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.There it is, the quote that has the right up in arms. It's racist. It's sexist. It's wrong!!! Oh, please!
The endless babble about it on radio and TV and popular talk shows is killing me. One side says, "If I reversed that and said, 'I would hope that a white man would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman', I'd be in a heap of trouble!" Yes ... you would. First, it would be racist. Second, it would be sexist. Third, it would be a strawman argument. Still, white people are arguing that it's anti-Caucasian and women are arguing that she was taking a "pro-woman" position because women have been so put down and Hispanics are saying something similar about their plight. Please, people ... that's not what she said.
Here ... let me reverse what she said and we'll see if the reverse I give is the same as the reverse the antagonists give:
I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.What is at stake in this (these) statement(s)? It is not race or gender! It is "wise" and "experience". The ostensible mistake she made was to put race or gender in the statement, because all the statement really says is that race and gender are irrelevant -- the better judgment comes from wisdom developed through experience. Now ... are we really going to disagree with that?
I said "ostensible mistake" because there is another mistake ... a failure to actually say anything. She is making the statement that the best of one group can certainly do better than the worst of another. Apples and oranges, folks ... apples and oranges. This is a non-statement. She is not arguing for justice. She is not arguing for women or for Hispanics. She is not ... saying anything. Unfortunately for her, she said it to contradict the argument that "a wise man and a wise woman will likely come to similar conclusions". Ummm ... Sonia ... your argument missed the mark ... entirely.
I am not a defender of Sonia Sotomayor. I'm not saying, "She's a good choice!" Here's all I'm saying: Forget that stupid argument about that stupid quote. Move on. If the worst you can say about Judge Sotomayor is "she compared apples to oranges" or "she made a poor argument", then it's time to find another position to defend. I'm pretty sure you can do better than that, can't you?
3 comments:
Excellent, even-handed and wise points. Well done!
I only skimmed this, but I agree with you. I'm not smitten with any sense of urgency to oppose her nomination on the basis of this comment.
On a related note... I saw on "Cranach: the Blog of (Gene Edward) Veith" a quote from William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, suggesting that Judge Sotomayor may be the best we can reasonably expect from President Obama, and, on abortion at least, a good deal better than Justice Souter. I'm not good at inserting links in these comments so you'll have to drop by my blog and scan my Shared Items if you're interested in reading further.
When the Republicans opposed the president's plan to throw a trillion dollars (give or take) at our economic crisis, they were accused of "politics as usual". I thought, "No! The Republicans have traditionally been against big spending (not withstanding the stupid course they took over the past 8 years)." That's not "politics as usual". That's principle.
Now comes Sotomayor's nomination and Republicans want to oppose her on this kind of thing. Now that is "politics as usual". Not cool, guys, not cool.
Post a Comment