(Photo here)
In a recently published article, “Of Race, Gender and Justice,” Linda Chavez, a prominent and influential conservative, reiterates some of the arguments she made before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. This article is a splendid example of the White Racial Framework running full-blast.
Chavez has blown out of proportion Sotomayor’s statement that the ethnicity and sex of a judge
may and will make a difference in our judging.
Sotomayor’s assertion pointed to events experienced particularly by nonwhites and females that may heighten their perceptions in judicial cases. There is nothing radical about this statement. In an instance of poor thinking, Chavez contends that Sotomayor’s statement clearly indicates that Sotomayor
believes that one’s race and ethnicity should determine (my emphasis) how someone will rule as a judge.
The root of the “problem,” in Chavez’ eyes, is Sotomayor’s “identity politics.” Chavez explains that
Identity politics involves a sense of grievance against the majority, a feeling that racism permeates American society and its institutions, and the belief that members of one’s own group are victims in a perpetual power struggle with the majority.
Chavez can call it “Identity politics,” but I see it simply as an accurate description of what many minority members feel. The perception of a socially-ingrained, pernicious U.S. racism against Puerto Ricans is widely shared by many Puerto Rican people and intellectuals, both in the United States and in the island of Puerto Rico.
As I write these lines, The New York Times reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a 13-6 vote, endorsed Sotomayor’s nomination. It was widely predicted so it was no surprise.
Speaking of surprises, I saw a column Chavez published on April 17 of this year. The topic was “Supporting Family Values.” Although the column is not free of “Chavezms,” it praises the “illegal” family and disputes predictions that the “illegals” will never fully adapt.
This is the side of Linda Chavez that I’d like to see more of, to the point that such columns would not be surprising anymore.
I agree with Corbas about the accuracy of that description. My question is how is that so offensive to white Americans?
My question is how is that so offensive to white Americans?
>
No1KState, this involves what Tim Wise labeled as the EXPERIENCE GAP or, more precisely, whose experience defines the American experience, American society… the American story. At least that’s the common reaction you get from White Americans and other Americans who curiously only apply the perjorative “identity politics” term to so-called minority groups.
>
Even when Chavez testified before the Senate committee with several members floating the White males = victims meme, the “grievance” label nor the “identity politics” label wasn’t applied to what they were doing.
Re: The EXPERIENCE GAP…
>
It’s clear that so-called minorities view the American experience different from their White American countrymen — and, of course, their/our experience in America has, indeed, been different. This presents a problem and is a problem especially for [White] Americans who subscribe to a certain narrative about American history/society as it relates to race/racism.
>
Truth be told, the historical narrative of most White Americans isn’t that different from the one Pat Buchanan promoted which is reinforced by efforts like those of the Texas State Board of Education. Most White Americans subscribe to a “sanitized” version of U.S. history and, once you couple that with beliefs in the myth of American exceptionalism, meritocracy…. it’s clear that the battle is over whose “truth” should be told.
>
So-called “identity politics”, that accurate description of what many minority members feel/experience, challenges these myths and suggest to White Americans that their view/narrative of America is a lie.
>
Now add to that the phenomenon where Whites feel as if they can tell so-called minorities (African-Americans, in particular) what their reality/experience and can comment as competently or more competently and, let Darin tell it, more honestly than ‘minorities’ themselves… it’s what we have here is the same thing that’s seen in a lot of places where [White] Americans, Republican and Democrat, often speak about policies impacting so-called minorities without input from those so-called minorities which means most White Americans don’t consider the full humanity and agency of so-called minorities.
>
It’s important to note that, while the Democrat/liberal media talks about the race baiting perpetrated by the Glen Becks and Pat Buchanans of the world, it was Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign that mounted the first major, sustained, overt effort to “divide” Americans against Barack Obama based on race.
thanks, Jose. Does Chavez get much attention in Latino communities, or is she oriented mostly to reactionary whites?
@ Nquest – So, is the offense that we’re calling them liars or the audacity to question white Americans?
No1KState: It’s offensive to some because it casts the U.S. in a negative light.
Joe: My experience is that among my Latino and Latin American colleagues, Chavez doesn’t attract much attention.
Everyone’s background will play a part in their decision-making. That’s all she was saying!!!
@ Jose – Ok. I don’t think casting the US in a negative light is something others should be offended by. But if that’s the case, sobeit. I mean, it’d make more sense to me to try to change the country so that the statement is false rather than becoming angry over the statement being said, you know? Even the UN has reprimanded the US for institutional racism.
~
@ Kinda – I know, right?