Sotomayor Was Right the First Time: A Wise Latina Does Know More

Supreme court nominee Sonia Sotomayor now famously said, in 2001, that she would hope a "wise Latina would make better decisions because of her life experiences than a white male."

As she noted, those have become her most-quoted words, overwhelmed by a firestorm of opinion characterizing her as racist or worse. Before long, she was forced to eat her own words (as in a Boston Globe headline, "Sotomayor Repudiates 'Wise Latina' Comment.")

She was right the first time. A Wise Latina woman does know more.

Notice your own reaction in this instant, after reading this blogpost title and that last sentence.

Most of you had a quick emotional reaction--negative for most, positive for some. You interpret it as a political statement, and you probably made an inference about my own political views.

Let me try to find the rarified air wherein that statement has nothing to do with racism or politics, and should not provoke any emotions at all. It is simply a statement about the dynamics of human beings when they are cast in roles of minority and majority. It should provoke no more adrenaline than an observation about the feeding habits of penguins.

The Dance of Majority and Minority

People observe and believe very different things based on whether they are members of a minority, or of a majority. One group, I suggest, notices more, and knows more, than the other.

This isn't about race per se: it's about a mixture of numbers and power. Suppose Group A constitutes 70% of a culture's population, and 85% of its economic and political wealth. Groups B and C each represent 10% of the population, and 5% of its economic and political wealth.

All groups--A,B and C--will view Group A as the dominant culture. The habits, opinions, styles, language, likes and dislikes, family patterns and ideologies of Group A will dominate in institutions, advertising, government, etc.

If you're a young A person, you conclude that your culture is the norm. Mathematically, you are absolutely right. Emotionally, you conclude that you are also "right," and that other cultures, being in the minority, are odd, unusual, out of the ordinary.

If you're a young B or C person, you see the same facts. You also know that A people are the norm--you can do the math too. Unfortunately, you likely also internalize the majority view that B-ness or C-ness is somehow odd, unusual, out of the ordinary.

It is but the tiniest of steps from the above for an A person to judge a B or C person as "weird," wrong, or inferior--and to simply not notice many differences. More insidiously, it's also a tiny step for Bs and Cs to think the same of themselves. (Being a minority is a helluva psychic challenge).

Each group understands the As. But the As impute mainstream characteristics--which happen to be their own--to everyone. Hence they literally do not notice many characteristics of Bs and Cs, assuming them to be identical to mainstream (and their own) ways of life. The most "normal" Bs and Cs, to an A, are those who most resemble As. ("But you don't look Jewish...")

An example: you're driving down the highway; the person in the passenger seat of a passing car has his or her feet up on the dashboard of the car.

Of all the feet on all the dashboards of all the cars in the US, what percentage of the time are those feet likely to be the feet of a black person?

a. 0%
b. 5%
c. 10%
d. 25%

If you're a white person, you're likely to guess a number in line with the black percentage of the US population.

But if you're a black person, you know the answer is a, or just about 0%. Because In the black community, putting one's bare feet up on a car's dashboard, or a table, is considered just plain rude.

The reason white people don't know this is that black people know what happens if they try to explain it. Picture yourself as an African American, trying to explain to a white senator that his kids are rude because they see nothing wrong with putting their feet on the dashboard. Will the Senator hear it as anthropological information? Or as insulting racist talk? Take a wild guess.

So we have:

1. Minority people (black, in this case) know what to expect from everyone on the foot test.

2. Majority people (white in this case) do not know what to expect from everyone on the foot test.

3. QED: minority people know more than majority people. Sotomayor was dead right.

Then why did she repudiate herself? Because majorities tend to hear statements of minority knowledge as insults to the majority.

And, since majorities can't see what minorities can, it's a losing battle to protest. Easier to repudiate yourself.

If you're white, and think that blacks overstate racism, then ask yourself: how emotionally disturbed was I by this headline? If the answer was, "a lot," but you also see the point of this blog, then that tells you how deeply embedded majoritism (racism, sexism, etc.) is in this society. Your gut instinct was to hear the truth as an insult. Just like a Senator who heard "a double minority person knows more then a white male."

Very sad, perhaps. Yet also, simply very true.

Follow Charles H. Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/charleshgreen

Comments

[Clearbrook]

The NRA and Pro Life lobby will list those voting for her as a negative. This alone is not reason to be worried. The worrisome part is that she cannot make any controversial rulings right before the 2010 elections without ruining the abiltiy of congress to make any progress. Either she will be hamstrung, or congress will be. Worst case, she could make minority rulings with no real effect and still rip the guts out of congress.
You can say this is nothing, but Obama's popularity is falling at a record setting pace. You can poo poo this and ignore it, to our ultimate defeat. I am just hoping that I will not be able to tell you "I told you so" and I hope I am dumber than a rock. Actually, I feel that some (not all) of the people supporting Sotomayor *are* dumber than a rock. I just hope you all know who you are getting in bed with. I really don't want to hear anyone complain after supporting her that they got shafted by a "Wise Latino Woman"
;'{P~~~~

[Clearbrook]

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. 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 am sorry, but on the face of what she said, she clearly said she expects bias. This is an accusation against some of those already on the bench, and her way of saying "I will repay your evil with my evil" even though she obviously does not see it that way. But many will see just that. Not smart. Which leads me to question her wisdom.
That she will legislate from the bench, there is not any doubt. Even those who intend not to find that they do so to some small extent. However, she will likely do more to hurt minorities because her rulings are likely to elicit strong backlash based precisely upon her background. Any other judge, having not said this now infamous phrase, would likely be given more leeway. Every judgement she makes will forever be tainted by this awful statement. In short, she has made herself damaged goods, and a prime target to be shot at again and again.
(to be continued)

[Baycat57]

Why is it that Sarah Palin can promote being a 'hockey mom' (white anglo-saxon protestant), a pitbull with lipstick, as part of her decision-making because that experience helps inform her and Sotomayor is criticized for being unwise and racist because she stated that 'a wise Latina would make better decisions because of her life experiences than a white male'.

As far as I can determine, she is indeed Latina. She grew up poor, not middle-class, as part of a social group not necessarily always viewed positively by white anglo-saxon protestants. So that upbringing informed her in much the way that Sarah Palin's did or any white male, or female, in this case.

Why was bringing up Gov. Palin's husband's ethnicity (he is one eighth Yu'pik) during her campaign, but Sotomayor can't refer to her own (100%).

Why the double standard? Funny how that works.

[bpai]

At the very least, hopefully Obama will be constrained from nominating another Catholic to the Supreme Court should he have another chance.

Sotomayor's confirmation will install a Catholic supermajority. 66% of the Supreme Court (6 of the 9 Justices) will be Catholic, in a country where less than a quarter of the population is so.

If ethnic diversity is an asset to the Court, why is religious diversity less so? Someone's ethnic background may affect how that person views the world, but that person's religion absolutely does.

I was surprised that Sotomayor's religion was not an issue during her hearings. Given the Catholic Church's views on abortion, birth control, stem cell research, genetic modification, gay marriage, etc., why aren't more people concerned about Catholic over-representation on the US Supreme Court?

If Obama goes with another next time and that person get confirmed, 8 of 9 Justices will be Catholic (!).

[LeftRight]

And then there's those of us in the majority who TRY to not be ignorant, and yet something like this comes along and shows us how wrong we are....

For example, I wasn't disturbed by the headline at all, but I also didn't see where you were going until I read it.

And as for the feet on the dash..... I got that one TOTALLY wrong....

[HSmith]

3. The radical fringe wants everything about President Obama, from birth certificates to pre-school, from friends to religious associations, marriage, political appointments and opinions to revolve around race, so that the voices of common sense folks with common sense values and issues can be drowned out by fake controversies, chaos and political unrest. If we empower the president's voice on common sense issues within this country, we will mute the divide and conquer tactics of these racists fringe elements in our society that surely benefit from political unrest and racial strife in the United States. The president spoke out about an obvious injustice to one of the most respected scholars in the country. It is our responsibility as citizens to back the common sense approach and determination that the president came to, repeatedly and loudly. In this democracy our president is a reflection of who we are and what we represent as a society. If we fail to speak up and support this president’s common sense approach on issues of injustice and policy in this country, the president we elected will have no voice, and neither will we.

H. Smith

[HSmith]

2. But instead, this society debated and continues to debate whether Professor Gates should have been humiliated in such a manner by a professional police officer. President Obama is president of the United States, but he is also a member of a minority group of citizens in this country, and he has to navigate in ways someone who is not a member of a minority will never have to. As a member of a minority group, just as in the civil rights movement, President Obama's voice on injustice in this country, is and will only be as strong and as loud as the courage, strength and volume of the coalition of common folks who elected this president to office. Without common sense folks repeatedly speaking out loudly and confronting an obvious injustice, the president’s voice will be drowned out by the race baiting fringe groups, media and other institutions that know his voice is only as strong as yours.

[HSmith]

1. We Didn’t Just Fail To Support President Obama And Professor Gates; We Failed To Support The Common Sense Values We All Share As Americans.

The president of the United States made a straight forward common sense comment about the Gates’ arrest at a national press conference. I’m sure he assumed that there would be universal common sense understanding throughout the media and our society about the injustice of arresting a middle-aged man within his own home for being rude to a police officer. Sadly the media, law enforcement, political institutions and race baiting public in this society allowed this common sense evaluation to spiral out of control. The minority population in this country has always and will always need a coalition of proactive citizens with a similar sense of values in this society so injustices can be expressed without chaos, political unrest or violence. That has been the basis of every minority civil rights movement of our country. The president acknowledged an obvious injustice at a national press conference and expected common sense police officers, nurses , doctors , teachers, the media, politicians and everyday citizens to understand and support his outrage at the injustice and humiliation Professor Gates endured in his own home. Common sense values dictate that no one would want their dad or grandfather to be arrested in their own home for being rude to the police.