... (0 comments)
Adam Serwer has a sharp article up on the fact-free smear-mongering going on right now over potential Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor:
In my view, that last paragraph sums up the essence of most of the racism and prejudice that exists in our country today. All too often, people defend themselves against charges of racism by comparing themselves to extreme examples of blatant racism in the early part of the 20th century and washing themselves of guilt by exclaiming “See, I don’t lynch people or call them niggers so I can’t be racist!”The reaction to Sonia Sotomayor makes the perfect case for why we still need affirmative action. She’s been a federal judge since the early 1990s, she served as an ADA in Manhattan, she’s worked in private practice. On paper, she’s qualified, but yesterday Jeffrey Rosen, admittedly knowing next to nothing about her, wrote that the summa cum laude from Yale Law School Princeton might not be “that smart.” The folks at National Review got the signal. “So she’s dumb and obnoxious. Got it,” wrote Mark Hemingway. Responded John Derbyshire, “Judge Sotomayor may indeed be dumb and obnoxious; but she’s also female and Hispanic and those are the things that count nowadays.” This from someone who believes that social statistics prove that whites as a group are smarter than say, black people. Mark Krikorian concluded that “I’m sure Mark H. is right about Sotomayor’s being dumb and obnoxious, just as Derb is right about her being female and Hispanic is all the matters,” but that “an Hispanic Supreme Court justice is an almost mandatory consolation prize for the amnesty folks.”
In short, everyone agrees that Sotomayor is an idiot, based on an anonymous quote solicited by Rosen, who admits that he hasn’t “read enough of Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions to have a confident sense of them,” and that he hasn’t “talked to enough of Sonia Sotomayor’s detractors and supporters to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.”
This is exactly what affirmative action is meant to correct: People coming to the arbitrary conclusion that someone is “an idiot” despite all evidence to the contrary, except if you consider not being a white man evidence. Sotomayor’s detractors see themselves as Frank Riccis, white men whose greatness isn’t recognized because we’re too busy giving brown people who can’t tie their shoes certificates of achievement. But the truth is that in life and in employment, discrimination rarely manifests itself the way it did against Ricci, as something as easy to quantify as an unfair test. It’s far more insidious – a rumor, a feeling, a notion that the person standing in front of you who doesn’t look like you is just “dumb and obnoxious.” So you throw their resume in the “no” pile because you don’t like their name, you seat them in the back of the class, you promote another person. You just can’t really explain why. It’s… just a feeling.
Racism, homophobia and other forms of reflexive prejudice are usually far more subtle than white-hooded rednecks driving around in pickups lynching darkies who had the gall to eyeball white ladies. As Serwer notes, prejudice usually takes the form of a “feeling” of being somehow “uncomfortable” with someone with no rational basis. Take, for example, the subtle, reflexive prejudice that manifested itself all over greater Appalachia during the 2008 campaign. Remember all the interviews with West Virginians who said they just weren’t “comfortable” with Obama for some unexplained, nebulous reason? Remember the batty old lady who told McCain “Obama is an Arab” without having any reason for believing it?
For my money, I don’t think that most Americans are mature enough to ever truly confront the full breadth of the latent prejudice that still infects most of our public discourse. Unfortunately, the only way I see any of this changing is through natural attrition: i.e., elderly bigots dying off and younger, less prejudiced people growing up to replace them
Leave a Reply
Fast Food
Unhinged vagina-shackler on Komen’s volte face:Cancer is Cancer! Aboration is Aboration!
(0 comments)Since it’s Mitt Romney week everywhere, I figured I’d post this op-ed by an ex-Mormon, which is a pretty interesting take at the institutional culture of the LDS church. Not much to say about it, but it’s definitely worth 5 or so minutes of your time. (0 comments)Why Bipartisanship Is Impossible, In One Sentence
When one party climbs back to power by promising action on the economy, does nothing on it, and instead spends literally all its time trying to hurt the other party. (0 comments)New From The Gingrich-Cain Front
Newt rants about cable movies he doesn’t like, and flips out when Herman tries to seize control. Catch all the fun here. And the main site is here, as always. (0 comments)Headline of the Week: Making Rapeanade
Leave it to TBogg:
(0 comments)Rick Santorum Suggests That When Life Gives You Rape, You Should Make Rapeanade Back when I was in junior high and the Clinton Impeachment was going on, I could hardly have imagined that Clinton would be used as an excuse for wrongdoing by Republican leaders. But that’s where we are. Interesting, isn’t it? (0 comments)Catch up with the official Gingrich-Cain “Great Statesmen” series over at @GingrichCain12. (0 comments)Only 65% of White Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of MLK Jr
…with a whimper. Drum is worth reading on this. I think he’s just got to be the most overhyped and overcovered guy who never managed better than third place since…Joe Lieberman? (0 comments)Mitt Romney's Overwhelming Inauthenticity
It’s amazing to me that Mitt Romney brings up France as a scary comparison point to himself so often when he spent years there and speaks the language. It’s such a minor point, but telling. Of all the people running for president, Mitt Romney has to be the most aware that the rightwing caricature of ... (0 comments)Mother Teresa Doesn't Deserve Sainthood
Case in point. It’s amazing how all the famous/respected Catholic figures from the 1990s have turned out to be incredibly corrupt, isn’t it? I’m sure they’re somehow connected. Of course, as I’m a Protestant I know little about such things. (1 comments)I Fixed It! Ban Sitting Politicians From Running For Another Office
Wonkette reminded me of one of the provisions that I want to write into my fantasy Constitution:No person who holds any elected office shall be permitted to seek election to any other office until he shall have permanently vacated his current post.
(2 comments)The Kardashians want their own magazine?
Unintentionally hilarious: “Bachmann, 55, told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she was staying in the presidential race…”What other kind of group of Bachmann supporters could there be?(0 comments)Santorum Finishes #2, Sliding Down In The Final Minutes To Lose To Romney
I was really hoping that Santorum would win the Iowa caucuses. The disgustingly puerile humor would have lasted for WEEKS! (0 comments)Good stuff: The National Labor Relations Board announced on Wednesday that it had adopted new rules that would speed up unionization elections, its last major policy decision before it drops to two members and can no longer make new decisions. It approved the rules in a 2-to-1 vote. The labor board said the new rules, which have ... (0 comments)A Dinosaur Infringed On A Patent For Rocks...
Reading this lead-in to an article today made me think of cavemen and dinosaurs:“The long-running antitrust suit Novell filed regarding Microsoft’s alleged tactics to prevent WordPerfect from running properly in Windows 95 seemed to be on the verge of conclusion…”
... (0 comments)
(DOWN THE VINE
Syndication
I'm from Texas, and here, people still delude themselves about racism and prejudice. As a American of Mexican descent, and attending college in the midwest, I was always asked: What country are you from? I would respond: "Texas"…have you hear of it? I would get perplexed looks. I'm brown skinned after all. Yes, you are correct in your analysis of the nuances between racial hatred and prejudice. Bigotry in this state is alive and well, and even the most "enlightened" , harbor feelings that if you'r skin color or language is different, or perhaps, if you went to law school on an affirmative action program, you are intellectually inferior, and thus, unqualified for anything, let alone a supreme court appointment. Funny, the same segment of the population didn't harbor those prejudices against George W. Bush, whose SAT scores were lower than most of ours…no screaming and ranting about "preferential treatment" then. Oh well, the reality is that America has always had affirmative action. However, it was reserved for white males.
I got a kick out of your post as it reminded me of my first trip to Texas in the early 90s. I was in my early 20's, from NYC, and (am still) the son of European immigrants :-). I didn't drive, so I carried my US passport as a form of ID. While trying to enter a club with a group of local friends one night, I was asked to show my ID. I presented my passport to the off-duty police officer serving as security. He tried to pronounce and butchered my name. No biggie. I still don't know why he cared as he was only there to check my legal age. He proceeded to ask me where I was from. I didn't quite understand and replied "New York". He said "NO! I meeeean….wheeeere you FROM! Again, I replied "New York!". He became quite angry and I couldn't understand why. He closed my passport, looked around, leaned forward into my face, and said "What damn country you from?!?". Now, I got it. I couldn't believe I was being so naive not to get it right away. I admittedly got angry and must have shown it as well. cont'd….
I replied "let's see, that's a US passport you're holding, right? What damn country do you think I'm from?" And with that, my local friends who were clearly more savvy than I on how to handle this, immediately grabbed my arm and pulled me away back toward the street. The officer tossed the passport at my chest and I was ushered away. We were not to enter that club that evening. I don't know what I was more angry at; the officer for being such an idiot, or these friends, who so willingly gave up their liberty to avoid a confrontation with this idiot who had no right or any reasonable purpose for even asking the question. That night, as I was made to feel like an unwanted stranger in my own country, I began to understand what some people go through every day of their lives.
wow. i mean, wow! i've only been through Texas a couple of times and it was always Austin, which seemed fine. it always felt like going to another country.
well, if governor perry gets his way, it may indeed someday becomes its own country! :)
Thank god for reasonable friends!
imagine a world withuot prejudice. It would only require that we all be exactly the same. we are all hard wired to most like what we most know. same in America as anywhere else.
Unfortunately, the only way I see any of this changing is through natural attrition: i.e., elderly bigots dying off and younger, less prejudiced people growing up to replace them
Unfortunately, if we do not challenge the elderly bigots, and illuminate how and why they are wrong, they simply raise more bigots.
Call me a cynic….but unfortunately, I believe prejudice, racism, or any other "ism" will continue to exist as long as man occupies earth. As time goes by, we simply replace one victim with another. In the recent past, it was Catholics who were treated as outcasts. They then joined the "club". Jews are still not fully accepted. Even the most liberal supporters of fairness and equality can turn the other cheek if Muslims are the butt of it. It will always exist, the only thing that changes is the victim. There will always be a group identified by some arbitrary commonality that will be unwanted, feared, and victimized in some way by the natural human desire to vilify someone else. Of course, and luckily, it is also a natural human desire to constantly improve ourselves. And so, this will be an everlasting, back and forth struggle for mankind.
i largely agree with you. that's why i hate calls to "end poverty" or "end racism" — it's an unrealistic goal. i do think, however, that bigotry generally decreases over time in most western civilizations, which is a good thing.
I think many people make too big of a deal out of it. There are ignorant people. It's not always hatred. It's just stupidity; and give me a break; there are stupid people of all races. Too much time is spent on a subject that will always exist because there will always be stupid people.
you make a good point, ignorant bigotry doesn't always rise to the level of "hatred" per se.
So let me get this right, if you dont agree with 'a minority' 100% of the time, or if you dont automatically think a minority is the smartest or best person on the earth….then it is because you are racist. It isnt because you may have different beliefs or sont think they are qualified, it is soley because you are a racist. George bush had a degree from Yale and another from Harvard, he was a governor for several years. He seemed overly qualified to be president (just like Sotomayor seems qualified to be in the SCOTUS). However, people did not like Bush, it must, by your logic, been because they were racist.
"It isnt because you may have different beliefs or sont think they are qualified, it is soley because you are a racist."
Wrong. Some people might disagree with someone and find them unqualified. Others come to that conclusion because they're racist. If you'll pardon the pun, please stop trying to make things so black-and-white and putting up empty strawmen.
P.S. GW Bush was a textbook old money/WASP legacy case. The evidence from his 8 years in the presidency points to a man with a mediocre intellect (at best) with a high degree of susceptibility for being manipulated and led astray.
Despite Bush's resume "People [came]to the arbitrary conclusion that [he] is "an idiot" despite all evidence to the contrary, except if you consider not being a [a minority liberal democrat] evidence." COme on people, lets move beyond race. If i dont vote for someone or dislike someone, dont assume it is because of racism and I only accept white people. You assuming that all whites who dislike someone are racists, that seems like a "form of reflexive prejudice " to me. Wait, you didnt vote for Obama, and you are white and from Appalachia…oh goodness you must be so racists because that is the only reason you wouldnt think, act, and vote the exact same way I do.
Strawman alert: "You assuming that all whites who dislike someone are racists"
I'm assuming nothing of the kind. Some people in Appalachia didn't vote for Obama because they disagreed with his positions. Some people in Appalachia didn't vote for Obama because they're racists. I don't presume to know the exact percentages but there were a lot of people who fell into both categories. The main thrust of my post was to point out that racism is a lot more subtle than people running around yelling "Don't vote for the darkie!"
The "affirmative action for white males" line is transparently fallacious. At no time in American history until the last generation did government policy dictate that superior test scores should be discarded in favor of inferior test scores. You can scream about racism until you're blue in the face, but it should be embarrassing to the non-white males out there that after a generation of affirmative action, your test scores are still awful and people still have to keep lowering the proverbial playing field.
Most affirmative action in this country has to do with people having similar test scores, and doesn't dictate that "superior test scores should be discarded in favor of inferior test scores". This does happen on occasion and proves the maxim that 1% of bad attached to 99% of good will always, for some people, provide cause for throwing away the whole 100%.
Back when I was a truck driver, I met another driver not long after the 9/11 attacks who was of Arab descent. He was born and raised in Dallas, Texas, but his parents where from Iran. They were Christian and fled to the U.S. after the fall of the Shah of Iran and the rise of the the Islamic government. Luckily for him, he had a great sense of humor, and got a big kick out of answering the question "What country are you from?", in his his typical Texas drawl, with "I'm from the Republic of Texas". He got asked that question a lot because he looked Arab.
Anyone who thinks we've overcome racism since then because we now have a black president is a fool. It's going to be interesting to see what racial stereotypes are directed at Sonia Sotomayor.
As for racism, any reasonable person knows that if we all looked and sounded exactly the same, we'd still fine reasons to hate one another.
"Anyone who thinks we've overcome racism since then because we now have a black president is a fool."
Agreed. Just because we don't see lynchings in the paper or Gov. Perry of Texas talking about how negroes are gonna corrupt our white women, too many folks think "Problem solved! Now will you damn minorities quit yer bitchin already!?"
"Any reasonable person knows that if we all looked and sounded exactly the same, we'd still fine reasons to hate one another. "
They still have gays to bash.
"Problem solved! Now will you damn minorities quit yer bitchin already!?"
woah weasle words there. You called me out for a strawman argument earlier, but i think I can find some logical fallacy in that argument. I agree with you that some people are racists, why others are not. Plenty of people didnt vote for obama, or will not like the new SCOTUS pick because of race. I think you would agree that many people voted for Obama and wanted a 'minority' candidate because of race.
"I think you would agree that many people voted for Obama and wanted a 'minority' candidate because of race."
Sure, just like some people vote for a woman b/c she's a woman; or a Catholic b/c he's a Catholic, or a good ol' Texas boy b/c he's a good ol' Texas boy, etc. I'm not as concerned with people voting FOR people for certain reasons, it's the subtle context of the reasons why people vote AGAINST people that I'm concerned about.
This isnt a black and white issue (no pun intended). If a white person says they want the most qualified person, some people (including what I got out of your original argument) take that to mean "we want a white person and anyone else will obviously be chosen becaue of their race, we are racist even though it is hidden). While if someone says that a 'minority' needs to be chosen, others will argue that they dont feel comfortable with the pick because of race. What gets lost is the people in between who honestly have policy differences or belief differences that are counter to the person in question. The trap we have fallen into in the "with us or against us" America is that either you are a racist or you are not. The same thing when Fox News says you are either a good christian-america-loving patriot, or you hate america and hate the troops.
"The trap we have fallen into in the "with us or against us" America is that either you are a racist or you are not."
Not in my world. Again, you're evading what I'm saying and trying to throw up a strawman argument that I'm not advancing. Even though you're saying this isn't a black-and-white issue, you're consistently painting it as such. Regardless of how you want to frame it, there is a still a lot of racism in this country — much of it centered in the South and Appalachia. Does this racism present itself in lynchings or people yelling "Nigger!" to TV news crews? No, it's usually much more subtle, like people in Kentucky telling news crews during the campaign that they were concerned about Obama because he'll probably use his office to give out taxpayer money (via reparations, ACORN, welfare, etc.) to his black supporters.
There isnt any room for the middle area, at least no one lets it be so. I would argue this: making the statement that the majority of [white] people who want a 'qualified person' or who dont vote for a 'minority candidate' are therefor racist is no different than a white person saying that a person only got where they are because of affirmative action. Essentially arguing that people who disagree with a minority candidate are racist is the same as a white racist assuming a minority is not qualified. It is one in the same.
As to this: "making the statement that the majority of [white] people who want a 'qualified person' or who dont vote for a 'minority candidate' are therefor racist is no different than a white person saying that a person only got where they are because of affirmative action", I would simply point out that that's not the argument that I'm making. You're reducing a nuanced concept to a stark strawman that I am not advocating.
It seems that there is a lot of anger in your post because you stated that even though there isnt the Jim Crow era namecalling and dialogue going on, obviously deep down the racism is still there. The part where you have the white person hypothetically telling a minority to quit bitching ang shut up is really disturbing. You stated in the article for this page that we have to wait for the segregation era folks to die off before we can change racism (or something to that effect).
"It seems that there is a lot of anger in your post because you stated that even though there isnt the Jim Crow era namecalling and dialogue going on, obviously deep down the racism is still there."
First: As to anger: Not really, I'm a well-off, lilly white independent who's gone through life cushioned on a cloud of white privilege. Second: There is obviously a lot of racism still out there. If you disagree with the concept that millions of people in this country still harbor racist views then we don't have much to talk about.
"You stated in the article for this page that we have to wait for the segregation era folks to die off before we can change racism (or something to that effect)."
Yeah, that's how substantial change usually happens. As the old bigots die off naturally, their children and grandchildren are generally less bigoted. See, e.g., the whole gay marriage debate.
"First: As to anger: Not really, I'm a well-off, lilly white independent who's gone through life cushioned on a cloud of white privilege"
Ahh so now i see, you are not affected (at least negativly) by race, therefore, you preach against racism from a safe and comfortable place. It would be interesting to find out how much you travel outside of your comfort zone to combat racism…I mean other than making blogs in the safe anonimity of the internet.
i can't even begin to think what it is you're saying here. when it comes to racism, i obviously haven't had any race-based venom directed at me by the white male power structure. i am, however, gay… so there's a whole body of activism on that subject that i've spent my life working on.
Hey I actually agree with everything you have been saying on here. I was just being a contrarian (for lack of a better term) to see if you could stand by your argument. I often use this psuedo-socratic method with my friends, where I argue the opposite point-of-view of what they say to see if they can validate their claims. As you can assume, this does not make me very popular (lol). Anyway, it helps to have someone debate you so you can easily bring up talking points when someone wha actually holds opposing views challenges you.
sorry if i pissed you off. And you have some really good stuff on this blog. BTW, for full disclosure, I voted for Nader and worked for Kucinich.
ha! no worries, and you haven't pissed me off. i may sometimes come off as combative because i'm a lawyer and have a pavlov-type response to devil's advocacy and the socratic method. we live to argue! :)
(sotto voce) i do the same thing with my friends ;-)
you are most welcome here. things get boring when people all share/espouse the same viewpoint!
I just wanted to add that it is very very hard to change someones outlook on life, and certainly we should all be weary of 're-education efforts' (as was tried under the bush administration: that if you dont vote republican you hate jesus, and so forth). Therefore, since we really cant change the mindset of most folks, i think the fact that Gov Peryy isnt warning people about 'negros' or that there are arny mass lynchings should be taken as a sign of promise and hope. Through work we were able to remove the outright KKK racism. We have a black man in office and a Latin-american on the Supreme Court. However, racism does till exist. But lease, please, dont assume (as you did, and other posters here did) that everywhite person is secretly racist and any slight or disagreement is because of the white mans racist tendancies. That in itself is being racist--assuminging whites who dont feel comfortable about Obama are racist is the same as assuming all blacks will 'corrupt our white women.'
I just wanted to add that it is very very hard to change someones outlook on life, and certainly we should all be weary of 're-education efforts'
Using the word "re-education" isn't helpful — it's just fraught with all sorts of Communist oogedy-boogedy. Just because a lot of people in this country think that gay people are just dirty faggots that should be ostracized from their families doesn't mean reasonable-minded people shouldn't speak out every day to demonstrate that this is wrong.
But lease, please, dont assume (as you did, and other posters here did) that everywhite person is secretly racist and any slight or disagreement is because of the white mans racist tendancies.
To this, I simply call bullshit. No one here has even implied that "every white person is secretly racist". Don't waste our time with arguments like that.
sorry about the long series of posts, i can try and edit it if that sort of thing is against the ruls of this blog.
quite a stream of consciousness there. i generally frown on comment-dumping but i'll make an exception in your case.
I do appologize, and for the lack of capitalization and spell check. I dont like to proof read. I promise I will keep further comments to one post.
no problem, my spelling and capitalization can often suck as well.