"In an effort to honor the life and service of Strom Thurmond, Senator Lott made some comments that he probably wishes he had phrased differently. I do not believe Senator Lott meant to be malicious or racist with the comments he made. I believe he was merely honoring a great American on his 100th birthday [...] I do not believe he harbors racist sentiments in his heart," - Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), December 13, 2002.
"There is no other way you can interpret [Sotomayor's "wise Latina" speech]. She thinks that a woman with her experience can make a better conclusion than a white male - and to me, I consider that racist," - Inhofe, August 4, 2009.
« Gravity | Main | Dollar Bill Jefferson » What We Call Racism06 Aug 2009 03:59 pm
Andrew has a great one:
Comments (30)Post a comment |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
yeah andrew seems to be back in fine form, the idea here that one might be racist but not intend to be malicious (just expressing one's pride?) in one's comments is telling. Is it ok to be racist when the intention is to honor a racist? creepy.
To me the thing is the idea that your ideological allies deserve benefit of the doubt but the allies of your opponents do not. This just seems par for the course with people like Inhofe.
good thing none of us do this
Silly Rabbits! What you all, and Andrew, seem to be missing is that your potentially malicious comments can only be misphrased if you are a heterosexual white male. Otherwise, anything you say can, and should, be taken out of context and must be able to stand alone - if not, you are a bigot, especially if you are brown!
I'm missing something here but I think it is your point
so what you're saying is that a person, with a white male perspective can give a better judgement on what Former Minority Whipp Lott meant as a portrayal of Strom Thurmonds life achievements? btw, the snark hasn't passed unnoticed!
I'm guessing that's sarcasm? (assuming)
It's absolutely classic Subject and Other. If I am the Subject, I am multi-faceted, and I am the norm against which all is judged. If you are the Other, you are a flat character, and you are judged according to my norms.
All strata of society have some version of this (feminists, for instance, who can utter sentences that begin with the words "men are always..."), but when it comes wrapped in power and privilege and centuries of subjugation, people especially need to check themselves.
Which is not a thing I expect to see James fucking Inahofe doing anytime soon.
PS I'm a feminist. Which is why I used that example.
ee, language! just joshing not sure why but it suprised me to 'hear' you swear.
Ah, I'm letting my facade of polite behavior slip! I've been restraining myself over here -- it's kind of a swanky joint, all told, and I've been being careful.
But generally, when there are no children present (and in other places on the web), I swear like a truck driver. No, strike that, my truck-driver friend swears a lot less than I do....
hah, funny medium this is, somewhere back in the archives you could find TNC's declaration of this as a cursing-friendly zone. so feel free to let your freak-flag (that's for u CitE) fly, night, d.
Check out Kelefa Sanneh's comment in the latest issue of the New Yorker. An excerpt:
'Some who are skeptical of affirmative action, and of other programs designed to advance non-whites, consider reverse racism to be so pervasive, and so well entrenched, that it can only be described as systemic. . . . In fact, the 'reverse' has largely been dropped from 'reverse racism'; in today's mainstream political discourse, 'racism' regularly refers to anti-white racism.'
Not sure what I think about Sanneh's argument surrounding this observation, but I do think that the loss of privilege (be it of race or sex) is oft translated as oppression.
To paraphrase 1176 (and Ben Franklin), racism cannot exist in the 1st person, e.g., "I am a racist." It is only in the 3rd person, "he/she is a racist," that it becomes real.
Extra points for the 1776 reference!
I don't think the comparison holds water. Trent Lott made one off-hand remark that he apologized for. Justice Sotomayor made variations of the "wise latina" comment over several years, in front of a variety of audiences. I think that an off hand remark is less indicative of a persons racist beliefs than a history of racist remarks.
This is what Trent Lott said:
When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either.
Off-handed they might have been, but those are the comments of a racist. He (or his state) voted for ST, who ran on the States' Rights Democratic Party, which basically meant: segregation.
I have to assume you are kidding here
It wasn't off-handed, and it wasn't the first time he said it. The Post found he'd said the same thing a decade earlier. Furthermore, Trent Lott has addressed the racist Conservative Citizen's Council at least three times. Lott's uncle says that Lott is actually a member. Lott, of course, denies this.
I wasn't aware of the history of Mr. Lott's comments, and I retract my comment.
Trent Lott's comments were not "off-hand." They were a succinct statement of the prime racist directive of southern politics, which was the denial of any kind of black equality under the law. Are these the kind of white males that would make better decisions than a "wise latina woman?" And as others have pointed out, he said it in front of racist groups. Many times. Trent Lott, like Thurmond, left the Democratic Party because of the civil rights issue. There isn't any ambiguity here. Sotomayor's quote was, for the umpteenth time, taken out of context. Lott's quote was perfectly clear, and perfectly in context.
White men have a much longer history of disastrous conclusions made, and defended, than any Latina, wise or no. If she uses white history as a cautionary tale, then the Latina, indeed, becomes wise: while there is no guarantee, to be sure, that the Latina will make better decisions, it's clear she'll avoid the ones white guys have already made.
So, let's give her a chance. And fuck Inhofe.
I really don't like Senator Inhofe all that very much. Really.
Sometimes I think there's hope for Sullivan yet. I'm suspicious that he's more politically motivated than possessed of a total 360 degree clue, but I hold out hope for him.
Speaking of the relationship between Strom Thurmond, racism, Trent Lott, and some -not all- republicans --after all Colin Powell is a republican, John McCain even when I disagree with him I respect him for what he's done, and I personally have always been a fan of Old Man G.H.W. Bush-- a line from Men In Tights comes to mind:
This is in some respects the essence of racism.
In other Men in Tights related news:
In other Men in Tights related news:
All right, you've figured out that Republicans are flaming hypocrites...congratulations.
White Republicans forcing Sotomayor to grovel in retraction over "Wise Latina" is surely one of the more horrid instances of minority relations so far in the 21st century. Horrid because it should have been patently, absurdly obvious in context that Sotomayor was not saying anything negative about whites but rather something positive about hispanics.
Imagine the scene: Sotomayor, a hispanic child of poverty rising to the highest heights of the legal profession, is speaking to a group of young, newly-minted lawyers of similar background - and dreams - as hers. In addition to their dreams, they of course carry a whole bunch of baggage, inherited from a lifetime of living in white majority culture.
In making the "Wise Latina" comment, Sotomayor, speaking from her exceptionally credible bully pulpit, encourages these young hispanic female laywers that, assuming they are good, they can toss that baggage aside and pursue their excellence.
What the hell is wrong with that? (Speaking, of course, as a white man.)
Someone recently pointed out that mixing it up back here causes you to see things from a different perspective. Couldn't agree more. This was my first interaction with "Wise Latina" considering the possibility of something like Ta-Nehisi's existential fear of white folks being present in the mind of those young, often poor, aspiring female hispanic lawyers...which makes "Wise Latina" even MORE laudable and LESS offensive. It is true blue heart of America to encourage those that see barriers to success to shake off those barriers and reach for the gold ring. Isn't it?
From my perch I might call it paranoia, but you also start to see where the comments from Imhofe may not be that surprising or inconsistent at all. If you don't think that a successful female hispanic judge, who has risen up out of poverty, ought to encourage upcoming female hispanic lawyers that they don't have to indulge their fears of the white man, well then OF COURSE you don't have a problem with what either Trent Lott...or Strom Thurmond...said.
One other gigantic insight: this may go a long way to explaining why the white take on multi-culturalism, as witnessed by Ta-Nehisi and others, seems to skew so much toward Jim Crow-type white supremacy.
I believe there are A LOT of whites who would agree with me on the following: we believe strongly in universal enfranchisement as the cornerstone of our democracy, we believe strongly that all people deserve a true, unfettered, equal opportunity to success, including the encouragement of those that have gone before like Sotomayor. Oh, and we believe one other thing: that I individually am better than you individually.
And I fully expect you to believe that you individually are better than me.
And we recognize that this creates a certain tension, that opportunity often comes about as a result of "looking the part", and so to some extent we want folks who look like us to be more "the part" than folks who don't. Again, we fully expect that folks who don't look like us would feel exactly the opposite - and perhaps this tension could be part of what would make a thriving democracy great.
I guess what I am getting at is these whites aspire to something like an honorable, fair fight, understanding that the desire for my "part" to be better than "yours" is an unfortunately distasteful but probably inevitable part of the process. The best way to deal with this distasteful element seems, from our perspective, like candor about its existence.
When there is no discussion about the tension between "rooting for themselves" and a "desire for multiculturalism and universal enfranchisement", it may silence many whites, as it leads to an interpretation that perhaps other folks are not aligned to these ideals. As a result, the only whites left talking about race-related issues are the supremacist ones.
But as the Imhofe quote suggests, there's still many rivers to cross to get to my ideal place, even if I personally don't tend to see them.
I've got some David Cross stand-up on my computer with a great bit about the flap over Trent Lott a few years back. At one point Cross, in his best impersonation of Lott on a MTP-style show, says "Y'all misunderstood me. When I said 'All niggers are faggots,' what I meant to say was, 'all faggots are niggers.' Completely different thing!"
PeteL -- There is some great research by one Jonathan Haight
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=f26e1846ed281b38&ex=1200891600&emc=eta1
which says many things, but one of them is that conservatives value in-group loyalty much more than liberals; liberals value fairness much more than conservatives. This means, perhaps, that conservatives think it is absolutely natural to distrust people who "don't look like them", while liberals (by and large) don't have a problem with people who don't look like them.
I think this is in part an urban vs. rural split. If you are urban, "your people" are not all white. "Your people" are the Indian neighbour, the Chinese colleague, the Black college roommate, and the Mexican sister-in-law.
(For urbanites, it might even become difficult to say who "your people" are. Your family, 2000 miles away? Your work colleagues? Your neighbours? Your college buddies? People from your house of worship? People from your skydiving club?)
Liberals *do* have a problem with people who don't think like them, i.e. are not "rational" or "fair".