* Teaching that non-Muslims are non humans, such as Christians are “pigs” and Jews are “apes”.

* Sharia law (implementation) horrors, including oppression of women.

* Honor killings epidemic.

* Playing “victim” while being the aggressor, such as the Arab “Palestinians”, Taliban, etc.

* The genocide campaign by Islamists (like Hezbollah, Palestine – Hamas, Ahmadinejad) on Israel / Jews.

* Persecution, oppression of and apartheid against all non Muslims in the Islamic world (including in S. Arabia, Palestinian Hamas, etc.).

* Persecution, oppression of and apartheid against all non-Arabs in the Arab world, especially of native Egyptians (Nubians), Kurds, Copts, Assyrians, Berbers (native N. Africans), Jews (not just inside Israel), Africans (Africans living in Arab countries and the racist slavery in Sudan, Mauritania… genocide in Darfur).

* The wide justification of Islamic violence all over the world.

* Squeezing the world economy by power of oil prices (OPEC).

* From the 22 Arab countries so far, all range from totalitarianism to corruption, not even one has managed to be real free, equal and democratic.

* The global Islamic radical campaign to dominate the world – untamed by “moderate” Muslims.

If she had ruled far out of the norm, or had penned a provacative opinion, the media and the GOP would be talking about that. As it is, the only thing left for obstructionists to work with is an off-hand comment.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/

Antle’s argument is that this is appropriate and acceptable, and that it would be even more acceptable to do this if he identified himself merely as white.

Do you really think this is really vital territory that Antle’s ceding? To me, and I think a lot of people, self-identification as “white” is meaningless, it’s just a clever way of saying “not-black,” as in “I would hope that a wise not-black man with the richness of his experiences…”. “White” is a census question, and it doesn’t really map to a community or bundle of experiences in the way that being an immigrant, or a spanish-speaking immigrant, or a Puerto Rican might. This isn’t universal of course; if this were South Africa or Kenya, you absolutely could claim to be a Boer or White Kenyan and that would actually mean something with regard to your experiences. Many of the native people might have some very negative associations with these, but the phrase “white culture” would not be void of meaning in the way that it is in the US. Because in the US it has no meaning, it becomes a codeword.

I guess there’s such a thing as being a “WASP,” but if I were being a sensitive person that wanted to make sure all of my listeners felt like they were all had room to be individual in the way I was, I’d probably talk about my “protestant work-ethic” or my “Yankee ingenuity,” in a polite and self-deprecating way. Of course, how I express it depends on my listeners, and I’m going to say different things to La Raza compared to the Sons of Norway.

Can’t we just ask Sonia if she’s a Latino supremacist, and if not why not, and be done with it? It seems like this entire argument hinges on rhetorical treatment of ideas, and not the ideas themselves. Which I guess was your point.

Given the demographic trends, that’s not going to hold true for long. So we have two options for the future: strict race neutrality for everyone, or every group gets to identify with and act in their own group interests. That’s why this statement has more salience then it would have twenty or thirty years ago.

I think it would depend a lot on the background of the individual who made the comment. A rich white guy with no particular link to or interest in his family history would have trouble getting away with talking up his pride in his “old-line English” ancestry. Someone from a more modest background, and/or with a genuine interest in and knowledge of his family’s history, would fare better. Jim Webb’s Scots-Irish, not a WASP, but I think he’s a good example of how this sort of thing can be innocuous for white Protestants in general.

By the way, I think one reason Sotomayor isn’t going to have a lot of trouble based on her comments is that, when she talks about her experiences as a Latina she’s relating an almost archetypal immigrant success story: growing up poor as the child of Spanish-speaking immigrants, living in a Bronx housing project, and succeeding in part because of the importance her family placed on education, etc. So when she talks about how her experiences might inform her jurisprudence it seems credible and admirable. A Latino from a wealthy family, a privileged background, etc., would probably not have the same leeway to speak of himself or herself as representative of “the Latino experience,” even though there’s no reason why that particular experience is less valid.

I understand where you’re coming from, but that’s probably not how it would play.

The phrase “descendant of old-line English settlers” conjures up a very different image than the term “WASP.” The first phrase made me think of a friend of mine who grew up in West Virginia traveling around the state as the son of a minister, and who can trace his ancestry back to men who fought in the Revolutionary War. The second phrase made me think of William F. Buckley Jr. yachting around Long Island Sound and speaking with what sounded like a phony upper-crust accent.

And Buckley’s not technically a WASP–the term now just means “stereotypical rich white person from the northeast.” So no one would actually argue for the value of their experience as a “WASP,” but I do think that a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant could speak non-controversially about how his family’s history in the US has informed his life and his outlook.

I think I disagree with Derek on Daniel’s old-line English values example; anything from anyone will outrage someone these days, but I think it would make sense to most. What would bring out the torches and pitchforks would be a WASP claiming his background had sensitized him to the plight of WASPs as an oppressed group, needing special sensitivity from the bench.

Mike

Well, the thing is, in her speech she wasn’t pointing out a specific national origin. She was talking about a race, a race that includes Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and others.

The thing I haven’t really made clear in my posts is that we all know Sotomayor will be confirmed. Unless she’s caught on video selling crack to second-graders there’s nothing to stop her. However, what can be done is highlight what the left is willing to let by. So, when the left defends her for talking about the aggregate affect of race and gender on policy, it helps legitimize arguments we make in the same vein on immigration or affirmative action.

For that matter, perhaps the descendant of old-line English settlers deeply values the American constitutional heritage because he sees it as being inextricably interwoven with the heritage of his own ancestors, and so his support for the fundamental law has added significance for him.

No, the other odd examples might get away, but THIS guy would be crucified. WASPS are fairest of fair game.

One of the points that your examples miss is that white Americans are an ethnicity unto themselves. Myself, I have ancestors from several countries. I can’t really fit myself into any other category other than “white”. In Sotomayor’s world, where we’re defined by ethnicity, but whites are something of a forbidden category, that leaves a lot of us in a lurch. I don’t have a solution for it, but it is a problem worth noting.

It is in this context that she made the provocative and ambiguous statement that she “would hope” that a latina would arrive at a better decision than a white man — all the while acknowledging that 9 white men issued progressive civil rights rulings in the ’50s & ’60s.

Frankly, I’m not exactly sure what she means by “would hope” – lots of the controversy seems to gloss over this phrase. Any ideas?