Obama Pays His Debt To La Raza -- Nominates Sotomayor

05-29-2009 | STE=Q

[STE=Q]

Like so many special interest groups, La Raza (‘the race’ in English ) purports to speak for “Latinos” wherever they may be… and nowadays, they’re just about everywhere.

And why NOT everywhere?

Latinos (short version: a person of Latin-American or Spanish-speaking descent) have been part and parcel of American Culture from our earliest times.

So it should be no surprise that a person of Latin-American or Spanish speaking descent -- Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Puerto Rico) -- should have been nominated by President Obama to sit on the Supreme court of the united States.

But one could ask why, specifically, was Sonia Sotomayor nominated and not some other qualified person of Latin-American or Spanish speaking descent?

Let’s investigate:

From Senator Barack Obama’s pre-election Speech to the National Council of La Raza in San Diego, CA. July 13, 2008:

“And I’m not taking a single Latino vote for granted in this campaign. We’re meeting with Latino leaders across the country. We’re reaching out to Latino organizations to get input on my policy proposals. We’ve got a nationwide Hispanic media strategy. We’re recruiting and training Latino organizers. We’re holding Latino voter registration drives across America. AND WHEN I’M PRESIDENT I’LL BE ASKING MANY OF YOU TO SERVE AT EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT.”

Sonia Sotomayor is a member of La Raza

So it would appear reasonable that President Obama is now fulfilling the campaign promise he made as Senator Obama, that he would ask La Rasa members, when he became President, “to serve at every level of government.”

Sonia Sotomayor is a member of La Raza and Obama has now “asked” Sotomayor to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Now some people are of the opinion that “special interest” advocacy organizations, such as La Raza, are Racist because they support a particular Racial or Ethnic group.

Is La Raza -- Racist -- simply because it advocates for Latinos?

Is The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) -- Racist -- because it Advocates for “Colored” People?

Is the Jewish Defense League (JDL) -- Racist -- because it advocates for Jewish people?

Is The Nation of Islam -- Racist -- because it purports to “deliver” black people of African decent?

Are “White Pride” groups -- Racist -- because they wish to preserve what they perceive as their white European heritage?

Are groups that promote Asian Americans -- Racist?

What about “native” American groups that want to preserve their heritage -- are they racist?

Where does self interest leave off and racism began?

Is EVERY group that aims to promote itself -- based on their perceived common racial identities -- racist?

Looking at the above groups (the list hardly scratches the surface as there are literally hundreds of these sorts of groups) which ones do you think are “racist” and which ones are not?

And last but not least:

Which group, or groups (if any) may be keen on imposing their cultural world-view on the other groups?

Let’s investigate some more:

From a lecture delivered by judge Sonia Sotomayor published in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation".

You may read the whole lecture here (copy and paste):

http://salaswildthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/sonia-sotomayor-berkeley-speech-2001.html

Here’s a -- now infamous -- sample from that lecture:

“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.”

Hope?

Why would she “hope” to reach a “better conclusion” than a white male?

Is she concerned with being a fine Jurist or competing with white males?

At face, her statement also appears to have both Racist and Sexist overtones.

Let’s do a little experiment by turning things around:

“I would hope that a wise White male 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.”

Now if you analyze her statement you will see it is based on a false prejudice embodied in the phrase: “who hasn’t lived THAT life”

Meaning she’s gone through experiences as a woman and as a Latina that a white male -- Presumably -- has not.

She posits, without a shred of evidence, that her life experiences would enable her to come to a “better” conclusion than a white male.

But we are NOT out of the woods yet!

She uses the word WISE before Latina.

She is saying that HER life experiences have made her more WISE than a white male!

Let’s try another experiment:

“I would hope that a wise midget 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.”

Go ahead, have fun, put your favorite “minority” in the sentence and see how relevant it would be to reaching a just decision in a court of law.

In conclusion, let me say that her statement, as outlined above, can ONLY be accepted within the context of a false assumption grounded in a prejudice… That HER experiences as a minority have given her superior judicial insight… insight that “white males” -- because of their whiteness and maleness -- can never acquire.

So precisely how can Sonia Sotomayor deny the racial and sexist -- and some might argue stupid -- assumptions that underpin her extravagant generalizations?

As a famous white male -- Ricky Ricardo -- would say… “she got some ‘Splainin’ to do!”

STE=Q

[potlatch]

Back to the days of Bootlegging - but it will be a more dangerous world to do that in than in the 1920’s.