What Sotomayor teaches us about racism
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is Obama's nominee to fill the the Supreme Court Justice vacancy. Sotomayor is a woman. And she's Hispanic. Two characteristics that have not gone unnoticed.
In 2001 Sotomayor disagreed with the notion that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion. “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.”
This statement made in 2001 is the major controversy surrounding Sotomayor's nomination. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh have said this 2001 comment is evidence of racism.
Gingrich said, "Imagine a judicial nominee said, 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism."
See abc news to watch or read the full story.
According to his online transcript, Limbaugh said:
"I don't need lectures from my columnist or any commentary on TV about decorum. What we need to do is to confront it and her with what she said and who she is for, for saying it, and what it says about her. She said she's a better judge because she's an Hispanic female, a better judge than a white male. We wouldn't tolerate a white male saying, "I'm a much better judge than a Latina. I'm white and she's not." We wouldn't tolerate it. We tolerate it from Sonia Sotomayor, why? "Well, because, Rush, she's from a minority, and minorities 'don't have the power to inflict their racism on people,' says Jesse Jackson." Oh, really? She's going to have that power, as one of only nine lifetime appointments to the United States Supreme Court.
She makes a brazen racist comment about tens of millions of American citizens while she's a judge, and she's been rewarded for it with a nomination of the Supreme Court -- and I got lectured about decorum!"
Sotomayor is experiencing racism. She is not considered merely a judicial nominee. No, she is a Hispanic judicial nominee. That's fantastic! It's about time American Hispanics get representation in the Court. Both Gingrich and Limbaugh said that Sotomayor is a racist because of what she said in 2001. Other critics are worried her rulings will be biased towards Latinos.
My response:
1. She did NOT say a Latina woman was better than a white man.
2. Everybody makes decisions based on their background. NEWSFLASH: white people are biased to white people too. And white people have been in power since... since Europeans invaded Native lands in America.
3. Jesse Jackson was right. Sotomayor could not be racist. Racism involves a power differential. People groups who are oppressed based on race cannot be racist towards the dominate group. They can be prejudice or biased or have negative opinions, but they cannot be racist. Racism involves an entire social and economic structure.
I am just beginning on this journey of learning what it means to be a white person in America. I am becoming increasingly aware of our racist society. I don't get it all the time--I am a part of the dominant group, so my understanding of the world is shaped by that. The way Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh view the world is out of a white-male understanding. Sonia Sotomayor views the world through a Latina lens.
America has never been a monoracial country. Never.
In 2008, the population of the U.S. was about 300 million. 247,112,954 were white, 39,058,834 were black or African American and 46,943,613 were Hispanic (there are more stats on other groups here).
Unfortunately, our lawmakers, judges and political leaders have been mostly white. Obama's presidency is a huge change, but it does not remove the centuries of racial hierarchies that have been established.
If Sotomayor's nomination has to be about race, then let it be a purposeful decision to nominate somebody who represents Americans.
"We talk about how justice should be blind, and I think so, yes, absolutely. But every person that shows up in a courtroom should be able to see themselves reflected in the person up there making these calls," said United State District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez.
I think it's a good thing that the idea of racism has been brought up again in the public sphere. We need to be dialoguing about it. We need to be struggling with it. Because like it or not, we live in a country with numerous races and cultures. If we expect to live in peace in our own country, we must begin learning from each other and confronting the ugly reality of racism again and again and again.
For more on Sotomayor see the Huffington Post and her speech about being a woman and a Latina on the bench.
To read more from me, visit my blog.
In 2001 Sotomayor disagreed with the notion that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion. “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.”
This statement made in 2001 is the major controversy surrounding Sotomayor's nomination. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh have said this 2001 comment is evidence of racism.
Gingrich said, "Imagine a judicial nominee said, 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism."
See abc news to watch or read the full story.
According to his online transcript, Limbaugh said:
"I don't need lectures from my columnist or any commentary on TV about decorum. What we need to do is to confront it and her with what she said and who she is for, for saying it, and what it says about her. She said she's a better judge because she's an Hispanic female, a better judge than a white male. We wouldn't tolerate a white male saying, "I'm a much better judge than a Latina. I'm white and she's not." We wouldn't tolerate it. We tolerate it from Sonia Sotomayor, why? "Well, because, Rush, she's from a minority, and minorities 'don't have the power to inflict their racism on people,' says Jesse Jackson." Oh, really? She's going to have that power, as one of only nine lifetime appointments to the United States Supreme Court.
She makes a brazen racist comment about tens of millions of American citizens while she's a judge, and she's been rewarded for it with a nomination of the Supreme Court -- and I got lectured about decorum!"
Sotomayor is experiencing racism. She is not considered merely a judicial nominee. No, she is a Hispanic judicial nominee. That's fantastic! It's about time American Hispanics get representation in the Court. Both Gingrich and Limbaugh said that Sotomayor is a racist because of what she said in 2001. Other critics are worried her rulings will be biased towards Latinos.
My response:
1. She did NOT say a Latina woman was better than a white man.
2. Everybody makes decisions based on their background. NEWSFLASH: white people are biased to white people too. And white people have been in power since... since Europeans invaded Native lands in America.
3. Jesse Jackson was right. Sotomayor could not be racist. Racism involves a power differential. People groups who are oppressed based on race cannot be racist towards the dominate group. They can be prejudice or biased or have negative opinions, but they cannot be racist. Racism involves an entire social and economic structure.
I am just beginning on this journey of learning what it means to be a white person in America. I am becoming increasingly aware of our racist society. I don't get it all the time--I am a part of the dominant group, so my understanding of the world is shaped by that. The way Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh view the world is out of a white-male understanding. Sonia Sotomayor views the world through a Latina lens.
America has never been a monoracial country. Never.
In 2008, the population of the U.S. was about 300 million. 247,112,954 were white, 39,058,834 were black or African American and 46,943,613 were Hispanic (there are more stats on other groups here).
Unfortunately, our lawmakers, judges and political leaders have been mostly white. Obama's presidency is a huge change, but it does not remove the centuries of racial hierarchies that have been established.
If Sotomayor's nomination has to be about race, then let it be a purposeful decision to nominate somebody who represents Americans.
"We talk about how justice should be blind, and I think so, yes, absolutely. But every person that shows up in a courtroom should be able to see themselves reflected in the person up there making these calls," said United State District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez.
I think it's a good thing that the idea of racism has been brought up again in the public sphere. We need to be dialoguing about it. We need to be struggling with it. Because like it or not, we live in a country with numerous races and cultures. If we expect to live in peace in our own country, we must begin learning from each other and confronting the ugly reality of racism again and again and again.
For more on Sotomayor see the Huffington Post and her speech about being a woman and a Latina on the bench.
To read more from me, visit my blog.
Comment
-
Comment by dlw on June 2, 2009 at 6:13pm
-
well, there's nothing wrong with aspects of how the church is meant to be spilling over into the state....
such has been its saving grace in the past, tho it always seems to be in need of additional infusions...
dlw
-
Comment by Naomi on June 1, 2009 at 10:14pm - I posted this blog because I really do think we need to be talking about these issues as people of the Kingdom! The Kingdom is about inclusion and affirming the humanity of ALL people...part of that is seeing how our human kingdoms can be more aligned with that of Christ. In our faulty, human systems, there is potential for good and glimpses of the Kingdom. I think having Sotomayor on the bench would be a little closer to that global Kingdom ideal...even if it's NOT the church it can serve as a shadow of the things unseen and yet to come.
-
Comment by Naomi on June 1, 2009 at 10:10pm
- yes! Absolutely.
-
-
couldn't one say that a wise man and a wise woman would not always reach the same decision, because reality is kaleidoscopic enough that we tend to focus on different aspects and base our choices therein? In which case, it'd be best to have both wise men and women on the bench, preferably in far more equal numbers, since the whole is greater than the sum of its parts!!!
dlw
© 2009 Created by Mark Van Steenwyk
You need to be a member of common root to add comments!
Join this Ning Network