"Let's Give 'Em Something to Talk About..."

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been a lot of national discussions about race, race relations, identity, politics, and anything else this blog could conceivably cover. Quite honestly, I didn't feel a strong urge to write about any of them - in part because I have watched recent conversations degenerate into "he said"-"she said" and pointing fingers in all the wrong places for all the wrong reasons.

Instead, I present you with the type of conversation that I think is an excellent antidote to the above - as usual, Ta-Nehisi Coates knows what he's talking about.

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/the_limits_of_our_dialouge_on_race_and_beyond.php

Of Wise Latinas

I've been waiting to talk about Sonia Sotomayor until I had something to say. Yesterday, on Day 2 of her confirmation hearings, I found something worth talking about.


To the Republican Senators:

How dare you.

If I understand your concerns correctly, sirs, you worry that Judge Sotomayor's impartiality may be unduly affected by the perspective of her race and gender, citing her stated belief 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."

Senator Lindsey Graham especially has made a great deal of his belief that had he voiced a sentiment similar in form and content (i.e., that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life) his political career would be over, by which I believe he means that he would have been perceived as racist. By this logic, he perceives Judge Sotomayor's statement as a racist one.

I won't touch the accusations of racism, implied or otherwise. Honestly, I see where both sides are coming from. Instead, I want to look the following exchange between Senator Graham and Judge Sotomayor - all emphases, mine:

SEN. GRAHAM: ...Let's talk about the wise Latino (sic) comment yet again...

...the one thing that I've tried to impress upon you, through jokes and being serious, is the consequences of these words in the world in which we live in. You know, we're talking about putting you on the Supreme Court and judging your fellow citizens. And one of the things that I need to be assured of is that you understand the world as it pretty much really is.

This is key. Note that here Senator Graham asserts (1) that there is an objective reality, and (2) that we, as rational, human individuals, are capable of understanding that objective reality.

And later:

SEN. GRAHAM: All right. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male."

And the only reason I keep talking about this is that I'm in politics, and you got to watch what you say, because, one, you don't want to offend people you're trying to represent -- but do you understand, ma'am, that if I had said anything like that, and my reasoning was that I'm trying to inspire somebody, they would have had my head? Do you understand that?

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I do understand how those words could be taken that way, particularly if read in isolation.

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, I don't know how else you could take it. If Lyndsey Graham said that I will make a better senator than X because of -- my experience as a Caucasian male makes me better able to represent the people of South Carolina, and my opponent was a minority, it would make national news, and it should.

Having said that, I am not going to judge you by that one statement. I just hope you'll appreciate the world in which we live in, that you can say those things meaning to inspire somebody and still have a chance to get on the Supreme Court. Others could not remotely come close to that statement and survive. Whether that's right or wrong, I think that's a fact.

Does that make sense to you?

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: It does. And I would hope that we come in America to the place where we can look at a statement that could be misunderstood and consider it in the context of the person's life and the work they have done...

Graham repeatedly points to political restraints that would prevent him from talking about his judgement as better because of his race and gender. But he talks about these things not as a speculative hypothetical, but as fact - fact in an objective reality that he (and presumably every human being) understands, that Sotomayer must understand. And if Sotomayer does not concede this, does not understand the world as Graham's hypothetical objective everyman does, then her viewpoint is invalid. It cannot possibly be based in any kind of reality because only one reality exists.

And if you, or I, or Sonia Sotomayor has a different perspective than the hypothetical objective, then we are not living in the real world.

There's just one BIG problem with that: The objective can't see or adjust for context.

Suppose that in the objective reality, public safety is the number one priority of the government. And the government has decreed that citizens will be randomly searched. Can objective reality account for the fact that the mind of a security person is not a machine and cannot be totally random? And even if the government used a machine to facilitate totally random selection, could objective reality account for the undoubtedly different perspectives of searcher and searchee; the former mindful of possible violence or danger, the latter innocent but detained without explicit consent to the objective morality that requires his detention.

Look, I'm a History and Literature major. More importantly, I was raised by parents who taught me to question the merit and meaning of everything from classic Disney movies to Thanksgiving. Even before I enrolled in college, objective reality didn't exist for me. I don't buy it. The person I am, the life I have lived makes me see the world differently - not better or worse, just differently. Who are you to tell me I am wrong?

Who are you, Senators, to tell her she is wrong? To tell people the world over "Nope, sorry - just one way of seeing things here! Don't trust your own eyes! Why would you? I'm the objective, and I say everything's fine..."

Another Republican, Senator Jon Kyl commented on Sotomayor's past speeches on race, identity, and their effects on legal perspective:

SEN. KYL: ...The question, though, is whether you leave them with the impression that it's good to make different decisions because of their ethnicity or gender. And it strikes me that you could've easily said here, now, of course, blind Lady Justice doesn't permit us to base decisions in cases on our ethnicity or gender. We should strive very hard to set those aside when we can.

Justice has never been blind, ladies and gentlemen - but maybe she has been unjustly blindfolded.

EDIT (7/18/09):
A relevant (and well-argued) column from Frank Rich over at the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/opinion/19rich.html?ref=opinion

I'm not sure that I agree with his implication that this changing of the tide is inevitable, but otherwise - right on the money.

Edit (7/31/09):
My olders and betters say what I was trying to say. Melissa Harris-Lacewell over at The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/452587/sotomayor_and_the_politics_of_public_humiliation

The Fight for Your Life: Tactics and Representation

I've worked for a couple of libraries on campus during my college career, so I've seen my fair share of strange and curious things. Most recently, I witnessed the following:

In the media section of the library, one of the library staff found a DVD that had been boldly and emphatically vandalized with a permanent marker. A large black X scarred the plot synopsis on the back along with the words "LIES LIES LIES." On the front of the case, amidst more angry zigzag lines, the accusation "HOMOPHOBIC LIES" was written. The DVD itself echoed the verdict: "HOMOPHOBIC TRASH."

The movie in question was the 1978 film "A Different Story," in which a gay man, who has immigrated to the United States illegally, marries a gay women in order to remain in the country. From what I can gather from online synopses and reviews, the two end up falling in love with one another in a way that either assumes or implies that their homosexuality had been a choice all along.

Today, I brought the incident up with a friend, and our discussion turned into a very interesting debate.

We both agreed that vandalism was wrong. My friend argued that this destructive crime - defacing a DVD that one does not own, that belongs to a library no less - can not be excused, even if the person who defaced the disc was trying to make a point or take a stand against homophobic and/or stereotypical portrayals of homosexuality in the media. And while I don't disagree with her points, I do beg to differ.

Suppose I saw a video of Former Alabama Governor George Wallace from the 1960s declaring "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." While this is certainly not a comparable example (You can't make this up, boys and girls - Wallace really did say that), as an African-American female who has attended integrated schools all her life, I would certainly feel my identity was under threat - that I was in the presence of a person who wanted to erase me, who would look right through me if we met, who not only believed that I was unfit for education with his children but also would strike me down with his own hands before he let me get near my elementary, middle, or high school; in other words, a person that threatened my very existence to my face. And no matter whether the threat was physical or purely philosophical, I have found that the psychological effect of such things is very real.

Now while I would never excuse the vandalism I described at the beginning, I can't say that I don't understand it. If I believed that my sexuality was not something I determined, and someone very calmly told the world, in my presence, that I not only could I chose my sexuality, but also that I was, in effect, a big faker...

...well, I hope you would forgive me if I got more than a little upset.

And while I would not expect you to forgive me, and I would not expect to evade the consequences, I hope you would understand where I was coming from should I choose to take a stand (...even if my choice took the form of scribbling big black Xs across the antagonist's face).



I do believe that there is a time and place for respectability. Personally, for me, it's the rule and not exception. My friends have always teased me about not swearing or cursing, but I save extreme behavior for extreme circumstances. And even if something appears to be an extreme circumstance, it's very likely that cursing and whipping out my permanent marker will not achieve my desired outcome - and will make it appear that I am being childish and immature as I lose control of the situation.

Yes, your tactics reflect on you. Yes, you should always represent yourself at your best if you want to be respected. And most of the time, the respect of other parties is crucial to getting your point across - to getting justice, equality, or just plain understanding.

You can't just be heard. You have to be understood.

But I have to say, when I saw that DVD covered in bold, angry lines, I understood the place that message came from. Sometimes in the face of psychological violence, in response to a world asserting that you are an impossibility, the first response - right or wrong - is an incoherent scream.