President Nominates Sonia Sotomayor for Supremes--her investements?

[FUEGO]

Hmmm... this thread is giving me some ideas about future jobs my wife would be highly qualified for (right skin color, gender, educational background, diverse "life experience" that makes Shawn's anecdote above look like living da high life).

And for that rate of pay and level of benefits, she could make some thinly veiled quasi-racist comments, too!

 

[samclem]

My point to Mr. Armor, however, was why does he persist in thinking that people view their ethnicity as the single most important charactistic that defines who they are?

And, here we have Judge Sotomayor, in her own words (Thanks, Eddy Amps):

Who am I? I am a "Newyorkrican." For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.

Given a chance to tell an audience "who she is" -- she chose to highlight not her accomplishments but her ethnicity.

So, to answer your question: Mr Armor probably "persists in thinking that people view their ethnicity as the single most important characteristic that defines who they are" because these very people keep saying it is.

 

[ChrisC]

There are only nine justices. We'd have to specifically engineer people to fit each seat if we wanted to somehow have an accurate demographic representation of gender, religion, economic circumstances at birth, public school vs private school attendance, astrological sign, etc. And, I'm happy and not surprised that most of the supreme court justices hail from the nation's finest law schools.

I guess the whole idea is that some people want a Supreme Court that "looks like America." I've been to Walmart, I've seen "America." Instead of "America" I'll settle for a Supreme Court that "looks" like the best justices we can find, with "best" being determined by the political process and based on the evidence of the nominee's legal and academic work. Period.

I assume that all those arguing for the nominee's social background and ethnicity to have a weight similar to over his/her judicial "chops" will cite Clarence Thomas as evidence of the validity of this approach.

You know since we first started selecting Supreme Court Justices, the preference was always to have a Supreme Court that in fact looked like America, which then meant a geographically diverse body of Justices (save for the exclusion of certain religions, races, ethnic groups and gender). One hundred and thirty years later, Presidents decided to negate the prior exclusion by affirmatively taking religion into account, then a half century later race was taken into account, and then afterwards gender, and now ethnicity again in light of a growing underrepresented ethnic population. So, this really isn't anything new. I understand your view that you think that we're beyond viewing this as progress. I think it is and we have a divide that will never be closed, as we have fundamental differences about concepts of meritocracy and the significance of other factors that should or should not be taken in account. Not gonna debate you about that.

However, your laudatory goal of selection of the "best Justices" ignores the fact that the "political" nature of the appointment process itself makes that goal unattainable in virtually all cases. For every Justice appointed, one can probably drum up a Judge Learned Hand or Judge David Bazelon who didn't get appointed and who could lay claim to being "better" than the Justice appointed. Presidents select the best Justice for them, period! And in selecting Clarence Thomas, George H. Bush did select the best Justice for his presidency, at that time.

 

[FUEGO]

Ole Judge Learned Hand. Best judge name EVAR! And a good jurist to boot.

 

[ChrisC]

Given a chance to tell an audience "who she is" -- she chose to highlight not her accomplishments but her ethnicity.

So, to answer your question: Mr Armor probably "persists in thinking that people view their ethnicity as the single most important characteristic that defines who they are" because these very people keep saying it is.

Hmmm, an audience of people on the West Coast attending a Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 12 Annual Symposium. Context is everything, especially when someone is trying to inspire others to succeed.

 

[bright eyed]

The attempt to make the racial equivalent arguments - of flipping whatever she said and replacing it w/ white is simply ridiculous.

We don't live in that equivalent world.

I've been the "first" to do a lot in my family and community and I have to tell you, if anything it sucks. You can feel isolated, you may not have people you can relate to or the networks to support you in your efforts. It's always heralded as a great thing, having been there, i can tell you it doesn't feel so great. And yes, you do have to wonder sometimes whether people are treating you one way or another because of their personality, or maybe because you're different - is that self imposed? perhaps, but based on experience. and having to go through that mental game is stressful.

Any assumption that the other justices have been making decisions not based on their backgrounds is also rather silly.

She's being asked the questions about what role her race/background plays...does that happen to all the white nominees?

Just listen to some of the hearings and questions that have been asked in the Supreme Court and you will know some of these people are not careful, considerate people with lots of background in the law and how it should be interpreted. They're idealogues who ask people questions or make presumptions based on their ideology...that's why we all KNOW you can predict the vote one way or the other nearly w/out fail w/ the exception of one or two swing votes...

 

[samclem]

Hmmm, an audience of people on the West Coast attending a Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 12 Annual Symposium. Context is everything, especially when someone is trying to inspire others to succeed.

The truth doesn't change based on the audience. A "wise" person wouldn't have made these remarks in front of any audience. I think, in retrospect and based on the attention her remarks have generated, she would agree at this point.

I understand your view that you think that we're beyond viewing this as progress. I think it is and we have a divide that will never be closed, as we have fundamental differences about concepts of meritocracy and the significance of other factors that should or should not be taken in account. Not gonna debate you about that.

I understand why you don't want to defend this position. After all, what I want is what Martin Luther King wanted:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Aug 28, 1963

Somehow the left and the right have transmogrified over the last 40 years, and now we have this bizarre situation where a few folks (mostly in the preferences racket) are doing everything possible to keep racial identity politics alive. James Taranto had a great article covering this today. In part:

Sotomayor's statement ["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."] is, however, an expression of prejudice, an exercise in stereotyping. It reminds us of an exchange on an early episode of "All in the Family," which we caught as part of a retrospective aired earlier this week on the TV Land cable network. Archie Bunker and the Meathead are arguing over a brochure advertising a slate of candidates for local office:

Archie: What's the matter with this? I call this representative government. You've got Salvatori, Feldman, O'Reilly, Nelson--that's an Italian, a Jew, an Irishman and a regular American there. That's what I call a balanced ticket.​

Meathead: Why do you always have to label people by nationality?​

Archie: 'Cause, how else are you going to get the right man for the right job? For instance, take Feldman there. He's up for treasurer. Well, that's perfect. All them people know how to handle money. Know what I mean?​

Meathead: No, I don't.​

Archie: Well, then you got Salvatori running for D.A. He can keep an eye on Feldman. You know, I want to tell you something about the Italians. When you do get an honest one, you really got something there.​

Meathead: Aw, c'mon, Arch.​

Archie: Well, then here you got O'Reilly, the mick. He can see that the graft is equally spread around, you know. You got Nelson, the American guy. He's good for TV appearances, to make the rest of them look respectable.​

Like Sotomayor, Archie is not propounding a theory of racial or ethnic supremacy but describing the world in terms of culturally contingent stereotypes. He is engaging in identity politics.



What's fascinating about this is that the Meathead (played by Rob Reiner) is a peer of La Jueza Empática: She was born in 1954; Reiner, in 1947. But the liberalism of "All in the Family" is not the liberalism of the baby boomers. It is that of an earlier generation--Archie Bunker's generation. Series creator Norman Lear and Carroll O'Connor, who played Archie, were born in 1922 and 1924, respectively.
Today, you can easily imagine a conservative uttering the Meathead's earnest query: "Why do you always have to label people by nationality?" But somewhere along the line, liberalism lost its ideals and adopted Archie Bunker's theory of representative government.

The children of black neurosurgeons and black lawyers face no significant special obstacles in today's America. The children of the inner city welfare moms, both black and white, face severe obstacles. The racial barriers are, in every practical sense, gone. The barriers caused by economic circumstance are real. The sooner we concentrate on the real problems, the sooner we'll move ahead together as Americans (without hyphens).

 

[ChrisC]

The truth doesn't change based on the audience. A "wise" person wouldn't have made these remarks in front of any audience. I think, in retrospect and based on the attention her remarks have generated, she would agree at this point.

You might be right that one sentence in her speech shows she used poor language if parsed in isolation from her entire remarks. I read the whole speech and it didn't appear offensive to me, but then again I'm not colorblind like you and not willing to seize every isolated statement to demonstrate my point.

I understand why you don't want to defend this position. After all, what I want is what Martin Luther King wanted:

Ah, the obligatory reference to MLK -- I knew it would appear soon, but do you really believe MLK would be as colorblind as you appear to be? MLK also noted that the "arc of a moral universe is long but it bends towards justice" so sometimes we do have take imponderables like race, ethnicity or other factors into account to arrive at justice.

I've grown weary of trying to convince you and others that positions of absolute colorblindness are not categorical imperatives of morality under an ethical system of fairness.

Somehow the left and the right have transmogrified over the last 40 years, and now we have this bizarre situation where a few folks (mostly in the preferences racket) are doing everything possible to keep racial identity politics alive. James Taranto had a great article covering this today. In part:
The children of black neurosurgeons and black lawyers face no significant special obstacles in today's America. The children of the inner city welfare moms, both black and white, faces severe obstacles. The racial barriers are, in every practical sense, gone. The barriers caused by economic circumstance are real. The sooner we concentrate on the real problems, the sooner we'll move ahead together as Americans (without hyphens).

Undoubtedly there is a declining significance of race in our society; you suggest it has no special significance; I disagree; in my opinion, the gap between the ideal and reality is still there; you wish to minimize or ignore it; and you act as if my view inhibits me or others from "concentrating" on the "real problems" -- it doesn't -- it's just a factor to be taken into account, which you wish to ignore.

 

[bright eyed]

I would hope the folks who support the ideas of fairness and a society that does not judge people based on their ethnicity/race/gender etc can cultivate an open mind and heart to listen to those who have experienced these identities from a different point of view. There is no consensus amongst people of any race/gender/ethnicity on what these experiences might be, but it seems to be a general theme that there is either denial or resistance to seeing things from a point of view different from one's on and that causes us to hit a wall when these discussions come around.

As a country we have made wonderful leaps and bounds in moving this forward, but to rush it and push for closure without a fair airing out of some dirty laundry may result in a less satisfactory outcome, particularly for those who have experienced the worst forms and downfalls of discrimination.

While Sotomayor may have said things that cause some to question her point of view - could it also be that we have not heard much from people who share her point of view in the mainstream institutions of power? Could it be that some who wish her to fail regardless of her merits will push and inflate these issues beyond their relative importance? Could it be there is some element of racial/gender discrimination to these attacks?

While I don't hold race/ethnicity as the primary concern for anything, I do understand it's significance and role in shaping where we have all come from. And it IS significant that she is the first, because, frankly she's the first. So it is coming up all the time.
The fact that she has accomplished what she has given her background and resources, IS significant and a wonderful accomplishment. Does that diminish the accomplishment of others who have also struggled and sacrificed? no, it's just significant, and statistically very significant!

I teared up when I saw that she was nominated. It was an emotional response. She looks like my mother in law and that is incredibly moving to me that this is happening in my lifetime and more importantly in the life of my daughters.

 

[samclem]

As a country we have made wonderful leaps and bounds in moving this forward, but to rush it and push for closure without a fair airing out of some dirty laundry may result in a less satisfactory outcome, particularly for those who have experienced the worst forms and downfalls of discrimination.

We should ALL want to "rush it"--to hasten the day that racial discrimination ends. And by "discrimination" I mean it in the original sense--to "discriminate" (which means "to choose or decide") based on race. If race plays a "plus" factor ("we would prefer to fill this job/student slot/judgeship with a black candidate") or a "minus" factor ('we would prefer not to have a black candidate fill this position") it is still choosing (discriminating) by race. It is time that we stop discriminating (in the broadest sense) by race.

What kind of "fair airing of dirty laundry" do you have in mind? Is there anything more to be said? Does anyone not know of the past? How long will we languish in this? How long must we replay the role of "victim" and "victimizer" despite the evidence before our eyes? Who is really helped by this? Do our kids get to learn to be victims, too?

Most people in America recently chose a black man to lead them. There are very few countries in the world that have achieved the degree of racial equality we enjoy in America. Despite an undeniable history of slavery and racism, we are not that country anymore. It is a good sign that Americans can look beyond racial identities in choosing their leaders. An even more positive sign is that race played a relatively minor role in the election (except among African American voters--which is understandable, but regrettable).

In the ghetto, in the barrio, in the slums, there are poor people that need assistance. It's not because they are black, or latino, or white. It is because they are poor, or because they have rotten homes, or other causes. But, race, thankfully, is no longer an issue in America unless we choose to make it one.

 

[bright eyed]

We should ALL want to "rush it"--to hasten the day that racial discrimination ends. And by "discrimination" I mean it in the original sense--to "discriminate" (which means "to choose or decide") based on race.

What kind of "fair airing of dirty laundry" do you have in mind? Is there anything more to be said? Does anyone not know of the past? How long will we languish in this? How long must we replay the role of "victim" and "victimizer" despite the evidence before our eyes? Who is really helped by this?

Most people in America recently chose a black man to lead them. There are very few countries in the world that have achieved the degree of racial equality we enjoy in America. Despite an undeniable history of slavery and racism, we are not that country anymore. It is a good sign that Americans can look beyond racial identities in choosing their leaders. An even more positive sign is that race played a relatively minor role in the election (except among African American voters--which is understandable, but regrettable).

In the ghetto, in the barrio, in the slums, there are poor people that need assistance. It's not because they are black, or latino, or white. It is because they are poor, or because they have rotten homes, or other causes. But, race, thankfully, is no longer an issue in America unless we choose to make it one.

Well, sure the discrimination should end immediately, however, I'm just doubtful that can happen if people refuse to take the time to understand things from a variety of experiences.

By airing dirty laundry, I don't just mean the past. I mean - the fact that we all don't truly understand each other - the fact that we may hold assumptions about the other that may not be accurate or based on some bias, or even some aggravation or resentment. Sure we can talk about slavery, but what's more is the lack of discussion around what it really means to be descendents of slaves, it was just 4 generations ago - not that long, and in fact, Obama isn't a descendent from slaves, his father was an immigrant and a well educated one, he also had well educated mother and supportive grandparents.

I didn't say anything about victims or victimizers. I sense a lot of anger behind your response. Why would you say african americans were the only ones who considered race as a factor when voting Obama? That seems to be a huge assumption on your part. In fact, most of the people I know were exceptionally enthusiastic in part because he is African American - because that has meaning in our country. Even still, I doubt people would have been as enthusiastic if he was merely a black candidate either - so it wasn't the sole factor for anyone.

Nobody is denying the importance of looking at poverty. But when the discussion is about race then it's about race.

Some people can't choose to make race not a factor...it is chosen. Sure we can chose how we deal with that fact, but let's not fool ourselves.

 

[samclem]

Why would you say african americans were the only ones who didn't consider race as a factor when voting Obama? That seems to be a huge assumption on your part.

Not a huge assumption. 53% of all voters voted for Obama. Among blacks, 95% voted for Obama. But, did they choose him based on his stand on the issues or his race? (black voters, in general, are more liberal than white voters, so we should not be surprised that they overwhelmingly selected Obama over McCain). The best indicator is the primary vote. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had nearly identical positions on the issues, except for the war in Iraq. White voters chose them in almost even numbers. But black voters chose Obama by overwhelming numbers over Clinton. I haven't heard any plausible explanation other than the fact that black voters preferred the black candidate. Sad.

 

[bright eyed]

Not a huge assumption. 53% of all voters voted for Obama. Among blacks,
95% voted for Obama. But, did they choose him based on his stand ont he issues or his race (black voters, in general, are more liberal than white voters, so we should not be surprised that they overwhelmingly selected Obama over McCain). The best indicator is the primary vote. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had nearly identical positions on the issues, except for the war in Iraq. White voters chose them in almost even numbers. But black voters chose Obama by overwhelming numbers over Clinton. I haven't heard any plausible explanation other than the fact that black voters preferred the black candidate. Sad.

Well we can split hairs on this one - but African Am's also vote overwhelmingly democrat too.

But in terms of saying that they were the only ones who voted with race as a major or important consideration seems unreasonable.

 

[ziggy29]

By airing dirty laundry, I don't just mean the past. I mean - the fact that we all don't truly understand each other - the fact that we may hold assumptions about the other that may not be accurate or based on some bias, or even some aggravation or resentment. Sure we can talk about slavery, but what's more is the lack of discussion around what it really means to be descendents of slaves, it was just 4 generations ago - not that long, and in fact, Obama isn't a descendent from slaves, his father was an immigrant and a well educated one, he also had well educated mother and supportive grandparents.

I try to look at this from the intersection of idealism and reality. From the standpoint of idealism, I'd like to say that race doesn't matter, and consistent with Dr. King's message, what matters is the intersection of character and competence.

These things do matter today, even after factoring in the imperfections of reality. But I don't think they account for as much as they should. We have two competing factors: one is the "old boy network" more likely to hire and promote the "old money," predominantly white and (to a decreasing degree) predominantly male, credentials be damned. The other factor is governmental pressure to hire and promote more minorities and women, sometimes arguably to the point that someone who is white and male can be rejected even if he seems to be the most qualified and competent for the position being sought.

Personally, I'd love it if neither of these existed. One seems to entrench the existence of the other counterbalance.

I didn't say anything about victims or victimizers. I sense a lot of anger behind your response. Why would you say african americans were the only ones who considered race as a factor when voting Obama? That seems to be a huge assumption on your part. In fact, most of the people I know were exceptionally enthusiastic in part because he is African American - because that has meaning in our country. Even still, I doubt people would have been as enthusiastic if he was merely a black candidate either - so it wasn't the sole factor for anyone.

In all honesty, I don't think race was a huge factor in the November election, unusually huge black support for Obama notwithstanding. The bottom line is that the electorate perceived that things sucked, and that usually favors the opposition party.

On one hand I recognize the symbolic importance of electing a black president. No question about it. Someone watching the civil rights movement 50 years ago would be stunned if they fast-forwarded a half-century. There's clearly a "feel good" factor I won't deny. But on the other hand I also think it points to our own human shortcomings if that was a significant factor in how we voted -- whether for him OR against him. Regardless of whether you voted for or against Obama, if race played a role in the decision, Dr. King's dream is not being fulfilled because you're looking at the color of their skin.

In other words, if people elected a black president because of his race, I think it cheapens the accomplishment. If they elected him because they thought he was the best person for the job and race was a non-issue, THEN we have made even more progress!

Nobody is denying the importance of looking at poverty. But when the discussion is about race then it's about race.

I believe it's more about economic status than race, personally. I think the child of a poor white family will likely fall behind a child of a reasonably well-off black family, for example. Race may be an influencing factor depending on one's age and where they grew up. I think many people fall into the trap of thinking it's about race when it's more about socioeconomic status. Having said that, it can be about race; see below.

If I may go on a tangent, this whole thing about race makes me sad sometimes. When I was young, like first and second grade, where I went to school in California we had a fairly diverse student population -- whites, blacks, Latinos and Asians were all well represented. And you know what? We were all friends without regard to race. We looked different, but none of us cared. We played together, socialized together, and it seemed like there was no problem.

But a few years later -- by about 4th or 5th grade -- you started seeing kids of different races "self-segregating" and hanging out with people who looked like themselves. And by junior high, you might have forgotten that the different race kid who was one of your best friends playing kickball with you in the second grade was suddenly shutting you out because you didn't look like them.

How sad is that? And how much more proof do we need that racism (from ALL races) is nurture and not nature? Once a young color-blind kid absorbs enough racism from the world, in a few years, they perpetuate it.

I really wish we were better than that. ALL of us, all races and cultures.

 

[bright eyed]

Ziggy, I get what you are saying and feel you on it.

I think we should embrace our experiences, differences and commonalities - explore them, not think they are insignificant - just a different way of seeing it.

As for the race vs class thing - i was just trying to say that sometimes the discussion becomes an either or thing - where folks try to say one is more important than the other. In our era, perhaps we are seeing a shift, but if the discussion is to get rid of the discussion about race, then i'd prefer to stay on topic if you know what i mean!

i understand the incredibly complicated nature of addressing problems in our society. i also can see how trying to simplify it thru a racial lens is also dangerous, as sometimes then, other communities who may be suffering may be overlooked. It's a balance game. but denial doesn't help us look at the problems in an honest way and that is where i have an issue with it and believe it slows us down from finding solutions that will work...

 

[armor99]

And, here we have Judge Sotomayor, in her own words (Thanks, Eddy Amps):



Given a chance to tell an audience "who she is" -- she chose to highlight not her accomplishments but her ethnicity.

So, to answer your question: Mr Armor probably "persists in thinking that people view their ethnicity as the single most important characteristic that defines who they are" because these very people keep saying it is.

Forgive my absence over the last few days.... been really busy. Thanks Samclem for explaining the point I was trying to make with great care and elloquence.

Simply put... there is not... nor should their be a "-" (hyphen) in the word "American". To be an american pre-supposes that you should identify yourself as an "american" first, and other things later.

Should we not strive to be one nation, and one people? In my opinion, to identifiy yourself as different and apart are inherantly destructive to a culture.... any culture
.
When people speak of the need for "diversity", we need to be very careful what that actually means, and if that is really what we want. I believe in diversity of thought. Different points of view are excellent, and in any group should always be strived for.

However, where most seem to go of the rails of reality is that diversity of "thought" is not (and never will be equivalent) to, diversity of "skin color, religion, gender, eye color, and the list goes on. If you want to be truly fair about diversity of thought, then a supreme court justice should have to take a personality profile test. Those tests cut across race, religion, gender, etc... etc... etc.

Assuming that just because a group of people share the same skin color, or any other trait, makes them have similiar thoughts, is the very height of a racist notion. it is the idea that something in the "blood" of two people with blue eyes for example, means they will have superior or inferior ideas to brown eyed people. Sound familiar.... it should... and with good reason.

 

[ChrisC]

Oh Brother, Where are thou?

Simply put... there is not... nor should their be a "-" (hyphen) in the word "American". To be an american pre-supposes that you should identify yourself as an "american" first, and other things later.

Should we not strive to be one nation, and one people? In my opinion, to identifiy yourself as different and apart are inherantly destructive to a culture.... any culture.

Ah, we're all part of the giant American monolith, irrespective of regional differences, regional dialects, regional pride, or for that matter, any differences in neighborhood, schools, or cuisine -- that combined with a rich mosaic of differences, makes us, ummmmmm, American!

So much for E Pluribus Unum or our concept of a melting pot!


And then we get this:

Assuming that just because a group of people share the same skin color, or any other trait, makes them have similiar thoughts, is the very height of a racist notion. it is the idea that something in the "blood" of two people with blue eyes for example, means they will have superior or inferior ideas to brown eyed people. Sound familiar.... it should... and with good reason.

How forked can one's tongue be?

 

[FinanceDude]

Simply put... there is not... nor should their be a "-" (hyphen) in the word "American". To be an american pre-supposes that you should identify yourself as an "american" first, and other things later.

Should we not strive to be one nation, and one people? In my opinion, to identifiy yourself as different and apart are inherantly destructive to a culture.... any culture

Wonder how the Native American population thinks about this. maybe we need the following:

1)Original American (native American)
2)Settler American (Pilgrims)
3)Immigrant American (Most of us)
4)Birthright American (Folks born here)

Interestingly, Mexicans do NOT like us saying we are from "America". They feel they are American too, NORTH AMERICAN. They prefer us to say we are from the United States......interesting........

 

[ziggy29]

Wonder how the Native American population thinks about this. maybe we need the following:

1)Original American (native American)
2)Settler American (Pilgrims)
3)Immigrant American (Most of us)
4)Birthright American (Folks born here)

I'm all four.

 

[armor99]

Oh Brother, Where are thou?



Ah, we're all part of the giant American monolith, irrespective of regional differences, regional dialects, regional pride, or for that matter, any differences in neighborhood, schools, or cuisine -- that combined with a rich mosaic of differences, makes us, ummmmmm, American!

So much for E Pluribus Unum or our concept of a melting pot!


And then we get this:



How forked can one's tongue be?

Yup.... pretty much the response I expected. Not going to engage in the personal attack (just too tired this morning).... but at least I will try to set a small part of the record straight.

E Pluribus Unum means.... "Out of many.... one". Which IS the exact point I was trying to make actually. That whatever our race, religion, etc, the idea was... and still is... we should be one people. Hence my "-" hyphen comment.

 

[ziggy29]

E Pluribus Unum means.... "Out of many.... one". Which IS the exact point I was trying to make actually. That whatever our race, religion, etc, the idea was... and still is... we should be one people. Hence my "-" hyphen comment.

Well, I'm not a huge fan of hyphenated-Americanism, at least when people consider themselves X first and American second.

Having said that, it would be awfully boring if we didn't all bring our own customs, our own cuisines, our own art and music, our own traditions into the American mosaic. So while I appreciate the "spice" that diversity provides, unless it comes with the understanding that we are ultimately one nation united first and foremost, it certainly comes with the capacity for divisiveness and self-segregation and mutual mistrust.

 

[ERD50]

Oh Brother, Where are thou?



Ah, we're all part of the giant American monolith, irrespective of regional differences, regional dialects, regional pride, or for that matter, any differences in neighborhood, schools, or cuisine -- that combined with a rich mosaic of differences, makes us, ummmmmm, American!

So much for E Pluribus Unum or our concept of a melting pot!


And then we get this:

Originally Posted by armor99
Assuming that just because a group of people share the same skin color, or any other trait, makes them have similiar thoughts, is the very height of a racist notion. it is the idea that something in the "blood" of two people with blue eyes for example, means they will have superior or inferior ideas to brown eyed people. Sound familiar.... it should... and with good reason.

How forked can one's tongue be?

ChrisC, I don't understand why you refer to that comment as "fork-tongued"?

Being a US Citizen does not mean we need to be monolithic. I am fascinated by the different cultural backgrounds of the people I meet, their foods, customs, holidays, relationships, etc. I think it is great if some of us choose to honor and share those traditions. I don't think that makes us any less of a US Citizen. I don't see any reason at all to abandon that.

But I get upset at the idea that a person can only be represented in government by someone with an identical ethnic background. I guess we should burn the voting booths and just replace them with a census report.

Reflecting on the King quote that samclem included (color of skin versus content of character), I can't help but think that anything that was so true yesterday, and still rings so true today, will also ring true in the future. I dont think that Doctor King would consider those words from Sotomayor to be progress at all. Two steps forward, three steps back?

-ERD50

 

[FinanceDude]

I'm all four.

So, you're related to Pocohontas? That's cool.........

 

[ziggy29]

So, you're related to Pocohontas? That's cool.........

Probably much more closely related to Tecumseh, actually.

 

[ERD50]

Back to finances...

OK, let's get back to the financial aspects of this nomination and her statements:

Let's say I was born to into a poor family that happened to be a minority here in the USA. And let's say I overcame those obstacles to achieve a respected and financially secure place in society. Then, I was asked to address a group of people with my same minority background - what should I tell them?

It seems to me that most of the advice would be common to anyone in a lower economic position, regardless of ethnicity. Work hard, get an education or develop a marketable skill, save your money, observe the world around you and learn from your mistakes. Within that general message, there might be some advice specific to the customs and traditions of that group to help them better navigate the business world, that's fine. But to identify yourself first and foremost with your ethnicity just doesn't seem to help in any way that I can see. It has little to do with finances, and it should have little to do with your ability or inability to serve on the bench.

-ERD50