Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 443 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Fri 29 May 2009 14:14 Post subject: Sonia Sotomayor "racist" quote
Numerous commentators generally on the right-including Rush Limbaugh, Tom Tancredo, Newt Gingrich and Thomas Sowell to name a few-are calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist over this quote, from a speech given at UC-Berkely.
Quote:
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.
Isn't she saying that a White man probably wouldn't have a better take on being a Latina woman? That's how I took it and am therefore baffled about the response to it.
The key part is "that life." Which life is she referring to? To me it is that of a Latina woman.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 29 May 2009 15:57 Post subject:
Quote:
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.
Let's transpose that statement.
Quote:
I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic or "Black" female who hasn't lived that life.
This hypothetical statement, if spoken or written, would automatically disqualify the candidate, not just from the Supreme Court, but other occupations as well.
I know it, you know it. It is not so much that the statement is racist, it's the old double standard which I think some are complaining about.
Do I think the statement is racist, no in a sense I do not, I understand what she was trying to say. But had a non liberal white guy had said something similar as I have indicated, there would be extreme hell to pay.
This hypothetical statement, if spoken or written, would automatically disqualify the candidate, not just from the Supreme Court, but other occupations as well.
I know it, you know it. It is not so much that the statement is racist, it's the old double standard which I think some are complaining about.
Do I think the statement is racist, no in a sense I do not, I understand what she was trying to say. But had a non liberal white guy had said something similar as I have indicated, there would be extreme hell to pay.
What I don't like about this situation is that there is a reaction to address this "double standard" instead of trying to understand what she actually said. She didn't say "I think I make better decisions than a White man because I am Latina" she said "I think I have a better perspective on being a Latina than a White man does."
LOL if a White man actually said that, he'd indicate a level of consciousness about being a White man that most White men likely do not exhibit. I think if he was speaking about being a White man that people would not call him a racist. How is it racist to point out that you might have a better idea about what it is like to be of your ethnic group than an outsider?
Now: If Sotomayor and this hypothetical White guy are saying that they categorically make better decisions because they are Latina and Anglo respectively, both would be branded racists and both would have only themselves and their clumsy language to blame for it.
Does anyone have the transcript of the whole comment? It's likely out of context as quoted.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1828 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 29 May 2009 16:16 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Quote:
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.
Let's transpose that statement.
Quote:
I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic or "Black" female who hasn't lived that life.
This hypothetical statement, if spoken or written, would automatically disqualify the candidate, not just from the Supreme Court, but other occupations as well.
I know it, you know it. It is not so much that the statement is racist, it's the old double standard which I think some are complaining about.
Do I think the statement is racist, no in a sense I do not, I understand what she was trying to say. But had a non liberal white guy had said something similar as I have indicated, there would be extreme hell to pay.
If Latina Women had the historic power and influence of white males she would be disqualified too.
The reason you don't see equal outcry is because you are dealing with apples and oranges, most people understand that.
Judge Reynoso, thank you for that lovely introduction. I am humbled to be speaking behind a man who has contributed so much to the Hispanic community. I am also grateful to have such kind words said about me.
I am delighted to be here. It is nice to escape my hometown for just a little bit. It is also nice to say hello to old friends who are in the audience, to rekindle contact with old acquaintances and to make new friends among those of you in the audience. It is particularly heart warming to me to be attending a conference to which I was invited by a Latina law school friend, Rachel Moran, who is now an accomplished and widely respected legal scholar. I warn Latinos in this room: Latinas are making a lot of progress in the old-boy network.
I am also deeply honored to have been asked to deliver the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture. I am joining a remarkable group of prior speakers who have given this lecture. I hope what I speak about today continues to promote the legacy of that man whose commitment to public service and abiding dedication to promoting equality and justice for all people inspired this memorial lecture and the conference that will follow. I thank Judge Olmos' widow Mary Louise's family, her son and the judge's many friends for hosting me. And for the privilege you have bestowed on me in honoring the memory of a very special person. If I and the many people of this conference can accomplish a fraction of what Judge Olmos did in his short but extraordinary life we and our respective communities will be infinitely better.
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.
Who am I? I am a "Newyorkrican." For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.
Like many other immigrants to this great land, my parents came because of poverty and to attempt to find and secure a better life for themselves and the family that they hoped to have. They largely succeeded. For that, my brother and I are very grateful. The story of that success is what made me and what makes me the Latina that I am. The Latina side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions.
For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandules y pernil - rice, beans and pork - that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events. My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla, -- pig intestines, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo -- pigs' feet with beans, and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, pigs' tongue and ears. I bet the Mexican-Americans in this room are thinking that Puerto Ricans have unusual food tastes. Some of us, like me, do. Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy. It is the memory of Saturday afternoon at the movies with my aunt and cousins watching Cantinflas, who is not Puerto Rican, but who was an icon Spanish comedian on par with Abbot and Costello of my generation. My Latina soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother's house with my cousins and extended family. They were my friends as I grew up. Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night and us kids playing loteria, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers which we marked on our cards with chick peas.
Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina? Obviously not because each of our Carribean and Latin American communities has their own unique food and different traditions at the holidays. I only learned about tacos in college from my Mexican-American roommate. Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish. I happen to speak it fairly well. But my brother, only three years younger, like too many of us educated here, barely speaks it. Most of us born and bred here, speak it very poorly.
If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means. For example, I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication. You can tell that I have been very well educated. That antiseptic description however, does not really explain the appeal of morcilla - pig's intestine - to an American born child. It does not provide an adequate explanation of why individuals like us, many of whom are born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with those communities in which our parents were born and raised.
America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" -- a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity - is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puertorriqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.
I was born in the year 1954. That year was the fateful year in which Brown v. Board of Education was decided. When I was eight, in 1961, the first Latino, the wonderful Judge Reynaldo Garza, was appointed to the federal bench, an event we are celebrating at this conference. When I finished law school in 1979, there were no women judges on the Supreme Court or on the highest court of my home state, New York. There was then only one Afro-American Supreme Court Justice and then and now no Latino or Latina justices on our highest court. Now in the last twenty plus years of my professional life, I have seen a quantum leap in the representation of women and Latinos in the legal profession and particularly in the judiciary. In addition to the appointment of the first female United States Attorney General, Janet Reno, we have seen the appointment of two female justices to the Supreme Court and two female justices to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of my home state. One of those judges is the Chief Judge and the other is a Puerto Riqueña, like I am. As of today, women sit on the highest courts of almost all of the states and of the territories, including Puerto Rico. One Supreme Court, that of Minnesota, had a majority of women justices for a period of time.
As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.
Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed. Similarly, between Justice Kaye's initial appointment as an Associate Judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983, and Justice Ciparick's appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed. Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court. In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still two out of 13 circuit courts and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat. At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts. The First, Fifth, Eighth and Federal Circuits each have only one female judge, however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges. There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all. For women of color the statistics are more sobering. As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women. African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%. No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.
Sort of shocking, isn't it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities. I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history. These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.
This weekend's conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.
For those of you interested in the gender perspective on this issue, I commend to you a wonderful compilation of articles published on the subject in Vol. 77 of the Judicature, the Journal of the American Judicature Society of November-December 1993. It is on Westlaw/Lexis and I assume the students and academics in this room can find it.
Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor -- I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area - Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.
That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
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.
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. 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.
I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.
I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you.
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. 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.
She's simply being honest about her perspective influencing her decisions. She's not saying that Whites and men cannot be fair to "people of color" and women; she's not saying that tokenism will bring about fairness/justice, but she is saying that diversity matters. What the hell is racist about that??? Give me a break.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 29 May 2009 16:31 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
If Latina Women had the historic power and influence of white males she would be disqualified too.
The reason you don't see equal outcry is because you are dealing with apples and oranges, most people understand that.
Precisely the response I had expected.
This is along the lines of, "Blacks or Hispanics cannot be racist, because they do not have the power and influence that whites have historically had" I am not saying you said this, but it is simlilar.
Apples and oranges?? So she should be able to say anything she wants with out any repercusions?? Or any so called "minority" for that matter. It's not only "racial", it's also ideological. It's ok for Chris Dodd to praise a former Klan leader who is in the Senate (Robert Byrd), but Trent Lott had to resign his Majority Leader seat because he praised Strom Thurmond. Media acted like sharks over that. Who was worse, former Klan leader Byrd ("...I've known a lot of white niggers..." to put whites he doesn't like on the same level with Blacks), or Thurmond who had a mixed race daughter whom he finacially supported for at least some of her life.
You cannot have equality with more than one separate sets of standards. If it ain't good for X to say it, then it ain't good for Y to say it either. If we except this, then we will have "do as I say, not as I do" become prevalent.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 443 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Fri 29 May 2009 17:07 Post subject:
Quote:
Isn't she saying that a White man probably wouldn't have a better take on being a Latina woman?
I think more or less that is what she is saying. With the following text, I read her statement to express that she would hope that a "wise Latina woman" would reach a better decision on cases involving race and sex discrimination than would a white male. I base this on her reference to the two highly revered "white male" justices and her noting that they upheld both sex and race discrimination.
Quote:
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. 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.
I think she is saying is that she hopes someone who has had first hand experience with sex and race discrimination would reach a better decision in sex and race discrimination cases than someone who hasn't.
So she seems to be saying that she hopes first hand experience with a topic would lead a justice to make better decision with respect to that topic.
Personally, I find that this is not always true. To the extent that one has had experience with only one side of an adversarial phenomenon, one may tend to be biased in favor of that side. Put another way, when faced with a discrimination case, she may be equally biased by her own experiences as a white male would be by his, perhaps in the opposite direction.
However, the following quote makes me think that she is aware of this.
Quote:
I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1828 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 29 May 2009 17:23 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
If Latina Women had the historic power and influence of white males she would be disqualified too.
The reason you don't see equal outcry is because you are dealing with apples and oranges, most people understand that.
Precisely the response I had expected.
This is along the lines of, "Blacks or Hispanics cannot be racist, because they do not have the power and influence that whites have historically had" I am not saying you said this, but it is simlilar.
Apples and oranges?? So she should be able to say anything she wants with out any repercusions?? Or any so called "minority" for that matter. It's not only "racial", it's also ideological. It's ok for Chris Dodd to praise a former Klan leader who is in the Senate (Robert Byrd), but Trent Lott had to resign his Majority Leader seat because he praised Strom Thurmond. Media acted like sharks over that. Who was worse, former Klan leader Byrd ("...I've known a lot of white niggers..." to put whites he doesn't like on the same level with Blacks), or Thurmond who had a mixed race daughter whom he finacially supported for at least some of her life.
You cannot have equality with more than one separate sets of standards. If it ain't good for X to say it, then it ain't good for Y to say it either. If we except this, then we will have "do as I say, not as I do" become prevalent.
No, I believe blacks and Hispanics can be racist.
BUt I also believe their ability to express their racism, short of physical violence, in most situations, that can change the life of a white person is very limited in 2009.
WHite people know this too. Hence the reason why Cris Rock can call whites "stiff walking cracka" and whites laugh at his shows but a black will never laugh at a white comedian calling them "dumb niggas".
This is reality. You can accept it or not but it does not change the dynamic that most people realize intuitively.
If whites were like Jews in Germany before WWII, a minority that is historically hated by blacks who control almost all avenues of government and big business, you better believe they would not be laughing at Cris Rock.
Chris Dodd?
Robert Byrd is a "former" Klan member. Key word on "former". HE has renounced the Klan and did things to help minorities and even supported Obama for president.
Strom Thurmond was pulling the race card up until his last election and did not apologize for doing so despite his half black daughter.
if you don't see a moral difference in a man who is repentant for past actions and praising a man who has not repeated, as his actions have showed...well I can't help you.
"You cannot have equality with more than one separate sets of standards. If it ain't good for X to say it, then it ain't good for Y to say it either. "
When have we ever had equality? That is a goal, that is not the reality, and it never will be. Even if we did not have racial bias, it would be class, it would be foreign vs native born, etc.
There is no society on earth where everyone is treated perfectly equal and likely never will be.
It is one thing to admit that and another not to aspire to it. It is like a Christian recognizing sin as common but still trying their best not to (although they know they will). Even Martin Luther King (despite Sean Hannity quoting him out of context along with other conservatives) did not believe that. He was 100% for affirmative action and he supported some form of reparations. Hannity never mentions that when he says "judge a man, not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character".
King knew to get to that point there has to be some things done first that would show obvious bias and favoritism, to balance the previous centuries of it going the other way.
Personally, I find that this is not always true. To the extent that one has had experience with only one side of an adversarial phenomenon, one may tend to be biased in favor of that side. Put another way, when faced with a discrimination case, she may be equally biased by her own experiences as a white male would be by his, perhaps in the opposite direction.
I agree to a large extent, and would add that the ability and willingness to bracket one's biases and examine how they may (or may not) be influencing a decision are competencies that make the idea of justice for all a real possibility. There are countless examples of White people and men who "shouldn't get it" but absolutely do, and countless examples of "people of color" and women who "should get it" but absolutely don't. The "it" is simply a recognition that discrimination based on "race" and gender exists and contributes to the systematic inequality of opportunity experienced by non-Whites and women from all backgrounds.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 29 May 2009 19:20 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
BUt I also believe their ability to express their racism, short of physical violence, in most situations, that can change the life of a white person is very limited in 2009.
WHite people know this too. Hence the reason why Cris Rock can call whites "stiff walking cracka" and whites laugh at his shows but a black will never laugh at a white comedian calling them "dumb niggas".
This is reality. You can accept it or not but it does not change the dynamic that most people realize intuitively.
Some people are arguing that what Chris Rock does is wrong no matter what. Whether it is him calling whites "stiff walking cracka" or blacks "niggas".
Dragon Horse wrote:
Chris Dodd?
Robert Byrd is a "former" Klan member. Key word on "former". HE has renounced the Klan and did things to help minorities and even supported Obama for president.
Please. You know as well as I do if Byrd was a Republican, he would not have received the pass that he gets from the media and Civil Rights groups. Byrd did not vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as did not Thurmond. Byrd fillibustered the bill for 14 hours. Byrd is the only Senator to have voted against the nominations of both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court, the only two Blacks to have been nominated to the court. Thurmond was an enthusiastic supporter of Thomas (not from an article, but I witnessed this during the confirmation proceedings). The differences between the two are that Byrd stayed a Democrat while Thurmond became a Republican, and Thurmond was never a member of the Ku Klux Klan. I don't care about the key word "former", because there exists a double standard.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Strom Thurmond was pulling the race card up until his last election and did not apologize for doing so despite his half black daughter.
if you don't see a moral difference in a man who is repentant for past actions and praising a man who has not repeated, as his actions have showed...well I can't help you.
While Strom Thurmond did not fully renounce his segregationist past, he supported an extension of the Voting Rights Act and supported the ML King holiday. When was it, 2003, when Byrd was on one of the Sunday news shows when he said, "...I've known a lot of white niggers..if you want to use that word...." One can deduce what he meant by that was that there were low class whites that he puts in the same category in the way he feels about blacks. I don't know this for sure, but it sounded that way to me.
Quote:
"You cannot have equality with more than one separate sets of standards. If it ain't good for X to say it, then it ain't good for Y to say it either. "
Dragon Horse wrote:
When have we ever had equality? That is a goal, that is not the reality, and it never will be. Even if we did not have racial bias, it would be class, it would be foreign vs native born, etc.
There is no society on earth where everyone is treated perfectly equal and likely never will be.
You're absolutely correct. I never implied that we can attain perfect equality, that is not possible, and I am not naive. That said, does it make sense to have set of standards for one and another set for someone else? If Jeff Foxworthy can't say "nigga"in his routine, then Chris Rock shouldn't either, but I do understand the difference between the two. And I think both are funny.
Dragon Horse wrote:
It is one thing to admit that and another not to aspire to it. It is like a Christian recognizing sin as common but still trying their best not to (although they know they will). Even Martin Luther King (despite Sean Hannity quoting him out of context along with other conservatives) did not believe that. He was 100% for affirmative action and he supported some form of reparations. Hannity never mentions that when he says "judge a man, not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character".
King would not be a political conservative, even today. But I understand what Hannity is trying to project. I can say for myself personally, I personify "judge a man, not by the colour of his skin, but by the content of his character". 20-25-30 years ago, I never would have envisioned voting against someone like Obama. I judged him by the content of his character and vehemently opposed him. It seems though many "Blacks" do not live by that premise. They will demonize those who admitedly did not support Obama, those whom are "minorities", people looked on as "Black" in particular. I told many family members, why should I vote for someone whom I disagree with almost 100% of the time because of the colour of his skin??? Is that not contrary to what was being fought for 45-50 years ago? I told those same people, I wouldn't expect them to vote for Alan Keyes because the colour of his skin. Therein lies the difference.... As such, the media is gaga over Sotomayor, but gave Gonzales a hard time.
Do I think the statement is racist, no in a sense I do not, I understand what she was trying to say. But had a non liberal white guy had said something similar as I have indicated, there would be extreme hell to pay.
I agree with D. There is a double standard.
It might not be correct to term anything she said as racist. Most people with confidence will think that there is something about their "richness of experience" that makes them specially wise, whatever that experience may be. But it would be considered inappropriate in mainstream America to racialize qualifications in favor of "whiteness." And, while many self-identifying "whites" might buy into the idea that it is an entirely different phenomenon when other groups do it, I expect that most don't. Even if they are not so openly vocal about it these days.
I think that the same applies for comedians and other such figures. Most public figures who are seen as "white" won't use the N word in the way that Chris Rock does, let alone even publicly voice their opinion about Chris Rock doing so, for fear of being publicly branded as racists. But beneath public appearances I suspect that there are two main "white" perspectives on this- one that is generally anti-racist and truly thinks it vulgar and disgraceful to use the word (whether used by a "white" or a "black") and the other being that of full fledged racist "whites" who are using the term amongst themselves or in their own heads as a deliberate form of derision. I have a hard time believing that many persons who identify as "white" genuinely think it is just fine for Chris Rock to use the N word while not being OK for "whites" to do so.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1828 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sat 30 May 2009 15:41 Post subject:
Dchapman:
Personally I do not find Cris Rock that funny...especially when he is racially stereotyping. If he is describing a scene with low class blacks and refers to them as "niggas", I can understand that he is talking about "low class blacks" and he has explained that he is, as opposed to talking about "blacks". Referring to poor people in racial terms this way, is problematic for a lot of reasons, due to our history, and that fact class discrimination can be just as bad as racial discrimination...I have mixed feelings about such comedy routines. I would not pay my money to take my wife to a Cris Rock show where I have to be subjected to the N-word used 100 times, etc. My father would not either, but some folks in my family (and some of my associates) would have no issue.
I do agree that if Byrd was a Republican he likely would not have received the benefit of the doubt. I think for many the Republican party is seen as:
Warmongers
Greedy/self centered
Elitist (as in rich country club business elite, not Hollywood or College)
Christian fanatic
Angry low class white male (non-union, more rural)
I'm not saying this is accurate, but you know, as well as I do, a significant amount of population believes this, especially urban elite white liberals and a large portion of minorities (of all races), especially those in urban areas or the South.
Hell in many areas of the South, white and black alike believe the Republican party is "the white party" and "democratic party" is the "black party". As I pointed out before in a thread, the more blacks in a state the more whites vote Republican, in the South. This is not coincidence.
So Bryd having been seen as one of these "angry low class white racists" staying a Democrat after the Dixicrat shift and a moderate liberal, by many is seen as a a shift in ideology. Reality is it was easy for him to do so in West Virginia due to the union presence. Obama lost West Virginia heavily despite the state being controlled by Dems.
Reality is there are plenty of racist democrats. It is not like unions welcomed blacks and Hispanics with open arms in the early 1970's. It is not like some of these same folks did not express racial attitudes that led them to vote for Hillary over Obama, although their leadership was firmly behind Obama, for the most part.
This is not fair, I admit.
Byrd voting against Clarence Thomas would not be seen as racist by the vast majority of blacks, because the vast majority of blacks don't like Clarence Thomas. Most blacks sites on the web have many who refer to him as "Uncle Thom-ass" etc. So Byrds vote was inline with the majority of black America. Obviously, the Marshall vote was not, but that was before his apparent "evolution".
As far as Byrd saying he knew "white niggers". Well, the term "wigga" is common in the white and black community, so what he said was not exactly way outside the mainstream.
The problem is, are these people saying "these whites act like low class blacks" or "these whites act like all blacks". Or "'nigger' is a term to describe a selfish nasty person who can be of any race".
Obviously, due to American history, "nigger" is synonymous with "black" which is why blacks don't like it to be used at all, at least by non-blacks.
I'm not sure what Byrd meant, but with his history and being a white male , I would not have used this language at all. I'm not defending him, but I can't say he is still a "racist" based on this.
I do agree if a Republican had said that, any white Republican (male or female) they might have had to step down or at least go meet with Sharpton or Jackson.
As far as the last part of your post, concerning people voting for who they wish and not based on identity politics. As you said it is not just about "race" but "race+ideology". One ideology is seen by many as "white identity politics" or at least not in the interest of "minorities" (specially blacks and Hispanics). Being that most people rarely think independently on issues like this, they do not understand why you are not doing what "you are supposed to" vote for the pro-black party, and if it is a "minority", especially a "black" well even better. What's your problem bro? haha Obviously I don't think this way, but you are right in that most black folks do.
The question really is are they wrong? What I mean is that voting base don identity politics does not automatically mean that people are not voting in their best interest. In that situation, if their is power in numbers, then is it not rational to enforce some type of group conformity if the average black can benefit (even if a minority can not) based on this zero-sum belief?
This argument has been raging on various black blogs for a very long time. Most liberal blacks seem to think that it is better to have group conformity to benefit the majority of blacks then to have people act in a politically independent way and they have no problem trying to enforce this belief. The biggest problem with blacks is that we have the highest income inequality of any group. So what benefits poor blacks may not benefit middle class or wealthy blacks and vice versa.
Most liberal blacks I know seem to think that because poor blacks need the most help that other classes of blacks (who are now the majority) should sacrifice whatever to support the poor and "leaving them behind" is "selling out".
I don't agree with this either, but if you go to "Fiend Negro" or "Black Prof" you will see this attitude commonly espoused and those who reject it being shouted down as "sellouts" or "ignorant to institutional racism, the benefits of groupism, blah blah blah". Then again since blacks have always been judged by their lowest common denominator, the minority of their community and not the majority or the best (as every other community is) it makes sense to focus on poor folk socially and politically.
I came very close to now voting for Obama myself. I was very supportive of him over Hillary, but when it came down to him and McCain I think I became very sober about the realities of either man as president. I think that McCain's erratic behavior at the end and the fact he picked Palin as VP, eliminated any doubts in my mind that I was voting for Obama and I also begin to activity promote Obama to moderate friends who were undecided. AL though I don't always agree with him, especially on foreign policy, over bankruptcy for the auto industry (which is happening anyway)... I will say I disagree with him 25-30% of the time, but then again, since I don't have an ideology other than pragmatism, I don't agree with most politicians a lot of the time.
I voted for George W the first time (not the second), which made me unpopular with some white folks and most blacks in my age group at the time, so I know were you are coming from. My father also voted for Bush, the first time (he is career military).
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 01 Jun 2009 17:18 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I came very close to now voting for Obama myself. I was very supportive of him over Hillary, but when it came down to him and McCain I think I became very sober about the realities of either man as president. I think that McCain's erratic behavior at the end and the fact he picked Palin as VP, eliminated any doubts in my mind that I was voting for Obama and I also begin to activity promote Obama to moderate friends who were undecided. AL though I don't always agree with him, especially on foreign policy, over bankruptcy for the auto industry (which is happening anyway)... I will say I disagree with him 25-30% of the time, but then again, since I don't have an ideology other than pragmatism, I don't agree with most politicians a lot of the time.
McCain ran a horrible campaign. I do not think Palin is as stupid as she is portrayed. I do think she energized the campaign. That said, I think adding her to the ticket was a costly mistake. I do like her, but I do not see her as Presidential material, at least at this point. I think a lot of people came to the same conclusion. Again, we're back to the old double standard, had she been a Democrat, she would have been treated differently, IMO. Then again, I have to agree with Bill Clinton in that the media treated his wife differently than Obama.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I voted for George W the first time (not the second), which made me unpopular with some white folks and most blacks in my age group at the time, so I know were you are coming from. My father also voted for Bush, the first time (he is career military).
I did not vote for GW the first time. I thought he was an idiot who was a product of "reverse" affirmative action in that the only reason he was there was because of who he came from, not because of what he did. I voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000. If he wasn't on the ballot, it would've been Nadar.
I think Obama is on a High Horse right now. The only problem with that is, WHEN he falls, he has that much further to fall. I do not see him as humble, but very arrogant.
I saw Steve Harvey on BET the other night in a routine last summer 2008. In it, he admitted that he would vote for Obama because he was "Black", and was roundly applauded. IMO, Obama could be a murderer, any type of criminal, and these types of people would still support him. They would say, "the White man don't like it when a 'Black' man has too much power...." and that would be the rallying cry. This is wrong.
It looks like his selection will not encounter much opposition.
[. IMO, Obama could be a murderer, any type of criminal, and these types of people would still support him. They would say, "the White man don't like it when a 'Black' man has too much power...." and that would be the rallying cry. This is wrong.
It looks like his selection will not encounter much opposition.
Well Al Sharpton ran and lost the DEMOCRATIC primaries in South Carolina. Clearly the majority of blacks didnt vote for him as they account for a large chunk of those voters. It is also clear that JFK got many Irish votes out of ethnic pride. Is it unusual for historically mraginalized groups not to celebrate when their first credible candidate wins? In NYC there was black pride in David Dinkins in 1989. I have yet to hear similar ethnic responses for Bill Thompson from the black community at large. Even though he will most likely be the Democratic candidate and therefore is clearly credible. Enough for Bloomberg to bombard us with 2-3 mailings a week! Glossies at that!
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 03 Jun 2009 20:27 Post subject:
caribj wrote:
Well Al Sharpton ran and lost the DEMOCRATIC primaries in South Carolina. Clearly the majority of blacks didnt vote for him as they account for a large chunk of those voters. It is also clear that JFK got many Irish votes out of ethnic pride. Is it unusual for historically mraginalized groups not to celebrate when their first credible candidate wins? In NYC there was black pride in David Dinkins in 1989. I have yet to hear similar ethnic responses for Bill Thompson from the black community at large. Even though he will most likely be the Democratic candidate and therefore is clearly credible. Enough for Bloomberg to bombard us with 2-3 mailings a week! Glossies at that!
Would Alan Keyes have generated such "Black" support and pride? Recall that early on in the primaries last year, Hillary had more "Black" support than did Obama.
Interesting you bring up Dinkins, who was a well intentioned, but otherwise inept mayor. "Blacks" still supported him in '93, but there clearly was a racial aspect in that election, in which Irish and Italians supported Guiliani. The Jews did in '93 which was key in throwing the election to Rudy.
However inept Obama may turn out to be, "Blacks" will still support him, that was my point.
[Would Alan Keyes have generated such "Black" support and pride? However inept Obama may turn out to be, "Blacks" will still support him, that was my point.
Why would blacks be proud of Keyes I wonder? The voters of Illinois spoke. They voted for Obama. Blacks, whites, Hispanics. Liberals, moderates and maybe even some conservatives.
Should blacks support a candidate merely because he is black even if they do not agree with his views? Aside from abortion and gay rights I do not think that Keyes is in line with how most blacks think.
I suspect strongly that if Obama doesnt succeed he will not have majority black support. You do recall that not too long before the primaries Hillary enjoyed more black support than Obama.
Let us look at Guiliani. A mere few days before the 1993 election he was associated with a cop riot (not saying he was to blame but he certainly didnt try to cool tempers) when he called Dinkins a bathroom attendant. This to the sounds of screaming cops who staged a rally that might not even have been legally sanctioned and certainly tied up a busy part of the city during the middle of the day. More than a few cops allegedly uttered racial epithets and a then NYC Council person Una Clarke was even cornered and harrassed by some of them and was quite frightened after that experience. She reported a few racial and ethnic epithets thrown her way too (she is aproud Jamaican). Dont you think that this might have swayed some black voters who might have sat out the election?
DChapman you know full well that most blacks vote Democratic unless they feel that the Republican is quite liberal, as is the case with Bloomberg. In fact in the last mayoral primaries a Puerto Rican candidate won more black votes than did Virginia Fields, ablack woman. ANd in the general elections Bloomberg got maybe more black votes than Ferrer, even though the latter is a Democract and Bloomberg ran on the GOP ticket.
The GOP has an image problem with blacks and surely their practise of waving the race card and negatively profiling blacks, done especially by Ronal Reagan, has not helped them. True this practise is hardly used these days but people remember the Willie Horton ads and other similar behavior. We also note that the segregationists seem to have found a welcome home in the Republican party, even though most were Democracts before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
However as Bloomberg has shown when the GOP wants the black vote they can get a big chunk of it. Maybe even if the opposing candidate is black. As I said I havent heard any ground swell of support for Bill Thompson this year and quite a few prominent blacks have already endorsed Bloomberg.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 03 Jun 2009 21:04 Post subject:
caribj wrote:
DChapman wrote:
[Would Alan Keyes have generated such "Black" support and pride? However inept Obama may turn out to be, "Blacks" will still support him, that was my point.
Why would we be proud of Keyes I wonder? The voters of Illinois spoke. They voted for Obama. Blacks, whites, Hispanics. Liberals, moderates and maybe even some conservatives.
Should blacks support a candidtate merely because he is black even if they do not agree with his views? Aside from abortion and gay rights I do not think that Keyes is in line with how most blacks think.
I suspect strongly that if Obama doesnt succeed he will not have majority black support. You do recall that not too long before the primaries Hillary enjoyed more black support than Obama.
Yes I do recall. That was before Obama was viewed as a legitimate "Black" candidate. Since now he is perceived as a legitimate "Black", the majority of those who view him that way will support him no matter what, I believe.
Interesting question, about "Blacks" supporting a candidate merely because they are "Black", and I have an answer for you. Just ask those who are perceived as "Black" who did not support Obama because their views are out of scope with his.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
