Although Judge Sotomayor did not make the claim, it’s long been accepted in the “diversity business” that occupying a less advantaged status in society can make an individual more insightful than the norm.
The reason is simple: The individual in a “subordinate” position must live in a world where the rules and customs are dictated by those of more “dominant” status. In order to survive and succeed in such a world, that subordinate individual must learn about his/her own culture AND about the dominant group’s culture.
In contrast, the individual in a dominant position can ignore the rules and customs–even the dreams and preferences and opinions–of the less fortunate because he/she lives in a world created by his/her own kind. He/she can remain oblivious to the culture and mores of the less advantaged and still live quite comfortably.
So let’s reconsider Judge Sotomayor’s comment: “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 is not racist. It is simply a statement that a judge who understands both the powerful and the weak, the ins and outs, the haves and the have-nots has undoubtedly acquired more information and more tools with which to make fair and balanced decisions.
And I would add that those of us who support Judge Sotomayor should be careful using the term “racist.” We should be arguing that her comment does not betray prejudice against white males. The term racism best describes institutional and structural disadvantage. Of course, it’s inflammatory, which is why the right’s most vitriolic spokespeople are using it. We can ratchet down the debate by toning down the language.
Gosh, if this type of talk was going on about black people, there’d be hell to pay!
<
p>White people don’t learn cultures, or aren’t diverse or aren’t this blah blah, but by merely being Hispanic, one supersedes all this?
<
p>Isn’t the fact that the people on this blog, most of whom I suspect are white, are even having this conversation evidence of the fallacy that whiteness makes you less X, Y, and Z? Aren’t there a lot of bigoted, ignorant minorities?
<
p>Here’s how, in my humble opinion, that quote would be even better written:
<
p>
<
p>Being a white male is NOT a handicap on experience and wisdom.
*hasn’t lived at all.
<
p>Also, it’s nice to see that someone decided to take it upon themselves to be the counter-part to edgarthearmenians rather trollish rating habits. It’s good to have balance.
I have not been critical of Sotomajor.
It was more jab at your propensity to deal out almost only 6 or 3s, oftentimes without comment. Not that I’m complaining, but I am curious to hear what you have to say behind those numbers more often.
and it’s fun because Edgarthearmenian’s opinions resist prediction.
Krugman points us to this comment from Noonan about Bush:
People who are members of the marked classes (to use the linguistic term) cannot be praised for how normal and standard their goodness is. It sounds weird or forced. It’s a bias built into our usage.
I’m hard pressed to determine what “this kind of talk” is, let alone how it could be applied to black people. The rest of your post reads like stuff you WISH she’d said, so you could be outraged about it.
<
p>However, what she said was pretty inoffensive. Your PC version isn’t really that different.
I would hope that a wise white man with all the richness of his experiences would reach a better conclusion than a black woman who hasn’t lived that life.