When Did Newt and the Gang Become Experts on Race? Playing the Race Card Against Sotomayor
If I attend a Black Church and tithe once a week, does that make me a racist? How about if I donate my time to an organization committed to ensuring young black men avoid prison, would that make me a racist? Probably not. For Sotomayor, however, Republicans and Newt Gingrich would like us to believe that these actions alone make one a racist.
Whatever happened to the good old-fashioned definition of a racist, where one had to believe in ideas of racial superiority and use those beliefs to discriminate or cause harm to other groups deemed inferior? This so-called new definition of racism, where attempting to right historic and present-day discrimination or having pride in your racial or ethnic background makes an individual racist, has me a little confused.
According to the new definition of racism -- let's call it neo-racism -- anyone who believes we have not achieved racial equality despite years of efforts and work to level the playing field, can be considered a racist. Does that make sense?
In Sotomayor's case, embracing her Puerto Rican background rather than denying it; working as a young lawyer to end discrimination against Latinos and by extension many other disadvantaged groups including women; and acknowledging that there is indeed a difference between her experiences growing up as a Latino woman and those of white men has made her a target. The question is, a target for what and for whom?
In her career, Sotomayor has decided over 96 cases involving issues related to race. Of those times, she and her panel rejected claims of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with claims just 10 times. Of the opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Sotomayor dissented only twice.
Targeting and calling Sotomayor a racist is a calculated risk on the part of Republicans and conservatives. It necessarily entails the majority of the public buying into a definition of racism that is logically hard to follow and historically inaccurate. Rather than focusing on convincing us that she is a racist, they should focus on more substantive matters like her positions on key issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, gun control, affirmative action, and education.
I would also urge Republicans to take a long hard look in the mirror and reflect on the reasons why they elected Michael Steele as chair of the RNC -- I doubt it was solely because he was the "best man" to lead the Grand Old Party.
Depending on whom you ask, race relations and race discussions have gotten better or worse since the election of Barack Obama. The irony in all of this is that some of the longest standing members of the "Old Boy's Network" have now appointed themselves as the experts on race relations in this country. The reaction to Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court shows that we still have a long way to go, but we are headed in the right direction.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Jesus. The author not only misses the entire point of opposition to Sotomayor, she fails to mention the one--and only--thing that the opposition has latched onto: her 2001 comment indicating that her judgment would be "better" than that of a white man.
This article is ridiculous. No one has gone after the nominee for taking pride in her heritage, going to church, trying to end discrimination against Latinos, etc. No one. Without citing a single...y
I think Sotomayor's 2001 comments were poorly worded, and anyone who fails to see why they were inappropriate isn't having an honest discussion with themselves. If a white female nominee stood up and said "Well, the specter of racism undoubtedly taints the objectivity of its victims, and objectivity is necessary to interpret the law, ergo a white woman's decisions would be "better" than a Latina's", all of these people who can't seem to see any problem with Sotomayor's comments would find plenty to scream about--in a hurry.
Sotomayor is not a racist, and she is more than qualified to be a justice. But her 2001 comments cannot stand at face value any more than they could if a white woman uttered them.
I would hope that a so-called "white" man would come to a better conclusion than I if the case before US affects the lives of those I never experienced. This way when we are to decide his experience will help me understand what I do not know.
Would a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth be the best person to decide the fates of the poor and working class? Would a Man be the right person to decide the fate of women's rights?Why is President Obama popular? Because he UNDERSTANDS the lives of 95% of Americans and the people responded!
The issue is empathy, not some notion of innate intellectual or judicial superiority.
Shared experience promotes empathy, which, along with intellect and knowledge of the law, is necessary for wise judicial decision-making. Not that whites are incapable of empathy for non-whites. But as the only Latina among 9 judges, she would bring a valuable corrective perspective. I hope this comes out in the hearings.
Dictionary
rac⋅ism /
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Listening to her 'wise latina' comment, it clearly was presented that she, because of her race, would make a better decision as a judge, than another race. By definition (not new definition) - that is a racist comment.
If you disagree - would you be fine with Justice Roberts saying the same thing about white men making better decisions than latina women?
"The irony in all of this is that some of the longest standing members of the "Old Boy's Network" have now appointed themselves as the experts on race relations in this country."
What a great line! I plan to repeat it to every winger I know. Thanks.
Excellent article!
So she's not a racist, she is a culturist. It still has no place on the bench
In 2000 the SCOTUS overruled the Florida Supreme Court, stopped a legally mandated recount, and made GWBush President. Tell me all about "culturist
Understand history better - the recount was stopped because there were not uniform guidelines in place for that recount, therefore some ballots had a different criteria when reviewed, and not all ballots were being reviewed to begin with.
That - according to SCOTUS - is unconstitutional, and obviously unfair.
oh gee, but right wing ideologues like scalia...h
I keep trying to make this point, and here I go again...
No one can write a simple declarative sentence that is totally unambiguous. Here's an example:
"The sky is blue." Four simple words, right?
Q: Define "sky" in a way that covers all meanings.
Q: What is "blue?"
Q: When and under what circumstances is this statement true, and when is it not?
Q: At night?
Etc, etc, etc... Now, go and write a law or regulation that needs absolutely NO interpretation or clarification, or, God forbid, a country's Constitution. Can't be done!
So, to come to my point... all human beings bring their backgrounds, perceptions, world views, and sensibilities to whatever it is they do in life. We are not mythical Vulcans. If you want absolutism, get a computer.
Yes. They can say any and everything to you. I had a guy call me racist because I don't like the N word used (and I do not use it even with other blacks and think it shouldn't be used by anyone, but the fact escaped him). Then this same dude tells an insulting racist joke right in front of me. If I react I am being sensitive and reactionary--if however HE reacts to something, like the idea that the N word should be used by everyone--I am the racist. He didn't even ask my views on it, just painted me with a biased brush which was racist in and of itself.
I mean--what the--????
White men have been called racist for so long, I would think that would make them extreme experts on the matter.
mostly republicans, dems are fine except for a few bad apples.
Funny - cause it was the Dem whites in the South that fought integration & equal rights for blacks....
Ask the old Dem himself - Robert Byrd.... former KKK member
now that is a very STOOPID comment...
White, rich, conservative men can rant and cry all they want about reverse racism, I don't feel sorry for them one bit. The group that historically and presently worked (s) vigorously to keep other groups such as women, gays, and all minorities down, will never get any racial sympathy from me or anyone else with half a brain. A blind person can see that they are full of it.
Women, people of all colors, creeds, and cultural backgrounds can go ahead and rule the world and everything in it. S'Ok by me. Us white boys are tired and need a vacation!
White men are experts on EVERYTHING. Saying otherwise makes you racist and sexist.
So true!
Pat buchanan has been all over the air waves apoplectic.
The idea that a Latina woman thinks she can make better decisions than a white man!!!!
It doesn't matter that her words have been so mangled out of context as to be unrecognizable, but he is comfortable calling her an affirmative action hire.
Un-frackin
Um.... as a White, Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual male, anything I say is considered to be sexist, homophobic and racist these days. Or just plain irrelevant.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
