…of Judge Sotomayor:
A disinterested observer would conclude that Justice Sotomayor is race-obsessed. In her now much quoted 2001 UC Berkeley speech she invoked “Latina/Latino” no less than 38 times, in addition to a variety of other racial-identifying synonyms. When one reads the speech over, the obsession with race become almost overwhelming, and I think the public has legitimate worries (more than the Obama threshold of 5% of cases) over whether a judge so cognizant of race could be race-blind in her decision making.
I would not wish to be a member of what she termed in the speech the “old-boy network” in a case in her chambers pitted against a self-identified “Latina.” Indeed, if one were to substitute the word “white” for “Latina” in the speech, it would be rightly derided as a classical display of racialist chauvinism.
One of the many and enduring lies of the Obama campaign was that it was going to usher in a post-racial America.
[Update a few minutes later]
A relevant passage from the book about this kind of stuff:
You might say it’s outrageous to compare the current liberal program to help minorities with the poisonous ideology of fascism and Nazism. And I would agree if we were talking about things like the Holocaust or even Kristallnacht. But at the philosophical level, we are talking about categorical ways of thinking. To forgive something by saying “it’s a black thing” is philosophically no different from saying “it’s an Aryan thing.” The moral context matters a great deal. But the excuse is identical. Similarly, rejecting the Enlightenment for “good” reasons is still a rejection of the Enlightenment. And any instrumental or pragmatic gains you get from rejecting the Enlightenment still amount to taking a sledgehammer to the soapbox you’re standing on. Without the standards of the Enlightenment, we are in a Nietzschean world where power decides important questions rather than reason. This is exactly how the left appears to want it. One last point about diversity. Because liberals have what Thomas Sowell calls an “unconstrained vision,” they assume everyone sees things through the same categorical prism. So once again, as with the left’s invention of social Darwinism, liberals assume their ideological opposites take the “bad” view to their good. If liberals assume blacks—or women, or gays—are inherently good, conservatives must think these same groups are inherently bad.
This is not to say that there are no racist conservatives. But at the philosophical level, liberalism is battling a straw man. This is why liberals must constantly assert that conservatives use code words— because there’s nothing obviously racist about conservatism per se. Indeed, the constant manipulation of the language to keep conservatives—and other non-liberals—on the defensive is a necessary tactic for liberal politics. The Washington, D.C., bureaucrat who was fired for using the word “niggardly” correctly in a sentence is a case in point. The ground must be constantly shifted to maintain a climate of grievance. Fascists famously ruled by terror. Political correctness isn’t literally terroristic, but it does govern through fear. No serious person can deny that the grievance politics of the American left keeps decent people in a constant state of fright—they are afraid to say the wrong word, utter the wrong thought, offend the wrong constituency. If we maintain our understanding of political conservatism as the heir of classical liberal individualism, it is almost impossible for a fair-minded person to call it racist. And yet, according to liberals, race neutrality is itself racist. It harkens back to the “social Darwinism” of the past, we are told, because it relegates minorities to a savage struggle for the survival of the fittest.
The notion that it is “racist” to oppose quotas is a perfect example of this kind of doublethink.
[Tuesday morning update]
She’s not a racist, she’s a racialist. I agree that she shouldn’t be “borked,” but she has to be soberly questioned on this sort of thing. Republicans probably can’t stop the appointment, but they can make it very unpopular, and something that people will remember in the voting booth a year and a half from now.
I think the public has legitimate worries (more than the Obama threshold of 5% of cases) over whether a judge so cognizant of race could be race-blind in her decision making.
Without conceding for a second that Sotomayor hasn’t been or wouldn’t be race-blind, I have to ask, so what? Presumably if she favored any race/culture it would be Hispanics. There’s a big difference between white supremacy, with its trail of millions of victims, and discrimination against disadvantaged Americans even in the present day; and Hispanic supremacy, which has no history here at all. Only one of these two things is a real threat to the country.
One of the many and enduring lies of the Obama campaign was that it was going to usher in a post-racial America.
I think that a lot of Obama supporters hoped that his election would be a step in that direction. But I challenge you to find any statement by the candidate or campaign that made such a promise.
Only one of these two things is a real threat to the country.
I don’t even agree with that, but even if La Raza is not a threat to the county both absolutely are threats to the rule of law and are manifest injustice. If you care about “your side” winning then maybe it works for you (as long as “your side” is in power), but if you care about living in a nation ruled by laws rather than man, where all people are equal before the law, than “race blindness” is absolutely required.
There’s a big difference between white supremacy, with its trail of millions of victims, and discrimination against disadvantaged Americans even in the present day; and Hispanic supremacy, which has no history here at all. Only one of these two things is a real threat to the country.
One problem is that black supremacy, Hispanic supremacy and all other supremacist positions reinforce, enable and justify white supremacy. So if you are against white supremacy that you should be against all supremacist positions.
Yours,
Tom
I challenge you to find any statement by the candidate or campaign that made such a promise.
They didn’t have to. They had their lapdog media to do it for them.
I think you need to be careful labeling Sotomayor a racist just because she mentioned “Latino/Latina” 38 times in a speech to a group that invited her to discuss her experience as a Latina woman in the judiciary. That was the topic of her speech! I also doubt she is a racist in the usual sense of the term (considering other racial groups inferior to her own). But she is definitely in thrall to a concept of identity politics that believes justice can only be achieved by enforcing an exact racial proportionality on the bench. And this is, as Brock so eloquently states, is anathema “if you care about living in a nation ruled by laws rather than man, where all people are equal before the law”.
I think you need to be careful labeling Sotomayor a racist just because she mentioned “Latino/Latina” 38 times in a speech to a group that invited her to discuss her experience as a Latina woman in the judiciary.
I’m not labeling her a racist, but rather a racialist, and there’s a lot more evidence for it than in that one speech.
This may be hair-splitting, and Mr. Simberg is more than capable of defending himself, and I am certainly not trying to put words into his mouth, but at no point did he say she is a racist. He drew attention to a world-view that appears to present itself in ways that emphasize race over other considerations and which appears to assign inherent qualities to particular racial groups in a manner that is unacceptable in contemporary discourse if the speaker / writer is white. At a minimum there seems to be sufficient reason to suspect that Sotomayer has strong prejudices that shape the way she expresses herself and which should be a concern when determining whether or not she should be elevated to the Supreme Court.
Clearly I was a touch too slow typing. Mr. Simberg states my point, and more succintly than I managed.
There’s a big difference between white supremacy, with its trail of millions of victims, and discrimination against disadvantaged Americans even in the present day; and Hispanic supremacy, which has no history here at all.
The Mayans and Aztecs don’t agree, but I guess there are none left to complain. Viva La Raza.
I’m not labeling her a racist, but rather a racialist
Fair enough. Neither you nor the NRO author used the word racist. I stand corrected on that point, although I’m not sure what you mean by racialist as distinct from racist. Perhaps the distinction is that the former emphasizes racial differences without labeling one race inferior to another? If so, then I share your assessment of Judge Sotomayor.
Regardless of the term used, the NRO author did make a big deal about 38 references in one speech. I reiterate that I think it unfair to focus criticism on that one narrow point, which he did. You can engage in identity politics without being a racist and that is the criticism I intended to raise. Perhaps we are in violent disagreement here?
Perhaps we are in violent disagreement here?
I meant to say, “Perhaps we are in violent agreement here?”
Minor nit: Mayans and Aztecs weren’t Hispanic.
OTOH, on can observe the cultural practices of the Spanish Empire in the New World, and its cultural descendants throught Central and South America, and observe that being a Latina or a Latino confers no special wisdom about human beings… and maybe is detrimental to earning such wisdom.
Jim may be competing with Daveon for most value-subtracting commenter (leaving me utterly out of the running, dammit).
Jim, can you possibly honestly believe that discrimination on racial grounds can ever be justified in a nation founded on equality before the law?
Can you possibly honestly not see the fundamental problem with such a notion?
Can you possibly honestly not see the fundamental problem with such a notion?
Of course not. “Jim” is a “progressive.” The white man is the Jew of liberal fascism.
OTOH, on can observe the cultural practices of the Spanish Empire in the New World, and its cultural descendants throught Central and South America, and observe that being a Latina or a Latino confers no special wisdom about human beings… and maybe is detrimental to earning such wisdom.
One of the great tragedies of history is that much of the New World is the political progeny of the last Western European nations to democratize.
Jim, can you possibly honestly believe that discrimination on racial grounds can ever be justified in a nation founded on equality before the law?
Can you honestly write “in a nation founded on equality before the law” with a straight face?
I think that McGehee’s comment gets to the crux of the issue. In the (stereotyped) white mind we are and always have been a country based on equality before the law. So any hint of preference for a non-white race upsets a precious and eternal balance. We are not only the beneficiaries of centuries of white supremacy, we have also developed a tremendous amnesia about it. We don’t notice white privilege any more than a fish notices water — we’ve lived our whole lives surrounded by it.
But if we try to remember, we discover that the National Review — the publication getting the vapors about Judge Sotomayor’s “racial obsession” — for decades supported a murderous system of white racial domination. If we are in 2009 anywhere close to being a country based “on equality before the law,” it is because we did not listen to the National Review.
Sen. Sessions (R-AL), ranking Republican on the committee considering Ms. Sotomayor’s appointment is part and parcel of the system of white supremacy that we are trying to leave behind. The fact that Ms. Sotomayor’s comments concern the National Review and Rand more than Sen. Session’s presence in the Senate says all you need to know about how interested they are in equality before the law.
One of the great tragedies of history is that much of the New World is the political progeny of the last Western European nations to democratize.
Because Native Americans and African slaves fared so much better under the oldest European democracies?
I think there are other tragedies a bit higher on the list.
So Jim — what you’re saying is, because America didn’t live up to its highest ideals from day one, we should throw them all out the window.
Well, excuse my country all to hell for being born as all institutions are, through compromise and deals with the devil. How unfortunate for the aspirations of all mankind that Washington and Jefferson, et al, weren’t perfect like you.
Fuckhead.
Of course not. “Jim” is a “progressive.” The white man is the Jew of liberal fascism.
Yes, my people have suffered mightily from all the centuries of anti-white pogroms by the dominant religious/cultural/economic/military powers of history. Oh wait…
Because Native Americans and African slaves fared so much better under the oldest European democracies?
I don’t know what you mean by that. For instance, are you making any distinction whatsoever between Anglosphere and other “democracies”? Also, are you completely ignoring (as many “Afirican-Americans” do), the fact that they were sold into slavery by Muslims?
Yes, my people have suffered mightily from all the centuries of anti-white pogroms by the dominant religious/cultural/economic/military powers of history.
I guess you haven’t been paying much attention to what’s been going on at the universities lately…
In the (stereotyped) white mind we are and always have been a country based on equality before the law. So any hint of preference for a non-white race upsets a precious and eternal balance. We are not only the beneficiaries of centuries of white supremacy, we have also developed a tremendous amnesia about it. We don’t notice white privilege any more than a fish notices water — we’ve lived our whole lives surrounded by it.
I just don’t believe that there are any whites or any conservatives who believe anything close to what Jim claims we do. White privilege is certainly a historical fact. A rather dramatic, noticeable fact. Yet whites have been fighting to remove that privilege, including conservative whites. Also a rather dramatic, noticeable fact.
Yours,
Tom
Because Native Americans and African slaves fared so much better under the oldest European democracies?
Well, Great Britain *was* the first nation in the world to abolish slavery…
The Old World conquest of the New World was inevitable. Primitives can’t hold off the technologically advanced in the long run, except in War of the Worlds. (Wells never did write the sequel where the Martians invent vaccines.)
Some conquerors are worse than others, and Latin America happened to be taken by Western Europe’s worst. Political liberty breeds where the people are relatively safe and enjoy free trade with foreigners. Britain enjoys a very large moat, and the major coastal cities of North Europe from the Low Countries to the Vikingsphere were cosmopolitan trade hubs; these settings bred more individual freedom and more decentralization of power than, say, France or Russia.
Or Iberia, the scene of eight centuries of warfare with Islamic invaders. That’s not an environment that breeds a Magna Carta – it breeds an Inquisition – which was in full effect when Cristóbal Colón. was stumbling across Caribbean beach resorts.
I don’t know what you mean by that.
I was responding to the idea that it was a “great tragedy” that so much of the New World was colonized by countries that came late to democracy (Spain, Portugal) rather than ones that adopted representative government relatively early (England). But regardless of the European country involved, Native Americans were driven to near-extinction, and millions of Africans were enslaved. I think that stands as the greater historical tragedy.
Also, are you completely ignoring (as many “Afirican-Americans” do), the fact that they were sold into slavery by Muslims?
Huh? I do not see the relevance. The demand for African slaves was created by the European conquest of the New World. It wasn’t as if Arabs were sending millions of African slaves to Baghdad or Mecca.
One other note on the “but Muslims sold Africans into slavery” meme. As I understand it, Islam has a notion of religious exclusivity/superiority (as most religions do), but no notion of racial superiority. So Arab Muslims did not have a problem with selling black pagans into slavery, but treated black Muslims as equal to Arabs. On the other side you had Christians, who even after converting Africans to Christianity considered them sub-human.
A black American knowing this history might well feel more at home in Islam than in a Christian church.
I guess you haven’t been paying much attention to what’s been going on at the universities lately…
Wow. Did you really just compare the oppression of white males in academia (where they still hold the vast majority of faculty and administrative posts) with the historic oppression of the Jews? I guess the sky’s the limit where white male self-pity is concerned.
As I understand it, Islam has a notion of religious exclusivity/superiority (as most religions do), but no notion of racial superiority.
That may be true (in theory, but rarely in practice) of Islam, but it has no basis in reality when it comes to Arab culture, who sold the blacks into slavery. And provides no particular reason for them to be drawn to the religion
Or were you just flaunting your usual cultural and historical ignorance, “as you understand it”?
So Jim — what you’re saying is, because America didn’t live up to its highest ideals from day one, we should throw them all out the window.
No, I’m saying no such thing. But no reasonable discussion of race in America today can start with your view of the U.S. as “a nation founded on equality before the law.” That view is, however, conventional wisdom among white Americans. Recall the outrage at Obama’s comment that the original Constitution had “deep flaws”? Only a deeply deluded population could be taken aback by such a banal observation.
Did you really just compare the oppression of white males in academia (where they still hold the vast majority of faculty and administrative posts) with the historic oppression of the Jews?
No.
And to the degree that they hold such positions, it is only because they prostrate themselves before the politically correct view of the superiority of the non-white non-males.
Rand, when you say “The white man is the Jew of liberal fascism”, I think you undercut your program (and Jonah’s program) of trying to get people to stop automatically equating fascism with Nazism.
You also open yourself up to criticisms like the ones Jim has made (I think Jim is completely right: I think you are making light of horrible events in Jewish history), and even if you think that is poppycock, you still risk being misunderstood in a different way, because it is such an ambiguous and odd thing to say. I think that if I was in complete agreement with you philosophically, I’d still want you to stop using that expression, because it would hurt our cause.
Correction: you sound like you are making light. I know you aren’t.
Rand, when you say “The white man is the Jew of liberal fascism”, I think you undercut your program (and Jonah’s program) of trying to get people to stop automatically equating fascism with Nazism.
Perhaps. That doesn’t render it untrue.
As I say (and probably Jonah says, though I can’t speak for him), all Nazis are fascists, but not all fascists are Nazis. But there is a common thread, and it’s not a “right-wing,” or “racist” one…
Jim, just take ahold of that white guilt and set it down. You’ll feel so much better.
Also, the turks were still enslaving blacks and whites into the 20th century. Find a black Muslim in Saudi Arabia that is treated the same as the Arabs. Remember, this is the birthplace of Islam and non-arabs are treated like slaves. They’re all Muslims otherwise they wouldn’t be there. Christians and Jews are certainly not welcome. Sotomayor already stated she’s superior and based on her words so are the other “wise Latinas” to white males. What more do you want?
And to the degree that they hold such positions, it is only because they prostrate themselves before the politically correct view of the superiority of the non-white non-males.
Do you really believe things like this? That the white males running universities today, universities that have been run by white males since their foundings, are censoring themselves and cowering in fear of non-whites and females? Again, the self-pity and delusion is breathtaking.
To offer just one data point: in 1981 Harvard appointed a woman as dean of the Graduate School of Education, but she was not allowed to enter the faculty club by the front door. We’re not talking about ancient history — many of the members of the faculty in 1981 are still teaching today. And you think they are prostrate before the power of women and minorities?
My own observation, having worked at an American university, is that white men in academia who pretend to be politically correct do so to protect their reputations in the eyes of other, more powerful white men. They — the men, and the institutions they run — want to see themselves as modern, open-minded, tolerant, etc., and want others to see themselves that way as well. But when push comes to shove — when it’s a tenure or hiring decision, and one’s own career on the line — white men in academia do not shrink from asserting their privileges.
That may be true (in theory, but rarely in practice) of Islam, but it has no basis in reality when it comes to Arab culture, who sold the blacks into slavery.
Read what I wrote again. They weren’t sold into slavery because they were black, they were sold into slavery because they were non-Muslim (and because the Christian customers only wanted to buy blacks). Arab slave traders would have been just as happy selling non-Muslim Arabs or Europeans. And a black African could make himself the equal of an Arab Muslim by converting to Islam; converting to Christianity would not raise his status in the eyes of Christian slaveholders.
To put it more simply: where slavery was concerned, Muslims discriminated by religion, Christians discriminated by race. Someone with the experience of being the victim of racial discrimination might well prefer a faith without a history of endorsing that particular prejudice.
Jim is desperately grasping at rhetorical straws…
Maybe you’re not in the mood to explain why Jim is wrong, and someone else will want to try to do it, but, with regard to Muslim slave traders, Jim sounds right to me. I’d be interested in hearing an argument for why he is wrong.
Perhaps. That doesn’t render it untrue.
If you substituted “victim” for “jew”, it would lose its rhetorical punch, but it wouldn’t change the truth value, and it would be a lot easier to understood. Maybe jazz it up: downtrodden victim of oppression. You’ll still get hoots of derision, but I think there are lot of advantages for you if you leave the Jews out of it.
Jim, just take ahold of that white guilt and set it down. You’ll feel so much better.
Comforting myths — such as McGhee’s notion that the U.S. was founded on equality before the law — do make one feel better. That’s part of what makes them so intractable.
Sotomayor already stated she’s superior and based on her words so are the other “wise Latinas” to white males. What more do you want?
A reason to be concerned.
For fun, click on my name and take the Implicit Association Test. If you are like most white males, it will show that you subconsciously assign negative stereotypes to minorities. Now imagine how the current Supreme Court would score on that test. Do you honestly think that adding Sotomayor to the court would take it further from a race-neutral ideal?
Doesn’t this idea of the “Implicit Association Test” and Judge Sotomayor presume that the Supreme Court makes its decisions based on subconsciously assigned negative stereotypes that arise from the visible characteristics of the contending parties?
If it doesn’t, then why mention the test?
Doesn’t this idea of the “Implicit Association Test” and Judge Sotomayor presume that the Supreme Court makes its decisions based on subconsciously assigned negative stereotypes that arise from the visible characteristics of the contending parties?
I think it’s unlikely that any human makes judgements unaffected by his or her subconscious.
That is unresponsive to the specifics of my question.
I asked specifically about the (more properly, “this”) Supreme Court and the bases of its jurisprudence, and the relevance of the “Implicit Association Test” to that question.
It is no more insightful to say that human judgements are affected by the subconscious, than it is to say that the world would be a much better place if everyone loved everyone else. Both are true, but hardly insightful.
It seems interesting that Jim wants to argue the evils of white men and America on the basis of slavery that was abolished in the US over 150 years ago.
But if I want to go see slavery today, all I need do is travel to Africa. Mauritania, Niger, Chad, Sudan, and Ethiopia are still countries noted for their slave trades by the UN. And for all this talk about white men, those countries are not run by white men.
Of course, all of this talk is a non-sequitor, as the issue of slavery is not in front of the SCOTUS, and as I stated earlier, the issue was decided 150 years ago in this country. Judge Sotomayor’s comments have nothing to do with slavery. This whole discussion is Jim deflecting criticism of Sotomayor by blaming everyone else. If Sotomayor attempted to defend her statements in the manner Jim is; she’d never have a chance of making it to the Supreme Court.
“Do you honestly think that adding Sotomayor to the court would take it further from a race-neutral ideal?”
Given what is on the record from her, yes. If she is the swing vote in which race is an issue, I fully expect her to ignore the law and decide on her “empathy”. That is the difference you seem to ignore. Most judges try to ser that aside, she’s embracing it.
“If you are like most white males, it will show that you subconsciously assign negative stereotypes to minorities.”
My bi-racial granddaughter would disagree with you.
Doesn’t this idea of the “Implicit Association Test” and Judge Sotomayor presume that the Supreme Court makes its decisions based on subconsciously assigned negative stereotypes that arise from the visible characteristics of the contending parties?
Yes, I think subconciously assigned stereotypes do influence decisions.
If she is the swing vote in which race is an issue, I fully expect her to ignore the law and decide on her “empathy”.
She’s been on the bench for what, 17 years? Name one decision where she ignored the law and decided based on empathy? Ricci is a case where she ignored the empathy appeal to follow the law.
slavery that was abolished in the US over 150 years ago
And race-based oppression instantly disappeared in the U.S., right? I’m 44, and blacks achieved legal equality only in my lifetime. Today, despite decades of legal equality, job applicants with black-sounding names are less likely to be called for an interview than applicants with white-sounding names and identical resumes.
Acting like racial discrimination against minorities is ancient history is a luxury only afforded to non-minorities.
Jim,
Please answer the question I posed. I asked a very specific question about the Supreme Court.
Time to either raise or fold on this particular question.
BTW, this “test” you linked to reveals that I subconsciously assign positive stereotypes to Judaism. And yes, I am a Celtic / Acadian male. You got a problem with that?
Acting like racial discrimination against minorities is ancient history is a luxury only afforded to non-minorities.
No one is “acting like racial discrimination against minorities is ancient history” (yet another straw man). We’re acting like the solution to racial discrimination is not more racial discrimination.
Jim , as most progressives do , seems to really believe the world was a utopian eden until evil whitey got hands on the levers of power.
It still amazes me though, that because some of our forefathers didn’t live up to the ideals put forth in one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind (our constitution) that it follows that discrimination is ok , as long as the ‘correct’ people do the discriminating.
Our country is not perfect (which country in history can make such a claim) , but it’s strength comes from being able to ‘evolve’ and deal with the problems mankind has had since the beginning of our time on this planet (destitution and poverty)in reasonable ways (rule of law) as opposed to the ‘normal’ way disputes have reckoned with throughout history , violence (wars , civil and otherwise, revolution etc…).
In Ricci Sotomayor ruled that it’s okay for employer promotion policy to discriminate against Hispanics (and whites) in favor of blacks. I want the Wise Latina to explain that to Hispanic audiences.
On another note, there’s a reason other than race why Africa eventually became the primary source of slaves. The slave trade went to isolated tribal regions to capture slaves. Like the Balkans – “slave” derives from “Slav.” Like the Caucasus Mountains, where Circassian women were coveted by harem owners. To quote Sowell:
“The institution became largely black “only after centuries of Europeans enslaving other Europeans had been brought to an end by the consolidation of nations and empires on the European continent, by internal shifts from slavery to serfdom in much of Europe, and by the Catholic Church’s pressures against enslaving fellow Christians.”
Africa by default became the Wal-Mart of the slave trade. It had a large supply of isolated low-tech tribes, and an indigenous slave trade infrastructure, run by Arabs in the east and the more powerful African tribes/mini-states in the West. (In the same article, Sowell notes “whites were rarely involved in capturing slaves in Africa.”)
The demand for slaves was accentuated primarily by the sugar trade, which involved some of the most brutal work that slavery ever undertook. The slaves weren’t given protective gear for dealing with the razor-sharp sugar cane leaves, and you can imagine what the refineries were like – tending boiling pots indoors in the tropics! Slaves were literally worked to death. As the death toll was high, slaves were replenished at a regular rate.
Ships brought slaves from Africa to the Caribbean, then cash crops to Europe, then manufactured goods to Africa. The Dark Continent not only had a large slave supply, it was in a logistically ideal location for triangular trade.
Jim, as adolescent-minded often do, uses the tools of misdirection to attempt to control the narrative.
Regrettably for Jim, the readers of this well-experienced with such tactics.