So being proud of one's heritage is racism, according to the GOP?

Sotomayor's "Latina woman" comment seems to be the only thing the GOP has to cling to, it really is quite pathetic. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the comment she made was not racist in any way whatsoever. And for the GOP to be crying foul about racism - godalmighty, the irony of that is simply incredible.

I really resent that. We aren't all attention whores, or racists.

If not, this obviously does not apply to you.

Show me anywhere in that sentence where I said "all white people are racist attention whores".

My point was that for hetero white males who have had this entire society cater to their every whim for 200+ years, stepping aside and letting someone else have the spotlight is too much for them to bear and they have to cry about it. If you are reading anything else into that, that is on you and says a lot about your own mindset and need to unpack some knapsacks.

Maybe you just might be an attention whore for entirely different reasons.

You said "white people" and that is all inclusive. You didn't say some white people, or certain white people like hetero white males. You said white people. Excuse me for reading what you wrote.

Where in Chovexani's post does it say that all white people are attention whores? Quite the opposite - it says that NOT all white people are attention whores.

White people, or black people, or asian people, or American Indian people, you are speaking in an all-inclusive manner. Period.


"White people not being the center of attention for once = racism" Perhaps you can point to the words that are opposite as you are trying to claim.

that it's the attention that's been paid to white people (by people of all races) that is the problem.

Not white people themselves.

I also think the point was that most of the attention came from the Right, who only wish they could completely IGNORE the fact that people come in colors other than white.


Oh, and another problem is that the media often focus on white people to the detriment of other races. When's the last time we saw 24/7 coverage on a little missing black kid? The pretty little blonde girls seem to get all the attention. Nobody seems to give a shit when little black kids go missing or get kidnapped by big nasty men.


It's not the white people themselves who are the problem. It's the attention that's paid to them by people who want to forget that white isn't the only color in the world.

Isn't it much more likely that your comment relates more to class than anything else?

not as a group. In any part of the country from Florida to Alaska there are white men working their a$$ off and being treated like garbage. It's totally about class, but you just cannot convince some people that just because 53% of rich people are white males (and that figure is probably too high because it does not seem to count the spouse of the rich white male), that this does not provide a life of Riley to ALL white males.

Why would you think it applied to you?

It's not all about you.

Thanks for proving my point in a roundabout way, though.

You're mistaken.

Me reading your response: :rofl:

Thanks for that! :hi:

If you look closely at the post you're responding to, you'll realize that the "racism" being referred to is that being attributed to Sotomayor by the GOP. Hence, it is Sotomayor's racism that you are trying to take claim for.

That would actually make you an attention whore, assuming I understand the term correctly.

The post was actually saying that the GOP is perceiving a shift of attention off of white males... and is claiming that that shift is racism. Racism on the part of a puertoriquena against said white people (GOP).

It has nothing to do with you... but the moment you take offense, I become suspicious that you are so sensitive on the topic... since, in my experience, those who are comfortable with the state of their prejudices don't bat an eye when this sort of thing comes up in "conversation"... rather I find it to be largely those who are concerned that they not be perceived as racists that jump. And I always wonder if it might not be fear of a possible slip that makes these people so jumpy. A theory.

I suggest you chillax... and take some time to reflect honestly on why you're so touchy.

I was responding pointedly to ONE post. One.

I'm all about equality, and some people are not more equal than others. No one has the right to say certain things regardless of their color. Simple, really.

Had the poster said "white males who have been in power" I would have commented, hell to the yes! But that is not the case. White people, without distinguishing any individual group of white people, is all encompassing. I don't tolerate anyone grouping all blacks together, all whites together, all Jews, etc. However you choose to divvy up society, there are a fair amount of idiots and assholes in each group. Do not group me with the assholes in "my group." That's all I ask. And I promise never to group you in with the assholes in your group, whatever that is.

that you leapt to a false conclusion.

"Had the poster said "white males who have been in power" "... Ok, let's take it from the top. The last sentence of the OP begins: "And for the GOP to be crying foul about racism..." Now, the racism that the GOP is crying foul about is... not the racism of "whitey" (the irony would make Cheney's heart-product implode)... no, the racism the GOP is crying foul about is that of Sotomayor. You know, the Latina (puertoriquena, specifically, in this case) "reverse-racism".

Now, we move on to the post to which you responded.
"White people not being the center of attention for once = racism" Granted... if you insist on taking this post out of context, then your response would not be erroneous. The post was, however, a response to the OP. Now, as I've tried to clarify, in the context of the OP, "racism" is a reference to Sotomayor's "racism".
That being the case... Sotomayor's "racism" is, in the post, being equated with ("=") "White people not being the center of attention for once"

So, Puertoriquena racism = white people not being the center of attention for once. That still sounds a little clumsy. However... as the OP also described the "racism" thusly: "...that the GOP is crying foul about..." it would make sense to, in the context of a response to this OP, factor in that the "racism" that we are talking about is racism that is being attributed by the GOP. That being said... the conclusion can be drawn that "racism" in the post is a sort of shorthand for "racism being attributed by the GOP to a Puertariquena".

With that point of confusion solved, we now decipher the post you responded to as "White people not being the center of attention for once" = (is equatable to... causes) "racism to be attributed to a Puertariquena by the GOP".

In other words... the poster is saying that the GOP is so "bent out of shape" that white people are not the target audience/the basis of all values of judgement in Sotomayor's judicial rulings, as well as the whole of the news story that is a SCOTUS appointment, that they're response is to claim that it's "racism"... because "they" are not being "included enough" to satisfy their tastes.

So, hopefully that has clarified the point.

To make it simple, in case you don't care to read through the above dissertation. You asked:"Do not group me with the assholes in "my group." "... I would argue that you thrust yourself amongst the assholes of your group quite well without any help from anyone else.

Don't take it personally though. Some of my best friends are assholes. As a matter of fact, I've actually done some extensive field studies in "asshole", and I've found it to be a valuable skill set.

I was responding to ONE POST. I said repeatedly that I was responding to ONE POST. What the OP has to say has nothing to do with my concerns WITH THAT ONE POST.

Once again... that post that you responded to was in response to the OP. That means that the post "came into existence" within a context... the context of the ideas expressed by the words of the OP. To try to deny that context is... well, it is tantamount to justifying what the GOP is doing when they take Sotomayor's words and pull them out of the context of the speech in which she gave them... and use those "out of context" words to call her a racist.

Which, come to think of it, is precisely what you seem to be trying to do to Chovexani.

You can't just respond to words taken out of context and expect to have your criticisms of those words taken seriously. That is an exercise in re-defining language and the way that language is used.

If I was in a more hostile mood... I would proceed to use your justifications to provide evidence that you are a bad person. It would not be a very difficult trick of sophistry. Trivial, methinks.

It seems to me that... if you are going to take issue with a post without considering the context, you should at least try to give the poster a chance to clarify matters before you begin making charges of "reverse racism".


That said... even taking the post completely out of context... I have a hard time figuring out what you might've taken offense to. "White people not being the center of attention for once = racism"... are you offended that "white people" was used in the same sentence with "racism"? Are you offended that it should be considered racism if white people aren't the center of attention? How could you think that if you think white people aren't attention whores? Did you do some sort of complete re-meaningification of the sentence to try to make it say that white people are racists if they're not the center of attention (which is not what that sentence says... but if you're intellectually lazy enough, you could fool yourself into thinking so)?

I'm sorry, but your outrage makes no sense and confuses me. Please, if you really want to engage in the spurious exercise of evaluating a sentence completely out of context... could you pretty please diagram for me how it makes sense in any other way than the in-context way I have tried repeatedly to elucidate?...

An OP says some things, or makes a thesis, or two, or asks questions. A reply to that OP can be agreement, or disagreement. As such, the OP stands alone. It could be a comment about Republicans, if Republicans are mentioned. Since only white people are mentioned, it seems to be a comment about white people. Just because the OP was about Republicans does not mean the replier was necessarily talking about Republicans. He could be, or he could also be talking about white people, even some who claim to be progressive.

For some reason though, some of Chovexani's defenders feel the need to narrow it to males, instead of all white people. It seems to me the whole thing could have been more simply resolved with a reply of "No offense intended, I was talking about the way Republicans think and thought that would be obvious, given the OP."

Then we'd have peace in our time. Instead a defensive and hostile response of "I didn't say anything wrong, why don't you learn how to read?" just escalates things.

That's kinda why I don't like one or two line sarcastic posts. People just attack instead of trying to explain things. But that's true of both sides.

There is no spoon...

Look, I write a post or an OP. That provides its own context. If I write something that says, for example "According to the far left around here 'Obama sucks'. All they do is whine, whine, whine. It's 24/7 poutrage. All or nothing." Yada yada yada.

Then taking that out of context would be to write "According to hfojvt 'Obama sucks'."

On the other hand, if Buzz Clik, for example, writes an OP complaining about the far left, and I reply with just one line saying "Obama sucks" then it is not clear, there is not the same context showing whether I mean what I say or if it is meant as a parody of what the far left says. I could be agreeing with the Clikster or I could just be chiming in with a swipe at Obama.

The context is not clear because the words are not embedded in the OP. When asked to define his context, Chovexani, in fact, replied with a broadside against hetero white males. Not against some, but against all, just as the original reply suspected.

"My point was that for hetero white males who have had this entire society cater to their every whim for 200+ years, stepping aside and letting someone else have the spotlight is too much for them to bear and they have to cry about it. If you are reading anything else into that, that is on you and says a lot about your own mindset and need to unpack some knapsacks."

Although even that is not clear if he is talking about those hetero white males who have had society cater to their every whim (i.e. those at the top) or saying that all hetero white males have had society cater to their every whim. I think it is the latter, especially with the apparent reference to Tim Wise.

Thus, although his original post said nothing about sex or sexuality, it certainly seems to have been a broadside against a group. Not SOME in the group, but ALL in the group. All hetero white males are privileged, with a 200+ year history of privileges and we all cry and complain about the loss of our privileges.

... and it sounds a little like This...

seems more like a blanket statement about white people, that we complain whenever a white person is not the center of attention. Now you seem to say that whenever we complain about generic swipes at white people that actually shows that WE are the racists.

If the post said "GOP - white people not being the center ..." then it would be about the GOP, not about me. But when it just says "white people not being ..." then it sure looks more like a statement about white people then it is about the GOP.

The OP did talk about the GOP. The leap from the GOP to "white males" was admittedly a proof-light leap... but it's the fucking GOP... I mean, really? Are you going to question an association of the GOP with white males? Palin, Bachman, and Steele... ok, fine... you can call it diversity if you want.

As to the "blanket statement about white people"... that is a conclusion that you leaped to all on your own. If you read the post in the context of a response to the OP then you will see that it is nothing of the kind. I'll refer you to the "proof" I constructed in post #63. If you have any questions or points of refutation... feel free to call me on my shit.

It would seem that many people don't bother with the intricacies of the context in which a statement is made/typed. I am actually a little surprised... and more ironically... it highlights the possibilities of the Republican attempt to take Sotomayor's statements out of context, and use them to confuse the public. So now we have DUers throwing a hissy fit over something another DUer said, which they've taken out of context, in a thread bemoaning the use by the Republicans of a comment made by Sotomayor which was also taken out of context.

Ahh... the world is a tasty intellectual chamber pot. I drink it to the dregs some days.

Ohh yeah... if you're not inclined to wade through post #63... I'll make it simple. The post was only talking about you if you really want it to have been talking about you. If not it wasn't. I don't care what you think you know about the words that you read... I'm telling you, it was only talking about you if you want it to have been talking about you.

I thought it was hilarious.

"White people not being the center of attention for once = racism" completely nails the hypocrisy of the GOP right in the fundament, IMO.

"White people not being the center of attention for once = racism"

The GOP would see that as racism, they have been soooo oppressed. :rofl:

I like to listen to Hispanic radio stations sometimes. Especially when they play old love songs I don't understand but cry anyway.

She's onto something, and you're wrong. Again.

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. But just know the shoe is a common size.

...

Sorry, that is not necessarily so.

Maybe you just haven't lived around enough white racist males for it to click for you.

:grr:

You looking for insults?

If it's not good for "one group" to say, or not good to say about "one group" it should never be used for ANY group... no matter how you want to divvy up society.

Not all white people are racists... and saying "white people" means exactly that. White people. Not some, not certain.

but god help anybody who would ever utter the phrase 'white pride'

There's plenty racism on all sides to go around.

Besides, one's race or nationality or ethnicity is an accident of birth and justifies neither pride nor scorn.

\

"one's race or nationality or ethnicity is an accident of birth and justifies neither pride nor scorn."

As a room mother, it was very hard to explain to my daughter why, after we threw ourselves into the Black History Month celebrations at school, and the Latin History Day celebration, and the Filipino Festival celebration, and on and on, that there would be no Irish, Welsh, or Swedish celebration. The only Irish history we learn is fables and fantasy beings. No one talks about the Celts. No one knows a damn thing. All they can tell you is whiskey, Leprechauns, and shamrocks. Oh, and Guinness. Great. The girl sincerely believed they would get to her sooner or later. White women are adrift... as are many other groups. Good thing there's logic like "one's race or nationality or ethnicity is an accident of birth and justifies neither pride nor scorn" in the world. Thanks for that.

The celebration of that nationality or ethnicity is not an accident but a universal human activity and their celebration requires no approval from you, thanks very much.

ETA: And as for Black Pride, tell you what. Get back to me when black people enslave your ancestors for hundreds of years. Then I'll agree with you about there being enough racism on all sides to go around. Until then, your comment is straight of out the right wing playbook under "minimizing our bigotry".

He grew up as a nazi skinhead on the streets of Chicago... but he could be hysterical to hang out with.

He also, eventually, came around to the "open minded" opinion that he not only wouldn't complain about black pride... but he even resolved to stop attacking black people on the streets just for showing too much pride.

(I never claimed the guy wasn't an asshole.)

It's good to see that he's not the only one who's come to the opinion that black people should be allowed 'pride'... though that next step of fully realizing that 'black pride' does not, in and of itself, have anything to do with 'white pride'... the realization that it's not some sort of metaphysical tournament that only one 'pride' can win... that last realization seems to be a hard final epiphany to embrace.

Ohh, and by the way... what the fuck does 'black pride' have to do with the topic of this thread? Or with Sotomayor?

How ironic that you have an HRC equality avatar. Although I suspect you may be an agent provocateur.

how could you take this so far off the rails?

You have driven this thread so far from the tracks that they will never find the train.

Jeesh.

The poster didn't say all white people held it; she was characterizing the POV that calls Sotomayor a racist and she's right, too.

For the last 200+ years?

O8) :evilgrin: O8)

You might want to erase that hate from your heart. It will eat you up.

please see post #63. There wasn't actually any racism in #2... it only seems that way if you scan it cursorily without taking it in context of its being a response to the OP... and you don't bother to examine inconsistencies.

Quick basic summary... the "racism" mentioned was the "racism" attributed to Sotomayor by the GOP. The "White people" were the ones doing the attributing... i.e. the GOP spinners. As a result... you will find that you are directing Choxvani to erase racism from his/her heart that is actually GOP hatred... which would be a wonderful trick... and if you'd like to tell me how to erase racism from the GOP's heart... I'm all ears.

:shrug:

:P

Pardon my fucking French.

:P

Makes sense.

There's plenty of Southern Heritage to proud of. There's Martin Luther King and Hee-Haw and NASCAR and the Texas Medical Center and Faulkner and the Duke Boys of Hazard County and Rosa Parks and Willie and Waylon and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo and Spindletop and beef ribs and Janice Joplin and BJ and the Bear and Thomas Jefferson and by God grits that stick to your ribs and keep you going till lunch.

It ain't all the Klan and Scarlett O'Hara, you know.

That's why I posted their pictures. They're the people who are complaining about her being proud of her heritage.

The other people you named (Hee Haw? Really? Hee Haw?) aren't bitching about other people being proud of their heritage, while proudly boasting their own.

Best variety show on tv ever (okay, maybe it's a tie with Carol Burnett). It was the last true vaudeville on tv

Saaaaaluuute!!!

We have a winner.

Displaying the Confederate flag is just being proud of one's heritage, isn't it? Oh, but that's different - that's white people being proud. I forgot.

Has anyone ever suggested to these people that they stop for a moment to exercise what few brain cells they have before opening their mouths?

Since the right has also said that things like "White Power" are just people taking pride in their white ethnicity and not racism.

How do they think they can have it both ways?

Your heritage is an accident of birth that you had nothing to do with. You might as well have pride in your eye color.

:D

I concur wholeheartedly.

that makes naked apes human. It requires memory, the ability to make and pass on story, relationship and so, tradition. It's much more than an accident.

celebrate them. It may be an accident of birth that you were born to Family X, in other words, but that moment is were accident stops and where human culture begins. Celebrating heritage is in part celebrating being human and is much more complicated than celebrating eye color -- unless your eye color is also celebrated as part of your heritage. :)

... as opposed to the family which one is born into and doesn't choose.

Certainly one can "adopt" a heritage, but it still comes down to one's actions.

It's an integral part of human culture so discounting it as an accident of birth completely misses the point -- which is to keep human culture going over time.

That's where the racism ball is bouncing WRT this nominee. The other stuff is just fluff.

It's absolutely over the top, the vitriol. I say let the woman have her hearing, she'll either impress or not in that venue--she's catching more crap than Alito, and she doesn't have a spouse who will dress in clothing made from couch cushion material to sob behind her on cue, either.

I like the pick, demographically. I hope she's WONDERFUL, because it's "time" frankly.

Some of these "whites" are not fully European--some of these white supremacists have Native American ancestors dating back to either Colonial times or the Old West era. They're in fact biologically multiracial.

BTW, Latino is not a race; it's an ethnicity, and a plural of ethnicities for that matter.

It's OK for white Repunks to be proud to be white, but it's not OK for ethnic minorities to celebrate their heritage. IOW, if one's heritage is hatred, it's acceptable for a repunk.

their attacks on Sonia Sotomayor. Only a bigot or racist would find any relevance in the right wing Republicans attacks. Projection, projection, projection.

If your heritage isn't racist, then no.

And no, minorities being 'racist' isn't the same as whites being 'racist' simply because whites have held all the power and the money for a long time now and suppressed anyone who wasn't like them.

Pretty simple.

No one gets a free ride to "catch up."

White Power?

Seriously?

It is only the difference between the power being able to stand on your feet as a human being instead of an animal, and the power to crush, abuse and enslave any non-whites they happen to cross paths with.

Black Power = "we are human"
White Power = "no you are not"

See the difference?

As an agnostic I would rather think that pride is a vice for the lack of a better word.

then just maybe I am.

I could throw together some words for it, but I think they would be superfluous.

Suffice it to say that "Scottish" is a culture (and what man doesn't want an excuse to wear a skirt... err, kilt?), while "White Pride" conjures images of racial issues... which have too often been used as a means of subjugation in this country.

(Though, historically, I think the Scottish immigrants to the US have been among the most "racist", statistically speaking... at least in the early days of the nation. And I say that with a measurable amount of "Scottish" blood... though I'm working here with only hints and rumors I've heard of Scottish predominance amongst the Southerners that first formed the Klan...)

:thumbsup:

Are people supposed to be judged on their ancestor's behavior?

fuckin' A.

like that? Seriously. I don't get this whole concept.

If you're proud you're of a certain heritage, but far back in history those people did not nice things to other people, then you're a racist?

I think a person either behaves and speaks like a racist, or doesn't. I'm not sure what heritage has to do with that, necessarily. I've known plenty of people who love their parents or grandparents dearly, while definitely not sharing some of their pretty unacceptable views. Where does that leave them?

But since your only explanation seems to be an angry outburst, I guess I shouldn't be looking for clarification.

There are still nooses being hanged in trees in some areas of this country, and African-Americans are still treated like second class citizens. And just a few years ago some were tied up behind trucks and dragged to their deaths. In the South. There is no 'far back in history' on this issue. It's right here, right now.

You don't judge people on who their ancestors were. You judge them on their own behavior, now.

If someone's grandfather was a Klan member, would it be fair to accuse him or her of racism because of that? No. Only if they themselves acted or spoke in a racist way. Heritage means nothing in judging someone on that.

Your great-great-grandfather died fighting for the Confederacy. He died fighting for the right of white people to own black people.

That is the heritage.

You can 1)acknowledge that heritage, or 2)embrace that heritage.

1) My great-great-grandfather died fighting for the Confederacy.

2) My g-g-g died fighting for the Confederacy which is why I fly the battle flag above my doublewide, and it really has nothing to do with slavery it's all about pride and heritage and I don't CARE that 99 of a hundred people see the flag as a sign of racism and hate because it's MY heritage and I'm not going to let THEM tell me what to think, gawdammit!

Get the difference?

It's about the person's behavior in the here and now.

of being PROUD of grandpa for being a leader in the Klan.

That is 'embracing a racist heritage'. Embrace is a verb - denotes an action.

You ask 'how does someone embrace a racist heritage?'

There you go.

If you celebrate the Confederate flag, you are celebrating racism. That flag was based on slavery. If you don't believe me, read the Articles of Secession. Slavery is mentioned about every other word.

But the Iberian Peninsula is questionable. And the descendents of those from the Iberian Peninsula who may have mixed with Indians or slaves -- well that's just beyond the GOP Pale. And pride in a cultural heritage from a former Spanish colony; well that is simply off limits.

Oops, with the exception of Cuban heritage, that is.

Does he imply inclusion of Confederate Battle pennants on the windows of primer-gray pickup trucks driving along I-20 in East Texas? If so, he may have just been hoisted by his own petard...

Need more?

:eyes:

It's quite cool to be proud to be a white male of European descent, especially if you're Republican!

Carla Binion and Chip Berlet have documented the crooked cross and its influence on the GOP right.

Sort of makes sense of our nation's history over the past 46 years, too.

Know your BFEE: Scions of the Military Industrial Complex

Know your BFEE: Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich

Know your BFEE: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ford Covered Up CIA Murder of American Scientist

Know your BFEE: Money Trumps Peace. Always.

A fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission

They put on clown makeup then whine when we laugh at them. :banghead:

Then it's "patriotic".

Ass holes. I hate Republicans.

I'm proud to be scotch/irish. I have nothing to be ashamed of and neither does anyone else.

Truth is, we are all the same and just look and act a little differently. Viva la latina chica!!

I read her entire speech, and she was remarking on wisdom in general, not just on wisdom in decisions that involve minorities and females.

Is her offense enough to brand her a racist? No. It was just an ignorant comment. I'd have her know that as a white male I led a less privileged childhood than she did, had less educational opportunity than she did, had less good fortune than she did, but still managed to get by through hard work and wisdom. Are her experiences "richer" than my own and is she wiser than me just because she's Latina? Her ass.

As a white man in this country, you were granted a lot of unspoken advantages and privileges. If you walked into a Princeton classroom, nobody would wonder what you were doing there.

And nobody would wonder what a upper middle class latina was doing there.

That being said, understanding the oppression of working class latin@s is a matter of survival of working class white people. Anyone who sees latin@, black, or gay workers as their enemy is a fool.

The class war against the working class is now multicultural. And brown and black persons are just as likely to be decimated by upper class blacks and latin@s who believe ending oppression means voting for NAFTA and supporting hawk foreign policy initiatives. A poor white kid in Walmart clothes hanging out on the corner has a lot more in common with other poor kids of different races and ethnicities on that corner than an upper middle class child of color who grew up in prep schools traveling around the world. Double that for those who enlist because they have no other way of attending college.

Racism is still alive and well but most of the pain is visited upon the poorest members of any group. Working class people are oppressed by a full-color spectrum--although at the top of that hierarchy, it's still the white European-heritage males pulling the strings and the vast majority of the world who are oppressed are people of color.

... from her comments.

Granted, the comments might seem offendable (I made that word up as an alternative to "offensive" as offensive suggests a causation in the words... while I mean "offendable" to place the causation of offense in the listener)... but I think that they generate offense only insofar as one fails to see that society at large works from the "point of view" of the white male... if nothing else as a result of the weight of history. As a fellow white male I would expect that you realize this... though perhaps my insidious half-breed background provides me with more insight than I realize...

What she said amounted to an acknowledgement that her personal history "colored" her perspective on the world... and that it was up to her to explore and get to know that perspective, so that she would recognize it and try to put it into "perspective" whenever she was considering cases. She then went on to say that her Latina perspective might well give her a better sense of that bias of "subjectivity".

I think she was spot on... because one's subjectivity is much easier to recognize when fewer and fewer people of the general population share that subjective point of view. I know that I have come to recognize my "leftist" views for what they are as a result of their being so far out of the mainstream... and in this country, Latina points of view are also not the mainstream. On the other hand... a "white male" will generally share so many details of his point of view with the "majority" that he will likely not even realize that some details of his world view are really only a result of a subjective point of view. I know I'm often guilty of this... though sometimes my half-breed "wrongness" undermines that "ease of assimilatedness" just enough to make me think twice on the subject.

So no... you've misinterpreted her "richness" comment... what she's saying is that the "richness" of her Latina experience is distinguishable enough from the "generic" US experience (which is really the white male experience... as a result of a vast preponderance of historical momentum) that she is able to recognize it... and compartmentalize it as best she can in order to make legal judgements as free of the influence of that subjectivity as any human being can make any judgements free of the influence of one's own subjectivity.

When I heard that statement by her I immediately realized why she'd've gotten the attention of Obama... and I immediately felt like she was an intellectual who reflected all of the best qualities of Obama's campaign.

I'll leave you to consider that explication of her statements... and once you're done.. you can comment about "Her ass." again as you like.

The privilege argument can go on another thread. It's not actually as relevant as the qualifications argument... but it does make for some interesting considerations.
I'd be curious to hear how your background was more challenging than that of a puertoriquena daughter of a single mother in the Bronx. Maybe you grew up in Kansas, and had to get past an intelligent design education?... Just a guess...

You, as a white male, have never had a job application rejected simply because your name was Ernesto instead of Ernest. You've not had to deal with telephone rudeness because of your foreign accent. You've never been followed around the store by some dipshit simply because you didn't look 'right' - meaning 'white'.

Neither have I. The closest to that I can come is that I have had long hair since the 70s, and that marked me as the 'other' in many places - and you know what? If I wanted to, I could cut my hair.

You have been the beneficiary of being white, plain and simple. When you walk into a Quick Stop or fast food joint, the employees NEVER scan you twice to see if you are packing.

You think that doesn't matter?

I dont think what she said was racist but I have to ask...If a white Supreme Court nominee had stated that his experiences as a White Man might guide him to more thoughtful decisions than a minority who had not lived the same life

Would that person not be raked over the coals and lambasted as being racist?

that your thread has been sandbagged by a lot of total b.s.

more than anything.