and disingenuous. It's not how people argue here. It doesn't help clarify anything. Please don't do it again.
Hold up, you chose to highlight ONLY that portion of her statement that lends to your position, just as Buchanan, Yoo, Coulture an other critics have done moreover effectively make their argument and I'm taking the cheap shot?!
I'm sorry I offended you, but let's do debate this. If it is your contention that experience does not make for better jurispudence and that white males, all things being equal (at least in your mind), are as capable and predisposed of rendering fair decisions on behalf of women and minorities why has justice come so slow?
"If it is your contention that experience does not make for better jurispudence and that white males, all things being equal (at least in your mind), are as capable and predisposed of rendering fair decisions on behalf of women and minorities why has justice come so slow?"
Because it was designed to move slowly. The point of a government with three equal (and oftentimes adversarial) branches of government is to slow progress. Checks and Balances doesn't streamline the process; it breaks down efficiency by design. And the High Court, by design, has the least amount of control over policy matters of the three branches. It is there to interpret laws that are already on the books by hearing cases that come before it, not by deciding to go out there and get things done that should be done.
Let's put the worst possible face on Ms. Sotomayor's comment; the worst--one time she said that a wise Latina might have a leg up on a wise white man. In a long life of utterances, one time. Sometimes people have zero sense of perspective. Let's say one time, she said something reductive, ignorant even. And the white right complains about political correctness.
Didn't Clarence Thomas refer to his confirmation hearings as being a hanging or some such (and strangely, because a black woman accused him of sexually harassing her on the job)? Which of course leads me to the question, would a Senate confirmation committee made up of non white women have come up with a wiser response?
I haven't read the whole thread, but I want to start by co-signing what CitizenE said above. Ms. Sotomayor's statement I think is problematic because on its face it's an ignorant statement. Probably not so much in context, but still. You tie that with her decision in Ricci and I think the "white right" that CitizenE speaks of above might actually be able to make a cogent argument against her on the basis of her views with respect to race. Two instances don't establish a pattern of behavior, but now these folks have an incentive to go digging. I'm not really sure what I'm trying to say here, but a good friend of mine who's a white conservative was going ballistic about this statement talking about how she should be disqualified etc. He's an intelligent guy just expressing to his friend his views, but he's not in politics professional. I shudder to think what kind of shitstorm the professional right wing spin doctors can generate behind this since histronics and taking shit way too far and way, way out of context are intergal to their job descriptions.
It's interesting TNC, that you post something about "white" Mexican-Americans from California, when you didn't even mention this knowledge of this supposed group in your previous "hispanic" post from a few weeks back.
I'm not sure which Mexicans you know from California, but I happen to be of Mexican-American from California (East L.A. to be exact, third generation) and there are very few Mexican-Americans that consider themselves white here. Most of us are of mixed racial background I guess, being of European and indigenous Meso-American descent mostly. But the "racial" makeup of Mexico is actually quite diverse, with yes, Asian and African lineage as well. It's so rare in fact to hear a Mexican-American call themselves white (at least in Southern California) I'm really wondering where you got your information from, to post that line.
Not unheard of, of course (since there are some Mexicans that aren't of mixed heritage at all, but that's unusual in itself too, especially in the states). It's just so odd, that line stood out to me as being really bizarre and out of context.This comment especially smarts because it's a common joke amongst many Mexicans here that if you are ashamed of being "indio" you cop an attitude and loudly proclaim you are "Spanish" and only Spanish. It's seen as a sign of some underlying shame actually. Dude, don't get me started on the huge, almost schizophrenic attitudes within our commmunitys about the conquistadores, El Malinche, and all that.
I don't know a whole lot about the Cuban-American community in Florida. I don't know the racial attitudes there very well. I doubt you really know what is going on in the Mexican-American community in California.
I think that in your admirable zeal, to point out the individual experience of all people, you have erased what it means to have a communal experience, to be a part of a group. There is a tough and careful balance there. No, I don't have the same experiences as Sotomayor, the Puerto Rican Bronx community is quite different than the majority Chicano community of East L.A. in which I am from. That being said, there is a common thread there with experiences as a Latina. i can't say that I didn't shed a tear a bit, to see a Latina up there, who looks like so many people I know, and who even looks like people I am related to. I felt a similar sense of amazement with Hilda Solis. How important is that thread? Does that common thread mitigate our indidvual experiences just as people, rathern than as Hispanic women? Of course, these questions are up for some healthy debate. But TNC, that thread exists, don't pretend it doesn't.
Your point about Mexican-Americans and whiteness is addressed further up.
I don't know how to respond to this. I don't think you can quote a single place in the piece where I contend that there isn't a thread among Latinos. It would help if you quote, specifically, the argument that you're objecting to. Otherwise, I can't defend a contention that isn't actually mine.
The context that sgwhiteinfla gave helped modify my initial reaction to this quote when I heard it, which was a big cringe. My problem with her reasoning is that it assumes that a certain color profile or life experience will give a person more empathy toward others with that same color profile or life experience. How does this argument hold true with someone like Clarence Thomas? Or with the many women politicians on the right who I do not think are representing me as a woman? I'm all for racial and gender diversity on the court, just as a matter of equal representation. But if she were everything she is now - Hispanic, working class background, a woman - AND ultra conservative instead of the moderate she appears to be, I would not be happy about her appointment, and I would not think she was representing me, or would have views that are more understanding of my issues just because she is a woman.
"I threw Cubans and Mexicans in there for a particular reason. The "the" there is important. In other words, there are Mexican-Americans in California who, by their own lights, are white. Ditto for "the" Cuban-American in Florida. It doesn't mean all--the point is that whiteness is more expansive than we think."
I read this above and I found it to be strange and out of context, since these "white" Mexcian-Americans (those that claim to be) are unusual in itself. I wanted to point out something here that has rarely been addressed, if at all, in your blog: Mexican-Americans in California and their racial attitudes and some of the context for what those attitudes are. Not that i think you should talk about this group all the time (if at all), but seeing as when you do it is so rare, and this gets thrown own, I wanted to clarify some things.
I read quite a few of the responses here and I agree that within the context of what she was saying, she was not referring to all white people, but a particular subset, being the mostly while male population on the federal bench. There is a common thread of experience there, not totally, but it is there; to say that ther isn't is to ignore the phenomenon of white privelege.
There may be a common experience that many Latinas have, and to recognize that life experience will sometimes make one more empathetic to certain cirumstances that one must rule on. I don't think there is a problem here with what she said. What I agree wit her here, is yes, the experience of being a Latina does affect one's personality and perhaps one's decisions on the bench. The group experience affecting one's individual decisions are valid, and not something to be ignored, and one can be made richer from it. I think what she was saying was that her Latina experience is not necessarily something to be ignored, or overcome, but as an asset to her professional endeavors.
Let's throw something else into the mix. CNN's current coverage includes a story about how Sotomayor's confirmation will put a sixth Catholic on the court, meaning that 2/3 of the court is Catholic (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, and Sotomayor). About 1/4 of the US population is Catholic.
Ginsburg and Breyer are Jewish, leaving only one Protestant (Stevens). Apparently the court used to have a "Catholic seat" and a "Jewish seat," but no more.
Of the six Catholics, four (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Sotomayor) will be alumni of Catholic schools. I have some issues with kilts and nuns, but those places have been upward mobility escalators for generations.
I sort of like the fact that the Justice's religious backgrounds are more an afterthought--clearly Reagan, Clinton, Bush and now Obama at least weren't looking at their nominees' religions. If only some day we can put Hispanics, Blacks and Asians on the Court and the only stories will focus on their fitness as a potential Justice!
To clarify again, the point isn't that all Mexican-Americans ID as white. The point isn't that many or most ID as white. The point is that some due, thus it's possible for whitness to include them. The argument isn't about the commonality of it. The argument is about whiteness as a big tent and what that means for the set of experiences of people who might call themselves white.
(Slow day for me -- I'm having fun with this discussion.)
According to Wikipedia, which cites the 2000 census, 47.3% of Mexican Americans self identify as white. 45.5 % pick "some other race," 5.1% claim two or more races, and a bit less than 1% self identify as black. Hispanic/Latino origin was separate from the the racial scheme, so people picked their racial category AND whether they were Hispanic/Latino.
Which makes sense. You can find most of the world's races and ethnicities in Latin America, alone and in combination. Asking what race Latinos are sometimes seems like asking what race Americans are.
There are lots of Spanish-speaking Koreans in Argentina and Paraguay for some reason. I suppose they would be Latinos if they moved here.
Some reason? Probably because they live in a majority Spanish-speaking country.
I don't think that he/she's (sorry, unsure) referring to the cause of their speaking spanish but rather the cause of their immigration (of which I don't know the details either). I know Brazil has a big Japanese population, and that a very successful soccer player (once anyway) named Deco is half of each.
She, and what Dan said.
I did a little more reading, and apparently the Koreans were originally considered "other" in South America and faced all the same issues about assimilation vs. maintaining their culture that all immigrant groups face. But some of them moved to the US in the 1990s because of the economic crises in South America. Upon arrival in the US, they became Latinos. Sometimes for the first time.
The problem with this notion is that while personal experiences are obviously going to have some effect on judges' empathy, the single most important thing is the judge's qualifications for the bench including their judicial temperament, legal experience and expertise. I for one couldn't care less what the ethnic makeup for the Supereme Court was--they could all be Jewish women or Blacks who were born outside the country for all I care--so long as we have the nine best possible justices up there. In terms of how diversity should play out, it's far more useful to have diverse legal experiences (such as judge's with business law expertise, experience on state courts, or experience with international law, for instance) than some attempt to achieve ethnic balance. I would rather hear a lot more about Sotomayor's legal background--which I understand is extensive--and expertise than her ethnic background. It's great for Puerto Ricans that they can make it to the Court, but it'd be better if such a big deal weren't made of their ethnicity.
Via Sullivan, via Hilzoy--SCOTUSBLOG: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
There is nothing more political than the nomination of the Supreme Court Justices. The right in its assertion that the Warren court was an activist court have pulled the wool over the nation's eyes about the true nature of such nominations. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are all activist judges in their own ways. To the degree that race, ethnicity, class, and gender are part of our politics, people from all sides of the spectrum will raise these issues. Just look at the response to this post in contrast with the other threads today.
But it is also important to note that many justices do change over the course of their careers. It's no secret that those on the right were quite disappointed by Souter. What will really matter is when one of the four I mentioned decides to retire--who will be President then? Because therein lies the future of the court and its perspective.
TNC says..."Sotomayor, unwittingly, buys into that logic by conjuring the strawman of "a white male." But, in the context that she's discussing, no such person exists."
The offensiveness of this statement isn't that this stereotype doesn't exist. By treating her experiences as augmentative rather than different Sotomayor implies the experiences of whites are so meaningless they either don't or might as well not exist. It's the attitute of someone intolerant and myopic. Add that to the conceit anyone who refers to themselves as "wise" must have and I'm wondering exactly what temperment Obama is looking for.
Did you even read the speech? If so
1. Show me where she said "the experiences of whites are meaningless" or even anything close.
2. Show me where she referred to herself as wise.
Those instances shouldn't be too hard to find since you just based your whole comment on them.
sgwhiteinfla
First, I did read the speech. Did you? Second, did you read my post?
1. Show me where I claimed she SAID "the experiences of whites are meaningless". I said she must believe that, so your freshman level rebuttal is worthless. I'll make my actual point more clear, so even those as logically challenged as you can follow. She claims female latinas should be able to reach better conclusions more often than not because of their experiences. But she never identifies, evaluates, or compares these experiences to those of white males to explain why. Why not? Because she believes she has something white males do not, while simultaneously discarding the possibility that they have something she does not. She believes her experiences are valuable, those of white males are not.
2. Here is Sotomayor's description in the speech: "I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench."
So let's see. She's giving a speech expressly about herself and refers to "wise latina" judges and your position is that this isn't a reference to herself? Are you serious?
I would go so far as to say that this statement disqualifies her. I see a couple of different possibilities, none of which make her suitable for any judicial appointment.
1.) She believes that the job of a judge is not to interpret law, but to make policy, and that white men may make policies she dislikes.
In this case, she should be disqualified, since she sounds unwilling to properly do the job of supreme court justice (interpret the law as written).
2.) She believes the job of a judge is to interpret the law, but that white men are less capable of doing this properly.
In this case, she appears to hold racist/sexist views (only wise latina women are capable of interpreting the law as written), and probably could not fairly adjudicate cases involving white men.
3.) She believes that membership in an ethnic groups is necessary to properly understand the results/actions of members of that group.
In that case, she (as a latina woman) lacks the experience of a white male. But therefore, she can not properly interpret the writings of white men. Since most federal law is written by white men, that could be a problem. (Note: I don't hold this view, I'm merely assuming for the sake of argument that she does.)
(Side note: if Rehnquist were up for confirmation today, does anyone really believe his views on segregation wouldn't get him disqualified immediately?)
These arguments are absurd. She very clearly wasn't saying any of these things. Follow TNC's link to the whole speech. Or read Greg Sargent on the matter. Or read the thread above. All are pretty edifying and will help cut down on these kinds of strawman, or rather, strawwoman distortions. Good grief.
Near as I can tell from the speech, (1) is the correct interpretation. For instance:
None of this should matter in the interpretation of law (though it may matter in the creation of law). The values and needs of people from a different group don't change the law or the facts. So why should an understanding of such things change the actions of a judge?
She discusses many flaws in judging, in particular statistical differences in case outcomes depending on the gender or ethnicity of the judge. Never once in her talk does she acknowledge that these statistical differences are errors to be corrected.
On the contrary, ones perspective can very easily, perhaps uncontrollably impact the way one goes about interpreting law. To interpret is not to divine original intent for how the law was meant to be applied, but to instead make an effort to understand the law as written, and to apply it to current situations. Many times, the law will lead to a rather simple interpretation as in cases where a court of diverse ideology votes uniformly together (as happens, I think, more often than not). But there are other cases where to interpret may lead a jurist to reasonably believe read one or a number of laws to imply something more than is written.
With Roe, for instance, the court determined that while the constitution makes no explicit right to privacy, a number of the amendments in the Bill of Rights (the first, the third, the fourth, the fifth, and the ninth), when seen together imply the right. Whether you agree with it or not, and whether it impacted policy or not, that is a reasonable interpretation of the constitution.
gee
A minority.
Why am I not surprised.
That victimhood pays well, doesn't it?
FYI: It is lazy and disingenuous to claim that Rehnquist "endorsed segregation." He did not. Rather, he argued that the courts should not order the practice ended, since he saw the cure as worse than the disease. Whether you disagree with his position or not, that is a far cry from "endorsing" segregation as an institution.
That's an excellent point--to be sure, many who liked segregation just fine would use "state's rights" and "freedom of association" arguments to defend the institution, but that doesn't mean that there were not opponents of racial segregation who had serious misgivings about the legality/constitutionality of some of the means being used to end segregation. Case in point--Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of '64, on States' Rights grounds, and there was no indication that he actually favored racial segregation. To put him in the same grouping as folks like Senator Bilbo is unfair but also dismissive of the need to properly address the legal issues involved.
Here is the actual memo:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/sources_document7.html
What's immediately clear, if you read the whole thing, is that claiming that Rehnquist is merely arguing that the cure is "worse than the disease" is, at best, incomplete and rather conveniently omits the memos most damning logic:
Now, we can debate over whether that constitutes an endorsement. But this clearly goes a lot further than arguing the cure is "worse than the disease. It explicitly argues that Plessy v. Ferguson--a case that effectively legalized segregation--was "right," and then it goes further and argues that the only constitutional rights that black in the South have, are those that the white majority are willing to extend.
It's interesting to note that when this allegedly sober-minded memo saw the light of day, Rehnquist (then up for confirmation) immediately retreated from it and claimed it actually wasn't his opinion.
You're going to have to come harder, kid.
Ok, let's debate over whether that constitutes an endorsement. You claim that it does. Care to defend it? Or just lazily throw slander out there, "kid?"
"But this clearly goes a lot further than arguing the cure is "worse than the disease. It explicitly argues that Plessy v. Ferguson--a case that effectively legalized segregation--was "right," and then it goes further and argues that the only constitutional rights that black in the South have, are those that the white majority are willing to extend."
The only thing clear here is that you don't understand Rehnquist's argument. You don't have to agree with him, but it would be nice for you to understand him before you disagree with it.
He is saying that for the Court to overturn the will of the people would be to create rights that aren't in the Constitution. And to go down that road would be to fundamentally alter our country and render much of our Constitution useless. Now clearly this is no longer the popular view of the Constitution. But at the time, it was completely ordinary. And furthermore, is quite obviously in line with the Framer's intention.
But if all of that's too complicated, read your own bolded quote again. "I realize that it is an... unhumanitarian position."
Not a single thing you wrote up there addressed the original argument, which is as follows:
Let's be very clear about the terms of this argument. According to the dictionary, one of the definitions of "endorsement" is "approval or sanction." My argument is that "Plessy vs. Feruguson" is an approval, a sanction, an endorsement of segregation. Arguing, again--half a century later--that the decision was right, is, again, and endorsement of segregation.
Here's is your rebuttal, again, just so we can be clear:
But the argument isn't whether the decision created "rights that aren't in the constitution." The argument isn't whether the decision renders the Constitution "faundamentally useless." The argument isn't whether his was "a popular view of the Constitution" or not. The argument isn't whether his opinion is "in line with the Framer's intention." It's does his opinion, endorse/sanction/approve segregation? Or more precisely, is it lazy or disingenuous to call it an endorsement? Everything you've said could be true, and the opinion could still endorse segregation.
And that's because you're not so much addressing the argument made, you're addressing the argument that's convenient for you. That won't work here. In other words. Come harder. Kid.
(This is addressed at Ta-Nehisi, but there doesn't seem to be a reply button on his post.)
So you're saying you really can't tell the difference between a legal argument and personal support for something? He says in the memo that supporting segregation is an unhumanitarian position. He's making a pretty clear point that the Supreme Court was not empowered to legislate morals, not matter how much they may agree with the moral arguments being made.
Again, you can attack that as a bad legal argument. But to claim it's an endorsement of segregation is indeed lazy, disingenuous and childish.
If I'm a lawyer defending a child abuser and I argue that we can't convict him on the basis of his coerced confession, even though the whole world knows he's guilty am I "endorsing" child abuse? Of course not. But you go check you dictionary again, kid.
Or let's consider the California Supreme Court. Do they each, individually endorse banning gay marriage? Clearly their personal morals lie elsewhere, and yet they just handed down an opinion that "sanctions" a ban on gay marriage in California.
So are they each "gay marriage ban endorsers?" Does your game of semantic slander extend this far?
You, of course know that I never said that William Rehnquist gave segregation his "personal support." You also know that I gave a dictionary definition of "endorsement"--approval or sanction--that meets my application. Here is are two links to that definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endorsement
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endorsement
You also know, by those definitions, that people endorse policies all the time that they don't personally approve of.
There you go again, arguing against what you wish I'd said, instead of quoting and countering what I've actually said. In fact, the court did endorse a ban against gay marriage. Yes, they did.
Seriously, we could do this all day. Rather, you could do this all day. For my part, it's clear who you are, and what you're about. The clearest evidence that you're arguing in bad faith is that you haven't once, in all your posts, bothered to quote exactly what I said and counter it. And you won't do it because you know you don't have an actual argument. You lack the intellectual courage to tackle the argument as it is, preferring to hide behind what you wish it to be.
There's no point arguing with anyone like that. You can call names (lazy, childish etc.) all day. But none of that can alter what's laid out on this page, and free for all to see. You're not serious. You know this. And I know you know this.
I leave you to your thoughts. I'm done here.
bwan does a pretty good job of refuting your argument above, but I would add one other point: Rehnquist's statement that "in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are" was not an argument for his policy preference, but rather a statement of absolute, time-tested fact. His point was that the court can say whatever it wants, but in the end, the majority will generally enforce its will. Segregation ended not because of the Supreme Court, but because a majority of Americans decided that the practice had to end and were willing to support aggressive government intervention to see that it did.
Two other points related specifically to your defense of Sotomayor:
1) Even if one holds that Rehnquist "endorsed" segregation in 1952, almost 20 years had passed by the time he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor's statement is much more recent and therefore much more germane.
2) If, as you claim, Rehnquist "immediately retreated" from his memo when asked about it during his confirmation, this will indeed set up an interesting test for Sotomayor. She has certainly shown no remorse for that remark thus far, even though it was infamous well before now. The smart money says she will dodge and weave a bit, but in the end will stand by her original statement, knowing the Dems will not punish her for it.
You're doing the same thing:
Everything you say right there may well be true (I don't think it is) and Rehnquist still could be endorsing segregation. Your arguing about the reasoning. I'm arguing about the results. The fact that his logic was "Niggers are stupid" doesn't mean much. People endorse for all sorts of reasons--but it's still an endorsement.
Wait, don't change the subject. Is it an endorsement or not?
This is not merely a "claim." From TIME magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,460212-1,00.html
Basically, what TNC said. I'd also like to add that for all this talk about "activist judges," it's amazing how people forget that arguably the most important and favorably-viewed Supreme Court decision of the 20th century was the result of basically the most "activist" in nature. It got the ball rolling on segregation, not "the majority."
Think the stigma around "activist judges" might have something to do with the Southern Strategy and "States' Rights?" What once was a battle between the 10th and the 14th amendment (which the 14th won, I'd argue, with the help of the 9th), was hijacked by cynnical racists. It's amazing how people forget context (not accusing most people here, but it's worth stating). From a legal perspective, it seems to me mindboggling that Rehnquist would render his view of Plessy without considering the 14th and 9th amendment, which to me, is a step beyond endorsing Plessy, it's flat out endorsing segregation.
Banned. Deleted. Where do these idiots come from?
--TNC
Others have pointed this out, but it seems to be ignored in the debate. She made the statement regarding RACE and SEX DISCRIMINATION cases. Being "non-White" and "non-male," I would think that she IS more apt to look at the evidence more carefully and with, God forbid, more empathy, IN THOSE TYPES OF CASES.
I would hope that all competent judges (of any race) would look at the evidence carefully. Are you saying that white or male judges are simply incompetent?
Or perhaps will she look at the evidence REALLY CAREFULLY if one party is non-white and non-male, but only with an adequate level of care if both parties are white males?
Concerning empathy: the job of a judge is to decide the law and the facts. In the worst case, it could lead the judge to make an incorrect decision based on emotion. In the best case, it is merely something to ignore.
You're just wrong here, ninjazombie. The law exists to serve people, not the other way around.
You cannot possibly have the best decisions being made in these tricky cases unless you have representatives from all related backgrounds involved in every level of the decision making process. In those types of cases, it is imperative that women and minorities, who are almost always the victims in these cases, have a representative among the judges.
And yes, i do think her experience would help her render the best judgment here. Because as a Latino woman, she is likely to have faced one of these experiences (as have many many many women), and her experience is likely to give her a better perspective on the behavior of _both_ of the parties involved. As I said upthread, I don't believe that men that do this sort of thing are mean, i think they are thoughtless or unfeeling or ignorant.
You seem wildly misinformed about our legal system, since you seem to believe that judges should be doing the job of the plaintiff's lawyer.
As for her experience giving her perspective, could you explain how this will help? In particular, will it improve her powers of deduction about the facts? Or will the experience of hearing some guy talking trash about women make her better able to reason about what congress wrote?
Also wondering: would a white person with experience being robbed by black men be better able to judge robbery cases?
Classic. You won't own up to what you said, which was this:
"It's worth noting that William Rehnquist once endorsed segregation"
And instead of backing off when pointing out that the man did no such thing, you retreat to a semantic argument. Instead of simply admitting that it's a bit more complicated than what your lazy sentence suggested, you try to excuse it through loose language.
And yet suddenly, I'm Mos Def on Bill Maher's show, and you "know all about me." You don't know the first thing about me. Segregation was fucked up and it's easy to see that a lot of people were cowards when they should have been standing up to this hate. But I'm grown up enough to admit that it's unwise to place my modern views on people and then judge them. I can see that there were and are legitimate legal issues with the 14th amendment that took years for our society to work through.
"In fact, the court did endorse a ban against gay marriage. Yes, they did."
See what you did there? "The court endorsed." Very different than saying and individual endorses. Language is supposed to be your job. Shouldn't you be more careful with it?
But it must be nice living in your world where you know all about someone and can judge who does and does not endorse positions, even when they say explicitly that they find those positions to morally wrong.
Your position seems to be that a statement in favour of the constitutionality of a certain practice is not necessarily an endorsment of the practice itself. You can oppose the death penalty and still claim that it is a constitutional practice. By doing so, you don't "endorse" the death penalty as an act. It's a fair point.
If I understand him right, TNC sees "segregation" in the context at hand also as a legal point of view, or at least a practice sanctioned and maintained by a certain legal practice. Wikipedia says
In this context, you endorse "segregation" if you endorse Plessy v. Ferguson. That's what the memo did. It's also a fair point. It's not lazy and disingenuous.
I agree with almost all of this. And it is the well reasoned discussion TNC never presented.
I would just say that Rehnquist's admission that this was an unhumanitarian position to hold signals that he's aware of the wrongness of segregation and is merely writing legally.
Point being, it's difficult to pass judgement on a man 60 years after the fact based upon one short memo. And when you do so without acknowledging the complexity of the issue that suggests to me you're being either lazy or disingenuous. Or, you're TNC.
I think TNC just defended himself against the accusation that he was lazy and disingenuous. If he doesn't want to enter a deeper discussion about the legal and moral views of Rehnquist, well, that's his right and I think you should accept that. Your point is worth thinking about, although I disagree (a legal position in an enlightened society should never be unhumanitarian). But the problem here was the initial insult (it wasn't from you, I know).
An important thing to consider for any lawyer is who was paying him or her at the time, and what result the actual party was trying to get. Part of legal training is about how to put forth the best legal argument for the position your client (or boss) tells you to take, even if you disagree with that position as a matter of policy when you are off the clock.
Even what judges write is not necessarily their personal opinion, at least when they are writing for the majority. It might be a compromise position taken to assemble enough votes to GET a majority. If you want to see real personality and personal opinions, look at what a judge writes in dissenting opinions.
The racial lines are eerily convenient to define people not based on any phenotype or genotype, but on their experiences. As I replied to another commenter, the silent advantages that we, most of the time, simply aren't aware of are the most pernicious ones. It's logistically impossible to scientifically compare a white person's daily experiences to a darker-skinned person's experiences, however I always wonder if it were possible, would we find that the routine interactions we aren't mindful of for dominant groups more hassle-free than those of the minority groups? I wouldn't go as far to say that a person, just because they are Latino is more qualified and erudite to speak on Latino issues, let alone other minorities. However, the unique experiences of encountering discrimination and learning of revealed assumptions/generalizations made by others will always be quite salient for an identifiably Latino, Asian, black, female, non-dominant-group-affiliated person. You can say we're all different, but the experiences of discrimination give a minority group member time to think about what the hell just happened when that store clerk was awfully rude to me despite my manners. That is an experience far and few between for someone a part of the dominant group.
Just looking at what people are writing here . . . seems to me that a lot of you are dissecting a lot of categories most people have already gotten over. Its 2009, not 1993 people!
I am a gay white nurse in Detroit. By necessity of my surroundings, most of my friends are non-white and non-gay. This, however, is not an issue in our friendships because we are all nerds.
Most of my friends are gamer nerds (TNC knows what I'm talking about). I am a old school gamer nerd who enjoys retro card games, history, and politics. Some of my friends are music scenester nerds. Among them you can find a suburban white kid who raps (badly) and a 6'4" black country music fan. Yeah we talk about race, class, gender, and sexuality, but it just isn't as interesting as Gears of War II, the Detroit Electronic Music Festival, WoW.
I think TNC has a good point. When we obsess about the superficial differences between us, we tacitly support these conventions. By saying something like: "All white men have more power then all Latina women," we are not describing reality at all. We enforcing preconceived notions about people.
I'm quite thankful that Mr. Coates makes the argument against the notion of a singular white experience in America. I'm sure many African-Americans realize the fallacy of such a notion, I'm just not sure how many African-Americans care enough to publicly dispute it.
Chris Rock had a bit about this, expressing puzzlement over Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. Something along the lines of, "black people don't hate Jewish people, black people hate white people.....we don't pick and choose.....I don't care if you just got here.....you're Romanian.....well, f-you, you Romanian cracker...cracker-ass-cracker"!
Now of course, I realize he was making a joke, that's his job. But some minorities get upset when clueless white people speaking of the "African-American" community or the "Latino-American" community as if they are one monolithic group and make assumptions based on that. And they are right to get upset. But who has ever heard of the "Caucasian-American" community, at least outside of the rantings of some crazy, self-righteous racist? Yet the ways white Americans are grouped into one singular category are legion.
Not that I'm complaining. I've got no complaints with the way my country has treated me as a person of European decent. (Ex: I've been stopped by a cop twice, both times I got off with a warning. Outside of those two instances, my brief conversations with police have always been extremely friendly.) I've had bad luck in life but nothing due to my ethnic make-up. Even my Irish ancestors, who might have had to deal with bigotry at one time, didn't even immigrate to America until well into the 20th century. By then, the 1920's, they were almost as white as I am now.
But to the extent that my heritage & background has affected my life, it has done so it different ways than has the heritage & background of other white people. So I truly appreciate Mr. Coates making as many distinctions as he did.
Acromion is onto something. Common interests can bind people together across different ethnic categories. For me it's the arts. Where I live, that community is multiracial and includes everyone from teens to retirees.
Groups like that can be communities of choice and counteract communities of birth. The thing is, a lot of people pick their communities of choice to match up with their families and people just like their families. If you aren't some kind of nerd, whether about gaming or music or some other passion, there's a lot less pressure to pull away from family and create these broader groups.
As for the Sotomayor's comment, the whole paragraph seems to be rather poorly written and it just isn't very clear what she is trying to say. Since there is no other evidence that she is some kind of militant Latina nationalist, I don't think it matters anyway.
However, I do feel like this notion is wrong,
But White--as we know it--is a word so big that, as a descriptor of experience, it almost doesn't exist.
Of course on a basic level it is true that we are all unique individuals, but almost everybody now accepts that this is true and pointing it out is only useful when dealing with the extremely bigoted.
On a more subtle level, culturally defined race is still a very important part of the structure of power in America. In particular being white is defined as being normal, thus excluding people of other races from participating in normal society, unless the act white. For relevant examples of this see Sotomayor being criticized for the way she pronounces her name or even for eating ethnic food.
Of course you know all this Ta-Nehisi, which is why I find it strange that you seem to be denying that there is such a thing as a coherent white racial identity.