Rush pulling the racism card on the judge lady?

[Tev]

So yeah, I heard about this yesterday. Apparently Supreme Court nominee to-be, Sotomayor, said some things a while back that somehow Rush and Newt thought were racist. As my roommate summed it up for me; "Rush said that if some business case came to court, and the plaintiff/defendant was like some Asian/Mexican combo, then she'd side with the Mexican because she's Mexican. Apparently only old white guys can be impartial."

That of course made me laugh a little. Anyway, here's a more journalistic look at the situation at hand. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sotomayor-gingrich4-2009jun04,0,6710122.story)

In her 2001 speech in California, Sotomayor said: "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."

Conservatives seized on the quote to argue that Sotomayor, 54, is an activist liberal judge who would place racial and ethnic characterizations above the law in her decisions. In private meetings with senators, Sotomayor has insisted she would follow the law, not personality, in reaching decisions.

But the remarks became part of the debate over whether she should be elevated from the federal appeals court to the Supreme Court. Led by Gingrich and Limbaugh, conservatives called Sotomayor a racist.

But Sessions added he was still concerned about Sotomayor's past statement because it raised questions. "It's inevitable that your personal views would affect your decision-making," Sessions said. "And to me, that's directly contrary to our great history of blind justice in America." Hah...ahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

So yeah, where do we draw the line at reverse racism?

[Fifthfiend]

Just so it's clear upfront the speech they're spot-quoting actually runs:

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.

She was saying that a Latina woman judge who has had experience with sexism and racism would probably issue better rulings on sexism and racism.

So yeah it's unshocking that racists like Limbaugh and Newt would be opposed to her.

[Tev]

Thanks Fifth. I was looking for where they stole that byte from.

[Fifthfiend]

No problem. Rush and Newt and their ilk have been trolling on this subject for a while now.

Incidentally, link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1).

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Edit: Misunderstood the Original post.


I find it incredbile that Rush maintains his support from the Republican part at this point. The man is a radio talk show host. What possible reason do they have to listen to what he has to say on a political issue, let alone actively allow him to speak for an entire party.

[Odjn]

Edit: Misunderstood the Original post.


I find it incredbile that Rush maintains his support from the Republican part at this point. The man is a radio talk show host. What possible reason do they have to listen to what he has to say on a political issue, let alone actively allow him to speak for an entire party.

Because as the last Grand Old Party candidate showed us, they buy into the Bushisms that Rush dearly adores. It's a lot easier to stick blame on people and then bomb the shit out of them and claim it's in the name of democracy than to acknowledge the truth that many people in both countries we're invading have been oppressed for so long giving them choices is almost unheard of. It's a lot easier to push someone into the spotlight and say it's their fault rather than give them a hand so they can do something about it themselves. The vitriolic hate Rush is famous for, the McCarthy-esque patriotic fervor he inspires, and the abandonment of ration thinking he subtly encourages is what inspires a lot- not all - but a lot of the Republican party today.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I find it incredbile that Rush maintains his support from the Republican part at this point. The man is a radio talk show host. What possible reason do they have to listen to what he has to say on a political issue, let alone actively allow him to speak for an entire party.

He is pretty entertaining. Although I'm split between calling him a racist or not (I have seen the top ten list and have also been listening at the time when half of those quotes were said...quoted out of context in the midst of a joke, usually impersonating someone else). He also quotes news stories that I never would have heard in the first place and links them all on his website along with his full transcript. I think part of his eagerness to call not only Sotomayor, but the entire Democratic party in power racists stems from when Clarence Thomas and Roberto Gonzalez were destroyed during their hearings. Didn't a memo come out stating that one of the reasons to block one of them was because they were hispanic? I'll try to dig it up, but I've heard that more than once.

Not to make excuses for the guy, him calling her a flat-out racist is over the line. He really should be more interested in her other statement about how policy is made from the bench. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the law, not make the law.

I'm also getting a little tired of the coverage of her. Sure she has a trillion times as much schooling and experience as the average court appointee, but really, stop talking about her "story". A rags to riches tale shouldn't be a requirement for the SC. Either way, just let her through.

[Edit] I've been honestly debating whether to just jump ship and go independant, if for nothing more than to avoid all the damn generalizing from BOTH sides.

Actually, I withdraw my "just let her through". She's been overturned 60% of the time. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the.html) But then, wouldn't that mean the rest of the judges sitting with her were as well?

[Premmy]

She was saying that a Latina woman judge who has had experience with sexism and racism would probably issue better rulings on sexism and racism.

So yeah it's unshocking that racists like Limbaugh and Newt would be opposed to her
It IS, how DARE she assert that someone knows more about racism than white people!
REVERSE RACISM!

[Kepor]

This is politics. Of course race is a factor. Everything is a factor. I'm still reading about Sotomayor, so I don't have a real opinion one way or another. She has a decent amount of experience, so that's a good thing.

Wanted to post an interesting article I found: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

Don't know where that site is politically, but I thought it was worth reading.

edit again: Judicial experience, I mean.

and again: another article from the same place that says Sotomayor should be confirmed: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=64f122c0-0373-4659-836d-d6f1ba708867

[Fifthfiend]

The first TNR piece you link has been roundly derided as gossipy bullshit that bears no relation to anything any knowledgeble non-anonymous person has ever said about the woman, which would make it pretty bad even if the author himself didn't cap it off by outright admitting that he had no business writing the piece in the first place.

See

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/05/hatchet-job-jeffrey-rosens-utterly.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2009/05/07/the-mediocity-of-diversity.aspx

[Mannix]

Wait, don't we disqualify people from serving on juries for trials of certain crimes if they themselves have been victims of that crime? Like, for example, not letting rape victims sit on a jury for a rape trial. If that is the case, how would it be different for a judge than for a juror?

Edit: Also, I kind of disagree with her quote. I don't think people need to have been on the receiving end of something to know it's bad. To the best of my memory Lincoln was never a slave. Common sense and empathy (one of Obama's major requirements for appointees) are pretty much all that's needed.

[Wigmund]

I'm surprised Rush's head hasn't imploded due to his sheer hypocrisy.
Top Ten Rush Limbaugh Racist Quotes (http://newsone.blackplanet.com/obama/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/).
Hell, there may be websites devoted to listing all of Limbaugh's racist, idiotic quotes - but I can't find 'em right now.

[Fifthfiend]

Wait, don't we disqualify people from serving on juries for trials of certain crimes if they themselves have been victims of that crime? Like, for example, not letting rape victims sit on a jury for a rape trial. If that is the case, how would it be different for a judge than for a juror?

Edit: Also, I kind of disagree with her quote. I don't think people need to have been on the receiving end of something to know it's bad. To the best of my memory Lincoln was never a slave. Common sense and empathy (one of Obama's major requirements for appointees) are pretty much all that's needed.

To part 1: We also don't (as far as I know) let people convicted of crimes sit on juries, so why do we allow perpetrators of racism and sexism to sit on the court? If they're not disqualified by their experience of benefiting from and extending racism and sexism, then what's the objection to people who have experienced and want to end racism and sexism?

To part 2: You would hope they wouldn't need those things, but then, over a hundred years after Lincoln we still have our nearly all white, nearly all male Supreme Court handing down rulings about how it's okay to limit women's medical options because they're just not capable of making decisions for themselves. So maybe they need a little more help with these things than they're getting.

[Mannix]

To part 1: We also don't (as far as I know) let people convicted of crimes sit on juries, so why do we allow perpetrators of racism and sexism to sit on the court? If they're not disqualified by their experience of benefiting from and extending racism and sexism, then what's the objection to people who have experienced and want to end racism and sexism?

To part 2: You would hope they wouldn't need those things, but then, over a hundred years after Lincoln we still have our nearly all white, nearly all male Supreme Court handing down rulings about how it's okay to limit women's medical options because they're just not capable of making decisions for themselves. So maybe they need a little more help with these things than they're getting.

to part 1: an interesting point, but it doesn't really answer the question i initially posed (i am genuinely curious, it isn't a rhetorical question). of course i think that people that have committed crimes shouldn't be seated or who are even openly biased against a race or gender, and granted that would preclude a large portion of our current bench, but then it might arguably (not necessarily by me) preclude Sotomayor as well. i also recognize how difficult it is to find people that aren't 'tainted' by that sort of thing.

to part 2: and appointing a woman or a black or whatever doesn't guarantee that it will fix the problem. appointing people with an opposite bias in order to create some sort of pseudo balance creates problems in the other direction (i mean in a general sense, not directly in rebut to your example). what we need are decent, level-headed folks, not just "a woman" or "an hispanic."

[Gorefiend]

In an abstract sense, as a lower-upper-middle-class Americanized (more colloquially, whitewashed) Latino, I find that whenever someone says that because my skin's a little browner and my hair thicker and curlier I can't perform at the same level as a white person, I feel offended. Having grown up elsewhere, I find American's focus on race rather than social circumstance appalling, both when racism comes along and when people come along to 'undo' racism. Of course, the solution isn't to stop everything from both ends; people won't stop being racist overnight, the shift in focus won't happen overnight, but it'd be nice if we could remember that just being black or hispanic, on its own, without any other circumstance, can be quite meaningless. Saying things like that we need "a hispanic" or "a black person" on the Supreme Court (or any other body) just because is, to me, in the same vein of offensive as saying that I deserve an award for performing as well as a white person.

In the concrete, in part due to the race thinking I mentioned above, as well as due to historical economic factors, blacks and hispanics more often than not DO have different biographies. Sotomayor certainly does. Her experience as a hispanic has actually been one that ought to matter, and while she may seem keenly aware of this, she IS a judge, she IS meant to be a thinker and interpreter. I'd have more of a problem if she weren't introspective enough to realize that, and apparently she brought it up without hubris, as a fact like any other. This is good, acceptable, and fine.

As for her record of being overturned, we ought to look into both what the average record of overturns is and whether she was overturned for good reasons or foul reasons. If an abolitionist judge got overturned a lot by the Taney Court (of the famous Dred Scott v. Sanford) we wouldn't hold it against him (though understandably there may be choices which would represent more of a compromise).

[Kepor]

As for her record of being overturned, we ought to look into both what the average record of overturns is and whether she was overturned for good reasons or foul reasons. If an abolitionist judge got overturned a lot by the Taney Court (of the famous Dred Scott v. Sanford) we wouldn't hold it against him (though understandably there may be choices which would represent more of a compromise).

As far as her record of being overturned goes, during the time she spent on the 2nd District, the Supreme Court heard five of her cases and overturned three, so 60%. Which isn't really a high rate, considering the Supreme Court usually overturns a higher number of the cases it hears.

[Magus]

In my mind this is basically a non-issue, because the GOP and Rush Limbaugh would have attacked anyone that Obama wishes to appoint. And pulling the "reverse racism" card is just the thing for the GOP to attempt to get white America jerking their knees every which way. It is an absurd attack but is anyone actually surprised by it? After all, its coming from Jeff Sessions and Rush Limbaugh, and usually the first people to scream "reverse racism" are, you guessed it, racists.

[Mannix]

This is a bit of an aside, but can we (as a society) stop calling non-white racists reverse racists? They're just plain old regular racists.

[Fifthfiend]

to part 1: an interesting point, but it doesn't really answer the question i initially posed (i am genuinely curious, it isn't a rhetorical question). of course i think that people that have committed crimes shouldn't be seated or who are even openly biased against a race or gender, and granted that would preclude a large portion of our current bench, but then it might arguably (not necessarily by me) preclude Sotomayor as well. i also recognize how difficult it is to find people that aren't 'tainted' by that sort of thing.

If we were going to bar people who benefitted from racism and sexism we'd be kicking out every seated justice aside from Ginsberg and maybe Thomas who would then be kicked off under your standard of booting people for having been victims of it. You can't have a test for office that invalidates people based on having experienced one side or the other for having experienced racism and sexism because you would be invalidating basically every single living human being everywhere in the entire world. Looking for people who aren't tainted by this sort of thing is "difficult" in the same way that it's difficult to find people who haven't been tainted by breathing oxygen. Which is exactly why you want a diverse Supreme Court - human experience is diverse and different experiences lead people to view things in different ways and you want that range of experiences represented when you've got nine people making decisions that impact the entire country and even at times the entire dang world.

[Magus]

Mannix:My point was more often than not those called "reverse racists" or just "racists" who are members of a minority are quite often not racist at all but are simply the target of actual racists. I'm fine with calling racists racists, but not with calling people who aren't actually racist racist simply to propagate a person's own racist agenda.

Coincidentally, here's a link to an article on Jeff Sessions (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102). Not quite the equal of good old Rush, of course, but an elected official should worry people more than a shock jock.

[Mannix]

If we were going to bar people who benefitted from racism and sexism we'd be kicking out every seated justice aside from Ginsberg and maybe Thomas who would then be kicked off under your standard of booting people for having been victims of it. You can't have a test for office that invalidates people based on having experienced one side or the other for having experienced racism and sexism because you would be invalidating basically every single living human being everywhere in the entire world. Looking for people who aren't tainted by this sort of thing is "difficult" in the same way that it's difficult to find people who haven't been tainted by breathing oxygen. Which is exactly why you want a diverse Supreme Court - human experience is diverse and different experiences lead people to view things in different ways and you want that range of experiences represented when you've got nine people making decisions that impact the entire country and even at times the entire dang world.

Brown skin =/= diversity. A spanish person who comes from generations of wealth is going to be a lot more similar to some rich old white dude from the Hamptons than a poor Mexican washer woman in East LA. A black kid raised in China by chinese parents is going to be a lot more chinese (culturally and experientially speaking) than a chinese kid raised Kansas. I guess this is where we differ: I don't think we should be adding or excluding people from things in the name of diversity based solely on their race.

The point I was originally trying to make, and I guess it's my fault for not being clear enough, is that she's listing her negative experiences as something that will help her be a better judge even though it would theoretically make her a crappy juror. Judge and juror have very similar jobs and I haven't had anybody yet explain to me how her situation is boon to one and yet burden to the other (at least in discrimination type cases, I'm sure her being a latina woman is absolutely irrelevant to her experience on, I dunno, tax law or free speech or something).

Edit: Magus, I didn't mean you in particular I saw "reverse racist" and it just rubs me the wrong way. I didn't mean what I posted in relation to anything else you said.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Brown skin =/= diversity. A spanish person who comes from generations of wealth is going to be a lot more similar to some rich old white dude from the Hamptons than a poor Mexican washer woman in East LA. A black kid raised in China by chinese parents is going to be a lot more chinese (culturally and experientially speaking) than a chinese kid raised Kansas. I guess this is where we differ: I don't think we should be adding or excluding people from things in the name of diversity based solely on their race.

The point I was originally trying to make, and I guess it's my fault for not being clear enough, is that she's listing her negative experiences as something that will help her be a better judge even though it would theoretically make her a crappy juror. Judge and juror have very similar jobs and I haven't had anybody yet explain to me how her situation is boon to one and yet burden to the other (at least in discrimination type cases, I'm sure her being a latina woman is absolutely irrelevant to her experience on, I dunno, tax law or free speech or something).

Edit: Magus, I didn't mean you in particular I saw "reverse racist" and it just rubs me the wrong way. I didn't mean what I posted in relation to anything else you said.



It's most likely because being a Juror is a job that requires you to spend a few weeks at the most being interviewed, and then listening to a case and then deciding on it based on the facts.

Being a Judge is a job that requires you to spend several years in a Law School, several more years in our justice system in some form or another, and then even after you've become a judge you must then an amount of time acting as such in lower courts before you're promoted to the Supreme Court.


Honestly here, do you not see how we expect a little more out of Judges than Jurors?

[Fifthfiend]

Brown skin =/= diversity. A spanish person who comes from generations of wealth is going to be a lot more similar to some rich old white dude from the Hamptons than a poor Mexican washer woman in East LA. A black kid raised in China by chinese parents is going to be a lot more chinese (culturally and experientially speaking) than a chinese kid raised Kansas. I guess this is where we differ: I don't think we should be adding or excluding people from things in the name of diversity based solely on their race.

Maybe because we already add or exclude people from things in the name of racism based solely on their race. Well not in the name of racism because we don't call it that, which still doesn't make it okay.

The point I was originally trying to make, and I guess it's my fault for not being clear enough, is that she's listing her negative experiences as something that will help her be a better judge even though it would theoretically make her a crappy juror. Judge and juror have very similar jobs and I haven't had anybody yet explain to me how her situation is boon to one and yet burden to the other (at least in discrimination type cases, I'm sure her being a latina woman is absolutely irrelevant to her experience on, I dunno, tax law or free speech or something).

Look again if you include people who benefit from racism and sexism in this rule then you're banning every single living human being and if you're not including them then you're pretty much just setting up a convenient way to ban minorities from judicial postings on racial and sexist grounds and then blame them for it in the finest Limbaughlian tradition.

Saying that people who have been the victims of specific crimes can't be on juries for those specific crimes is in no way comparable to saying that people who have generally different social experience of non illegal things are of benefit to have on a body that determines precedence for our legal system. An all-white body of dudes being the exclusive bunch of people allowed to make these decisions will generally tend to be really shitty at it, as evidenced by the long history of all or mostly white dude bodies being mostly shitty at this.

Maybe some actually racially diverse body of qualified legal minds would be equally shitty but given that no such thing has ever been the case in the whole entire history of our country I'm willing to move in the direction of giving it a shot.

(I mean for chrissakes the fact that one of two female justices left and the court immediately started coughing up shittacular rulings on women's issues is maybe an indication that diversity is a good thing.)

[Gorefiend]

I don't want to speak for Mannix, but I guess my objection stems from the knowledge that, for many people, that line of thinking ends at "we need to put in people of different colors." They don't think "we need to put in people who succeeded despite difficult circumstances," or "we need to put in people who have been victims of racism/sexism." They just assume that these things are there because of color. I'm Latino, but I've never in my life experienced racism cause I grew up in a country full of Latinos and my experience of the US has been the liberal Upper-Middle Class experience. And as for the culture (and bear in mind that I greatly object to terms like "white culture" or "black culture" or "acting white/black") if anything I actively dislike most elements of Latino culture; aside from my face and name, you'd likely think I was white from looking at my clothes/hearing my voice/seeing my mannerisms. But I sure do look Latino. Would I be better for the court than a similarly qualified white male just because of that?

If your answer is "Of course not! Don't be ridiculous!" then yay for you, you are among those of us who actually think. But far too man folks would say "Yes! Definitely!" Or at least that's the impression I get whenever I hear people talk about how we need color diversity in body X without qualification or definition.

You will note that I have limited myself to race. While I am sure that, statistically, there must be women who have not experienced overt sexism, I am also aware that 1) that is rare (even my girlfriend, who's lived a pretty decent life in regards to that, can recall plenty of street harassment), and 2) at least from a liberal standpoint, ours is a very covertly sexist system; in all sorts of little assumptions and ways women are corralled into certain stereotypes, made helpless, and limited. As a result, with very limited individual exceptions, I'd be willing to say that any intelligent woman would improve body X. She has to be otherwise qualified, and I would never vote for woman X just cause she's a she, but Sotomayor is otherwise qualified. I'd say let her in.

[Mannix]

I don't want to speak for Mannix, but I guess my objection stems from the knowledge that, for many people, that line of thinking ends at "we need to put in people of different colors." They don't think "we need to put in people who succeeded despite difficult circumstances," or "we need to put in people who have been victims of racism/sexism." They just assume that these things are there because of color. I'm Latino, but I've never in my life experienced racism cause I grew up in a country full of Latinos and my experience of the US has been the liberal Upper-Middle Class experience. And as for the culture (and bear in mind that I greatly object to terms like "white culture" or "black culture" or "acting white/black") if anything I actively dislike most elements of Latino culture; aside from my face and name, you'd likely think I was white from looking at my clothes/hearing my voice/seeing my mannerisms. But I sure do look Latino. Would I be better for the court than a similarly qualified white male just because of that?

If your answer is "Of course not! Don't be ridiculous!" then yay for you, you are among those of us who actually think. But far too man folks would say "Yes! Definitely!" Or at least that's the impression I get whenever I hear people talk about how we need color diversity in body X without qualification or definition.

You will note that I have limited myself to race. While I am sure that, statistically, there must be women who have not experienced overt sexism, I am also aware that 1) that is rare (even my girlfriend, who's lived a pretty decent life in regards to that, can recall plenty of street harassment), and 2) at least from a liberal standpoint, ours is a very covertly sexist system; in all sorts of little assumptions and ways women are corralled into certain stereotypes, made helpless, and limited. As a result, with very limited individual exceptions, I'd be willing to say that any intelligent woman would improve body X. She has to be otherwise qualified, and I would never vote for woman X just cause she's a she, but Sotomayor is otherwise qualified. I'd say let her in.

It seems you and I are in a bit of agreement. I think socio-economic background and culture are much more relevant to diversity of thought (which is what really matters on something like the Supreme Court) than something relatively superficial like race.

And Fifth, it sounds like you're assuming white men are never the victims and usually the perpetrators of racial or sexual discrimination. As a white man I can assure you that is not the case.

[bluestarultor]

And Fifth, it sounds like you're assuming white men are never the victims and usually the perpetrators of racial or sexual discrimination. As a white man I can assure you that is not the case.

Maybe not personally. But think of it this way. White guy kills a white guy, he's a murderer. Black guy kills a white guy, ZOMG CAN OF WORMS! You start dragging in all sorts of stereotypes and racial conflict and everything else. On the other hand, black guy kills a black guy? You'd have people sitting on the couch like "how did this even make it into the news!"

See, the country is still pretty much ruled by white guys, and it's the white guys in power who are all obsessed about looking good by pretending they're making up for it. Sure, out on the streets, it's a bit different. A white guy in St. Louis can look incredibly out of place at times. But in terms of the formal power, white guys are still the ones making the rules.

[Mannix]

Black guy kills a white guy, ZOMG CAN OF WORMS!

Same thing for the reverse. The media likes to play on tensions to drum up ratings. Perhaps a better example would be: little white girl gets kidnapped = media frenzy, little black girl gets kidnapped = media nap time.

[Premmy]

I'm Latino, but I've never in my life experienced racism cause I grew up in a country full of Latinos and my experience of the US has been the liberal Upper-Middle Class experience.
..............................
You will note that I have limited myself to race. While I am sure that, statistically, there must be women who have not experienced overt sexism, I am also aware that 1) that is rare (even my girlfriend, who's lived a pretty decent life in regards to that, can recall plenty of street harassment), and 2) at least from a liberal standpoint, ours is a very covertly sexist system; in all sorts of little assumptions and ways women are corralled into certain stereotypes, made helpless, and limited. As a result, with very limited individual exceptions, I'd be willing to say that any intelligent woman would improve body X. She has to be otherwise qualified, and I would never vote for woman X just cause she's a she, but Sotomayor is otherwise qualified. I'd say let her in.
it's the same way for racism, it's pretty much impossible to live in modern society without experiencing racism. The common tendency to either
A: ignore it when it happens
B: rationalize it away when it happens or
C: not notice it when it happens
does'nt mean it does'nt happen. Our culture is BASED on racism and sexism and closet homosexality/homophobia.

[Fifthfiend]

And Fifth, it sounds like you're assuming white men are never the victims and usually the perpetrators of racial or sexual discrimination. As a white man I can assure you that is not the case.

Yeah, actually it is the case. I mean just cause I have it ready to hand I'm pretty sure you as a white dude or I as a Pakistani aren't ever going to be discriminated against by lending institutions nationwide (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html?hp) on account of the color of your skin. Or be disproportionately incarcerated or targeted by law enforcement or sent to Guantanamo Bay despite being a Canadian citizen or even charged as a terrorist even though you are suspected of committing what is plainly a terrorist act (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/02/kansas.doctor.killed/) (and at that, a successful one (http://www.ksn.com/mostpopular/story/Tiller-family-Clinic-is-closed-permanently/NvlQD6XrjkOK2lyhxytB3g.cspx)!).

The worst thing you're ever likely to be the "victim" of is one of the handful of measures that attempt to remedy and ameliorate some of our existing social racism which is sort of like being a victim of racism except without the victimization or the racism. Like how government contracts reserve a portion of their work for minority contractors which you can tell is victimizing white people by the way there are absolutely no contracting companies owned and operated by white dudes anymore and certainly not most of them or the largest thereof. Or whatever thing like that, I don't know.

t's the same way for racism, it's pretty much impossible to live in modern society without experiencing racism. The common tendency to either
A: ignore it when it happens
B: rationalize it away when it happens or
C: not notice it when it happens
does'nt mean it does'nt happen. Our culture is BASED on racism and sexism and closet homosexality/homophobia.

The thing about loans I linked is actually nicely illustrative in that the people discriminated against wouldn't necessarily suspect and almost certainly wouldn't ever have been able to prove that they were the victims of racism, but nonetheless absolutely were.

[Mannix]

Yeah, actually it is the case. I mean just cause I have it ready to hand I'm pretty sure you as a white dude or I as a Pakistani aren't ever going to be discriminated against by lending institutions nationwide (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html?hp) on account of the color of your skin. Or be disproportionately incarcerated or targeted by law enforcement or sent to Guantanamo Bay despite being a Canadian citizen or even charged as a terrorist even though you are suspected of committing what is plainly a terrorist act (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/02/kansas.doctor.killed/) (and at that, a successful one (http://www.ksn.com/mostpopular/story/Tiller-family-Clinic-is-closed-permanently/NvlQD6XrjkOK2lyhxytB3g.cspx)!).

The worst thing you're ever likely to be the "victim" of is one of the handful of measures that attempt to remedy and ameliorate some of our existing social racism which is sort of like being a victim of racism except without the victimization or the racism. Like how government contracts reserve a portion of their work for minority contractors which you can tell is victimizing white people by the way there are absolutely no contracting companies owned and operated by white dudes anymore and certainly not most of them or the largest thereof. Or whatever thing like that, I don't know.



The thing about loans I linked is actually nicely illustrative in that the people discriminated against wouldn't necessarily suspect and almost certainly wouldn't ever have been able to prove that they were the victims of racism, but nonetheless absolutely were.
Didn't say I personally experience it in the US. A good portion of the world's population isn't white, and the vast majority of the word's countries aren't the USA. And, I dunno, your argument here sounds less like "create a good Supreme Court" and more like "kill whitey." The majority group in any country tends towards "dick" at any given moment, that's a given. But in this case I don't think skin color should be a qualification (or disqualification). I guess I could say that about most situations. And just putting any brown judge up there might not even fix the problem you're hoping it will because that person might be an "uncle Tom." The most important thing is what's inside their skull, not the color of the skin wrapped around it.

[Gorefiend]

it's the same way for racism, it's pretty much impossible to live in modern society without experiencing racism.I'd like to note: modern American society. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that in modern society elsewhere, white people would be more discriminated against than brown/black people. And in certain parts of the US, white folks would be discriminated against at an individual level (I say this in full acknowledgment that in the US, as a whole society has histoically and contienues today to be very racist, if not tremendously overtly so.)

Now, surely, you'll say, that was obvious. Except that, in my experience, the reason I haven't experienced racism is that I lived out where everyone was brown for a long time before, and all my current interactions have been with people who weren't, for whatever reason, racists. I've never had any legal dealings with anyone, and I'm fairly certain that I'm in college fairly and not on anyone's pity. I know that I'm a minority, but what I guess I'm trying to say is that I exist, and people like me exist. Members of minorities so integrated into American society and wealthy enough that they haven't really suffered racism. A larger example would be Guatemalan and Chinese children adopted by upper-middle class white folks, raised to be white folks of a different color, with the culture of being members of the upper-middle class, with the money to back that culture up, and who, I'll bet, mostly grew up in places where they didn't experience racism. I'll bet most of us are young; we haven't had to take out loans, which is why I forgot that example (even though I've cited it before), or been arrested (I know I haven't), or had reason to cite racism as of yet. I hope I at least never do.

I suppose what I was reacting to (to make all that relevant) was the dismissal of the possibility of wealthy, professional brown people who haven't had a zillion hurdles thrown in their way. To return to the example I set before; the idea that just because someone's skin is brown, their acheivements are worth more. If I heard that their skin color cost them in such and such way, I'd immediately understand and relate. If I heard the words "victim of racism" I'd be perfectly fine with it. But when you stop at brown, you assume, you create a stereotype, and it may be for a completely different purpose than the one that says that I want to steal your job and must have come up here on a boat or huffing it on foot, but it's still a stereotype.

As for why I think sexism is of a different category: an Ecuadorian woman, growing up and living in Ecuador will not experience racism, but will experience sexism. An Ecuadorian woman growing up in the US will probably experience both. Racism can be ameliorated through majority status; I would be unlikely to experience racism in Honduras (where my family is from) or Ecuador (where I grew up), though I may be discriminated social due to my culture and introversion. So far, there is no place larger than a college campus where women are the majority; certainly no national body. And I doubt there is a culture in the world where culture wouldn't dictate that men should rule anyways.

[Kepor]

The point I was originally trying to make, and I guess it's my fault for not being clear enough, is that she's listing her negative experiences as something that will help her be a better judge even though it would theoretically make her a crappy juror. Judge and juror have very similar jobs and I haven't had anybody yet explain to me how her situation is boon to one and yet burden to the other (at least in discrimination type cases, I'm sure her being a latina woman is absolutely irrelevant to her experience on, I dunno, tax law or free speech or something).

Actually, a judge and a juror are not very similar. A jury is called upon to ensure a decision of law is in line with social values, and their role often boils down to making a single decision, often "yes or no." A jury is likewise not expected to be 100% objective, and it's not uncommon for a case to thrown out or appealed based on media contamination, an appeal to emotion, and such.

A judge, on the other hand, is responsible for interpreting and applying the law, and is overall much more involved in the legal process. Judges are (usually) experienced lawyers who have proven their capability and objectivity, and are therefore assumed to be capable of rationally considering the facts of a case.

[Mannix]

Actually, a judge and a juror are not very similar. A jury is called upon to ensure a decision of law is in line with social values, and their role often boils down to making a single decision, often "yes or no." A jury is likewise not expected to be 100% objective, and it's not uncommon for a case to thrown out or appealed based on media contamination, an appeal to emotion, and such.

A judge, on the other hand, is responsible for interpreting and applying the law, and is overall much more involved in the legal process. Judges are (usually) experienced lawyers who have proven their capability and objectivity, and are therefore assumed to be capable of rationally considering the facts of a case.

Even from your description here, judges and juries are relatively similar. Juries are expected to be objective, that's why they're thrown out for media contamination and are excluded from duty for prior bias. It's just that a judge I guess is more educated in terms of knowledge of the law and has a wide breadth of cases they hear as opposed to just the once case a jury will hear.

[Fifthfiend]

Didn't say I personally experience it in the US. A good portion of the world's population isn't white, and the vast majority of the word's countries aren't the USA.

Okay well over here we're talking about the USA Supreme Court that rules on things that the USA does so I assumed you were talking about something relevant to this thread.

And, I dunno, your argument here sounds less like "create a good Supreme Court" and more like "kill whitey."

I was hoping we'd have someone come in here for us and reinterpret "pointing out racist realities" as "omg racism!" and here it is. Now any time someone asks me what that looks like, I can link them back to this post here by you in this thread.

[Kepor]

Even from your description here, judges and juries are relatively similar. Juries are expected to be objective, that's why they're thrown out for media contamination and are excluded from duty for prior bias. It's just that a judge I guess is more educated in terms of knowledge of the law and has a wide breadth of cases they hear as opposed to just the once case a jury will hear.

Mannix, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're basing your assessment of their roles on the fact that a judge and a jury will both make a decision.

A judge's responsibilities go far beyond those of a jury, and the actual trial or hearing is only a small part of a case, which may bypass or never reach that step to begin with.

[Mannix]

Okay well over here we're talking about the USA Supreme Court that rules on things that the USA does so I assumed you were talking about something relevant to this thread.



I was hoping we'd have someone come in here for us and reinterpret "pointing out racist realities" as "omg racism!" and here it is. Now any time someone asks me what that looks like, I can link them back to this post here by you in this thread.

Every single counter point to my "we should be looking for competent, empathetic people and not just brown people" was "white people are bad and they suck." And while I personally haven't experienced much racism growing up in a small mountain town that had like 1 black family, 1 or 2 asian families, and a handful of mexicans in it does not mean that white people do not experience racism. All I would have to do is walk into East LA, or the Bronx, or Harlem, or any other number of racial enclaves to get myself a heaping helping.

You know, I'm sorry your life is hard. But I'm not sorry for not thinking that the answer for racism is another kind of racism.

[Archbio]

A little recap.

Mannix: "And Fifth, it sounds like you're assuming white men are never the victims and usually the perpetrators of racial or sexual discrimination."

Fifth: They usually are the perpetrators of racial or sexual discrimination.

Mannix: What you just said is just like a an appeal to racist violence against white people ("kill whitey")!

Fifth: That's what I'm talking about when I mention people casting anti-racism as racism.

Mannix: "But I'm not sorry for not thinking that the answer for racism is another kind of racism."

It's kind of marvellous! Excuse the paraphrases.

[shiney]

The only thing that disappoints me in this really, is Rush's moronic intervention in this has pretty much completely assured that Sotomayor will be confirmed without any reasonable research into her background or credibility because any dissenting opinion will be met with people crying "you're a racist just like Rush!"

Or "you're disagreeing because you're a republican".

She may be quite well qualified, she may not. But congress isn't going to get to debate it really because it's political. I really hate that the SCOTUS has become politicized. Impartiality is dead in our nation's highest court and it's sure to trickle down in a hurry.

[01d55]

Impartiality was always a myth. Look at the court cases that eviscerated the 14th & 15th amendments, look at the justices who wrote those decisions, and then talk to me about impartiality.

[Fifthfiend]

The Supreme Court has seriously been politicized at least since any of our oldest living relatives were born.

Sotomayor's background and credentials have been researched and they are beautiful and crisp like a bank-fresh hundred dollar bill. The whole reason people are attacking her on solely racist-ass grounds are because she is qualified as all fuck and has like ten times the experience of our current total slapdick of a chief justice and every attack that has been tried based on her record has been the weakest shit you could possibly imagine. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/ basically sums it up to the effect of that you should totally be opposed to Sotomayor, if like you think that David Souter has been some wild-eyed madman who has sought to destroy America with his radical radicalism.

In fact the thing I find hilarious about Mannix's last post (and by hilarious I mean :stressed:) is how he's now talking about how we should be looking for a qualified justice instead of testing by skin color when his entire argument for the entire length of this thread has been that we should disqualify this incredibly qualified justice based entirely on her skin color (and gender!) via an argument that would basically disqualify every woman or nonwhite candidate from ever holding a judicial position regardless of their grasp of the law.

[Premmy]

I'd like to note: modern American society. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that in modern society elsewhere, white people would be more discriminated against than brown/black people. And in certain parts of the US, white folks would be discriminated against at an individual level (I say this in full acknowledgment that in the US, as a whole society has historically and continues today to be very racist, if not tremendously overtly so.)
Actually more like modern western society... oh and Asian society if you're not Asian and living in an Asian area.... oh and African society if you're not african.. unless you live in South Africa. And, considering that most of modern society EVERYWHERE has been influenced by western society in SOME way, yeah....

And I doubt there is a culture in the world where culture wouldn't dictate that men should rule anyways.
Actually there were lots of them, but, the cyclical nature of human culture meant that they eventually got either, inverted to a patriarchy, or Steamrolled over by an invading one.
I know that I'm a minority, but what I guess I'm trying to say is that I exist, and people like me exist. Members of minorities so integrated into American society and wealthy enough that they haven't really suffered racism.
Except you know, the racist-ass culture they live in, where, apparently having to be "Normal" or "integrated" means "acting white and/or having money" and is seen as a plus instead of a cultural intolerance of people's differences. Where white is seen as a standard to aspire to instead of just another skintone/cullture/ ethnicity.
A larger example would be Guatemalan and Chinese children adopted by upper-middle class white folks, raised to be white folks of a different color, with the culture of being members of the upper-middle class, with the money to back that culture up, and who, I'll bet, mostly grew up in places where they didn't experience racism.
Like that. Where these Guatamalan kids can't be Guatamalans living in the U.S. but "exotically attractive" white people with tans in order to succeed in our society.
And while I personally haven't experienced much racism growing up in a small mountain town that had like 1 black family, 1 or 2 asian families, and a handful of mexican
soooo, you never questioned why your area was'nt more diverse?

[Gorefiend]

Ok...

I'd like to note, to start, that "acting <insert race here>" is, in my opinion, a horrible, fucked up concept that I feel ought to be abolished from social usage, the way most racial slurs are, and if possible from human thinking altogether. Now, maybe there are valid applications; acting "American" in the workplace is probably somewhat separate from acting "Argentine." Family dinners in Morocco are probably different from in Russia. But there are two things about it that disgust me; 1) when people feel that good cultural values are bad cause they belong to a group of Y's when we are X's, and 2) when people assume that because someone is of a certain ethnicity, they have to act a certain way or else its imperialism or evil. There's an episode of the Goode Family that explains that pretty well, but the fact that you think I'm a victim of cultural imperialism cause I live, dress, and act so much like a white guy is an example much closer to home. (In thinking about it, I think both are related to the sanctification of cultural values and race-thinking in our society.) So, let me explain this as simply as I can: you know how when you turn on, say, National Geographic, and see natives in countries who, say, hunt with bows or blow-darts, and dress in really colorful outfits, and live in huts or yurts or tents? Well, there are some people who live like that, but they are a minority, generally separate from society altogether. Then there are more people who live in a similar environment, but dress in more Western clothes and hunt with guns. And then there are the fellows who live in cities, and behave more like "white people" than you'd think. And among them, there's a few trying to eke out a middle-class lifestyle, trying to acquire wealth for themselves and their families and their countries. But when phrases like "cultural imperialism" and "native culture" get thrown around, what I hear as someone from a country that has some un-contacted natives and some urban dwellers, is that you want us all to live in huts and dress in colorful outfits and hunt with blowdarts for your viewing benefit. Like there's something wrong with your lifestyle. And, sure, there's plenty wrong with it, but there's also plenty wrong with "ours." Starting with that it hasn't been "ours" for generations.

I think I said this before, but the idea of ethnicity being linked to culture is based on ethnic stereotypes. And, it might be worth noting that much of what is called "acting white" can just as easily be referred to as "acting Japanese." And much else of what can be called "acting white" would probably more accurately be described as "acting upwardly mobile" in our society. After all, that's what social class IS: I can't explain it abstractly very well, but think of it like this: the expressions "swears like a longshoreman" or "mouth of a sailor" work both ways; sure, some person's swearing is comparable to that of an actual longshoreman, but also, they're acting like a member of the working poor, and they'd better straighten up if they want to amount to more! The only reason we in the US may ever conflate "whiteness" with "wealth" is that for the longest only whites were wealthy. But those aren't the attitudes of whites, they're the attitudes of wealthy people of all colors.

Now:Actually more like modern western society... oh and Asian society if you're not Asian and living in an Asian area.... oh and African society if you're not african.. unless you live in South Africa. And, considering that most of modern society EVERYWHERE has been influenced by western society in SOME way, yeah....I tried to account for this; racism is a function of majorities oppressing minorities. If I made it sound like anything else, I apologize. Incidentally, a really good book on ethnic violence that demonstrates a facet of this phenomenon--that minorities are as much made as they are born--is Arjun Appadurai's Fear of Small Numbers (http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Small-Numbers-Geography-Franklin/dp/0822338637/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245120512&sr=8-1).

Except you know, the racist-ass culture they live in, where, apparently having to be "Normal" or "integrated" means "acting white and/or having money" and is seen as a plus instead of a cultural intolerance of people's differences. Where white is seen as a standard to aspire to instead of just another skintone/cullture/ ethnicity. Like that. Where these Guatamalan kids can't be Guatamalans living in the U.S. but "exotically attractive" white people with tans in order to succeed in our society.Why should they be Guatemalan? They were raised by white peple. Are you saying that there's something in there genes that dictates that they should act Guatemalan? Cause we've already discovered that there IS no 'race' gene. And, while we're at it, what exactly IS acting "Guatemalan?" I think if anything the attitude that those kids should act like something they probably have never known just cause they were born elsewhere is more pressure on them to be "exotically attractive" than any pressure to act the way they were raised; and if they were raised by WASPs, shouldn't they act like WASPs? Wouldn't that be their new natural environment? Aren't we all humans equally? Or is there something inherently exotic about, say, me, cause I have darker skin and curlier hair, that I should strive not to break the illusion for the benefit of, ironically, white people who strive to not be racist?

(Another point I wanted to make; often the people who make these appeals are terribly ignorant of both foreign cultures and of why customs are in place. Foreign cultures aren't just a style of dress and a certain foods, or even certain architecture and religious practices. And they usually appear quaint to us cause they are out of place; wearing certain colors and fabrics makes sense in certain weather, as does making your "fancy" clothes in certain ways. All too often, the people who talk about "cultural imperialism" reduce a culture to its most 'colorful' portions.)

That said, we're hijacking this thread somewhat. Is this discussion gonna blossom into enough to merit a thread, or you think we can keep it here and have things be fine?

[Premmy]

Ok...

I'd like to note, to start, that "acting <insert race here>" is, in my opinion, a horrible, fucked up concept that I feel ought to be abolished from social usage, the way most racial slurs are, and if possible from human thinking altogether. Now, maybe there are valid applications; acting "American" in the workplace is probably somewhat separate from acting "Argentine." Family dinners in Morocco are probably different from in Russia. But there are two things about it that disgust me; 1) when people feel that good cultural values are bad cause they belong to a group of Y's when we are X's, and 2) when people assume that because someone is of a certain ethnicity, they have to act a certain way or else its imperialism or evil.

Ok first of all, I don't recall saying any of that, and I'm personally insulted that you'd presume me to be that kind of douchebag, especifically since I hate(to be fair I hate most things, and am enough of a douchebag on my own) such people and have dealt with bullshit about how I should be acting based on my combination of ethnicities all my life. But I think I've hit a personal hot point of yours that I used to share so I'll try to be cool.
Let's clarify the use of the word race for the sake of conversation.

"Race" as we currently know it is a purely fictional concept that could be losely described as a broad skin color palatte, encompassing a myriad of vastly different people in each simple distinction. It differs form place to place but if people are talking color instead of country, it's probably race. In the U.S. at least, I would'nt try to comment on places I have'nt been more than my own knowledge allows, race tends to be discussed more often than the others due to a myriad of annoyingly complicated issues. Basically "race" as a defining factor is complete and utter bullshit, but it's handy to discuss and use because much of our culture is based in it

"Ethnicity" is a much more concrete thing that boils down to a group of people who have dipped from the same gene pool(s) and thus share certain phenotypical traits, skintone, hair texture/color blah blah. Culture is tied to this because of the obvious. People who live together form certain customs, languages, and histories, whathaveyou. Certainly, you're not OBLIGATED to be a part of any culture, but it's a part of your family/history and it's there, take it or leave it.

Nationality: where you live, where you used to live, or where your parents came from, depends on where you are now and if that place still exists as it did. Tied to ethnicity for obvious reasons,and hence also tied to culture.

I feel this is important simply because these words get used really fucking oddly in the States and my free use of the American form of "race" can be confusing. Point is, It cuts down on the super long posts this type of shit gets me into and noone wants that. anywhooose

There's an episode of the Goode Family that explains that pretty well, but the fact that you think I'm a victim of cultural imperialism cause I live, dress, and act so much like a white guy is an example much closer to home. (In thinking about it, I think both are related to the sanctification of cultural values and race-thinking in our society.)
I think you're a victim of cultural imperialism because you're ALIVE and you TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE I don't give much of a damn how you dress, my point is that if you watch T.V. use the internet, read books, speak damn near any western language(and plenty of other languages, in different ways, but I'm talking western here so stick with me), play videogames, listen to music. Pretty much any element of modern culture. You're taking in and taking part in a culture thoroughly steeped in racism and imperialism
So, let me explain this as simply as I can: you know how when you turn on, say, National Geographic, and see natives in countries who, say, hunt with bows or blow-darts, and dress in really colorful outfits, and live in huts or yurts or tents? Well, there are some people who live like that, but they are a minority, generally separate from society altogether. Then there are more people who live in a similar environment, but dress in more Western clothes and hunt with guns. And then there are the fellows who live in cities, and behave more like "white people" than you'd think. And among them, there's a few trying to eke out a middle-class lifestyle, trying to acquire wealth for themselves and their families and their countries. [/quotes]
Ok, obviously there are different classes of people and the fact that we have a classist culture is a whole different pile of bullshit we have to deal with. The fact that there are different types of people within the same ethnicity/race/nationality is a completely different thing than what I'm saying.
[quote-gorefiend;940849]But when phrases like "cultural imperialism" and "native culture" get thrown around, what I hear as someone from a country that has some un-contacted natives and some urban dwellers, is that you want us all to live in huts and dress in colorful outfits and hunt with blowdarts for your viewing benefit. Like there's something wrong with your lifestyle. And, sure, there's plenty wrong with it, but there's also plenty wrong with "ours." Starting with that it hasn't been "ours" for generations.
This is one of those thigns I'm gonna be cool about....

I think I said this before, but the idea of ethnicity being linked to culture is based on ethnic stereotypes. And, it might be worth noting that much of what is called "acting white" can just as easily be referred to as "acting Japanese." And much else of what can be called "acting white" would probably more accurately be described as "acting upwardly mobile" in our society.
And there lies the problem, why is our society not willing to allow people who talk and think and dress differently from the "standard" the same options? And, why is the "Standard" based on western culture? why is the standard one held by white ethnicities(hey, now that works, does both race and ethnicity.) Ok, like this, Sure, hair length matters in say, food service, maybe, what with hair ties, hair nets, hats and whatever, but yeah har style might have some signifigance THERE but you want to tell me why I can't have dreds or cornrows or purple hair in the corporate world? Or rather you want to tell me a reason that is'nt cultural imperialism/ racism? Because If I wanted to go in that world with my fro, I'd have a damn hard time getting work, and a damn hard time being taken seriously and a DAMN hard time making any progress. This is'nt even including the straight up racism I'll have to deal with. This is only "He has an afro, he's probably one of those anti-establishment types/jokey types/slacker types let's not hire him/listen to him/ give him anything."
After all, that's what social class IS: I can't explain it abstractly very well, but think of it like this: the expressions "swears like a longshoreman" or "mouth of a sailor" work both ways; sure, some person's swearing is comparable to that of an actual longshoreman, but also, they're acting like a member of the working poor, and they'd better straighten up if they want to amount to more!
Rampant classism aside, every culture has their "Sunday go to meetin clothes" why in the fuck is a business suit/dress shirt and slacks not only the standard but the required standard? Why is anything else unacceptable? Fine, a "Succesful" person wears fancy clothes. Why only fancy clothes from a white ethnicity's culture? Why only the fancy clothes that that culture decides is the best? You tell me one actual reason(repeating myself, ugh) I can't wear jeans and a t-shirt or a damn Kimono to be a secretary or accountant or to run my own business.
The only reason we in the US may ever conflate "whiteness" with "wealth" is that for the longest only whites were wealthy. But those aren't the attitudes of whites, they're the attitudes of wealthy people of all colors.
Except for the fact that there are lots of wealthy people, white or whatever, who only act that way when the people who write their checks are around. There are lots of people who don't at all agree with the culture of "successful" people in western society, hence all the depressed rich people. They want to succeed, so they take the only available path, because our culture won't accept or acknowledge a different path. That's on a macro level. I don't feel like getting into individual assumptions on a personal social level based on cultural cues

Why should they be Guatemalan? They were raised by white peple. Are you saying that there's something in there genes that dictates that they should act Guatemalan? Cause we've already discovered that there IS no 'race' gene. And, while we're at it, what exactly IS acting "Guatemalan?" I think if anything the attitude that those kids should act like something they probably have never known just cause they were born elsewhere is more pressure on them to be "exotically attractive" than any pressure to act the way they were raised; and if they were raised by WASPs, shouldn't they act like WASPs? Wouldn't that be their new natural environment? Aren't we all humans equally? Or is there something inherently exotic about, say, me, cause I have darker skin and curlier hair, that I should strive not to break the illusion for the benefit of, ironically, white people who strive to not be racist?

That has nothing to do with what I said which was and I'm adding emphasis for clarification
Where these Guatamalan kids can't be Guatamalans living in the U.S. but "exotically attractive" white people with tans in order to succeed in our society.
The point is'nt that they would or would'nt but that if they wanted to they could'nt, not if they wanted all(read: about 2/3, because they're still brown) the freedoms and oppurtunites available to every white guy who "acts" white cultured
(Another point I wanted to make; often the people who make these appeals are terribly ignorant of both foreign cultures and of why customs are in place. Foreign cultures aren't just a style of dress and a certain foods, or even certain architecture and religious practices. And they usually appear quaint to us cause they are out of place; wearing certain colors and fabrics makes sense in certain weather, as does making your "fancy" clothes in certain ways. All too often, the people who talk about "cultural imperialism" reduce a culture to its most 'colorful' portions.)
I've already addressed the clothes/style thing, otherwise this is another thing I'm going to roll on by.

[Azisien]

While slightly off-topic and long-winded, I don't think I've been this interested in reading Discussion threads in a while.

"Ethnicity" is a much more concrete thing that boils down to a group of people who have dipped from the same gene pool(s) and thus share certain phenotypical traits, skintone, hair texture/color blah blah. Culture is tied to this because of the obvious. People who live together form certain customs, languages, and histories, whathaveyou. Certainly, you're not OBLIGATED to be a part of any culture, but it's a part of your family/history and it's there, take it or leave it.

Nationality: where you live, where you used to live, or where your parents came from, depends on where you are now and if that place still exists as it did. Tied to ethnicity for obvious reasons,and hence also tied to culture.

I've always found it rather odd to be asked the question "So, what are you?" as opposed to "So, where are you from?" at like a 95:5 ratio. Maybe there is some subtle significance the former has that my diluted European origins wash away, but where I personally came from/have been raised has always been the most important/defining factor of, well, me. And I think Gorefiend may have been saying something along those lines, possibly.

I've always wondered, too, if the former question is just like "Soooo, why are you black/asian?" On the other hand, my best memories of being asked these questions are from Indians I used to work in a restaurant kitchen with.

And there lies the problem, why is our society not willing to allow people who talk and think and dress differently from the "standard" the same options? And, why is the "Standard" based on western culture? why is the standard one held by white ethnicities(hey, now that works, does both race and ethnicity.) Ok, like this, Sure, hair length matters in say, food service, maybe, what with hair ties, hair nets, hats and whatever, but yeah har style might have some signifigance THERE but you want to tell me why I can't have dreds or cornrows or purple hair in the corporate world? Or rather you want to tell me a reason that is'nt cultural imperialism/ racism? Because If I wanted to go in that world with my fro, I'd have a damn hard time getting work, and a damn hard time being taken seriously and a DAMN hard time making any progress. This is'nt even including the straight up racism I'll have to deal with. This is only "He has an afro, he's probably one of those anti-establishment types/jokey types/slacker types let's not hire him/listen to him/ give him anything."

Aside from the probable racism you would encounter, I guess the rules are in effect because they're entrenched shitty rules we all have to follow? Minorities are at more of a disadvantage, though I can think of a million cases of white teenagers/young adults dressing punk or goth and they wouldn't get anywhere in the corporate world either. I actually have a friend who works for the Canadian government every summer in a student position and he basically has to go through a grooming process the week before he's hired. When I worked on the corporate end of a pharmaceutical research company for a summer, I got in shit for wearing jeans. Nope, HAD to be khakis. Despite the fact my khakis actually had a few permanent stains and my jeans were like, pristine.

[Gorefiend]

You raise some good points. I do apologize for my anger; you're right, this is a hot-button topic for me, personally, because I've met a lot of people who seem to believe that what we in Ecuador call modernization is actually cultural imperialism, and I find it to be some of the worst condescension and racism people can still get away with on both sides of the aisle: shouldn't WE get to decide what paths we want to take? Similar attitudes include the comment a friend of mine overheard that democracy "isn't in the DNA" of Iraqis or Afghanis a few years back, which I'm sure you'll agree with me is a pile of crap. I apologize for lumping you in with that lot.

That said, I guess now that I've slept on it and have a better response, I'd say: a lot of what gets passed off as different cultures is actually different class cultures, which makes intolerance thereof not racism but classism, which I find less distasteful (though not much less, my own defense of it aside) since class is much more mobile than race is; a poor family of any race can teach its children to display upper-class signifiers and hold upper-class ambition when possible and find that much more respect regardless of race--at least assuming a non-racist system. Some of these signifiers are actually semi-universal (I'd wager that attention to education, unaggressive stances and demeanors, eating manners, and emphasis on taste over expense in decor and dress were considered upwardly mobile around the world before globalization truly exploded) and therefore race, in the strictest sense, ought not be an issue (this is what I meant when I said that "acting white" may as well be "acting Japanese" or "acting upwardly mobile": in the strictest sense, it's not just white people, and the assumption that only white people act like what frankly most civilized, urbanized peoples act like is condescending and offensive.)

Now, there are many problems with the idea that everyone should act like the upper class, not least of which that the relentless pursuit of those values as expressed in Western/American society leads to, as you pointed out, tons of depression and isolation, and as I will add, to our economic crisis today; if you'll agree with me that the body that most represents those values is the corporation, and agree with the folks over at The Corporation (http://www.thecorporation.com/) that it is a sociopath, then it follows that our society asks its members to become sociopathic, and rewards sociopathy far too much. So, that we can agree on.

However, I am working from two standpoints. 1) too many people assume that we can't act like that, and when we do we shouldn't, which is why I got so defensive--it's the closest thing to racism I've yet encountered, and find it condescending--and 2) I really doubt that the system will change anytime soon, and from a realpolitik standpoint (or a real-whatever-the-hell-we're-talking-about standpoint) it would best serve the poor to start adopting those signifiers and acting "upwardly mobile" as fast as possible. The middle class often know that; that's why upper-class etiquette manuals have been bestsellers among the middle class for centuries. (A lot of the reason I will defend this system is that it implies the possibility of upward mobility on fairly even conditions, at least on its own. Removed from this possibility, I will concede without reserve that its pitfalls mostly outweigh its merits. A classic analysis of this is in Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism) .)

Some of this you may agree with already. Consider this less a rebuttal and more a collection of where I stand.

All that said, I think we're dealing with different arguments. I do find many of the individual rules, especially appearance ones, totally unnecessary, and hope that Silicon Valley's laxer corporate structures and culture of wealth will start making things better for people in the US and around the world. Interestingly, corporate dress used to be regular dress for everyone; that is to say, it wasn't born as a uniform or as "work clothes." That brief aside, well, aside, I would support the system itself, albeit arguing for more tolerance both for cultural differences and for plain old individualism.

[Premmy]

Some of these signifiers are actually semi-universal (I'd wager that attention to education, unaggressive stances and demeanors, eating manners, and emphasis on taste over expense in decor and dress were considered upwardly mobile around the world before globalization truly exploded) and therefore race, in the strictest sense, ought not be an issue
Ok... Let's take the bit about posture and mannerism as an example. In America, you're taught, regardless of class to make solid eye contact and maintain a firm upright posture to give the impression that you are both honest and confident. In Japan, traditionally, it's often disrespectful, regardless of class to stare someone in their face and hold your head too high. In the U.S. a head held high and eye contact are the mannerisms of someone who intends to succeed in life, in Japan, the opposite is true, they're the mannerisms of a presumptuous asswhole who will never make anything of himself. This is changing slowly over time. Going into clothes, "no accounting for taste", and when an entire culture's taste differs from another, how can you say that "choosing taste over expense" is an inherent aspect of the "upper class"?So to say that certain mannerisms are universal is taking part in the assumption that a certain culture is either

A: The standard, instead of it's own brand of weird, like every other culture.
B: The best, and one that all cultures aspire to.

See the problem there? (this is what I meant when I said that "acting white" may as well be "acting Japanese" or "acting upwardly mobile": in the strictest sense, it's not just white people, and the assumption that only white people act like what frankly most civilized, urbanized peoples act like is condescending and offensive.)
Yes, but only white people look you dead in the eye,(originally, these practices have spread for... any number of reasons) stand rigidly upright, and shake hands, with each hand shaking party attempting to present an image of confidence and closeness by squeezing tightly and shaking heartily. These are not universal natural behaviors, but artificial cultural behaviors born of an individual culture. There's other collections of little things that I can't remember, but you get the point, and if you don't... fuck it this shit is getting too long... You were right, culture is'nt just clothes and whatnot, but the rules by which we deal with one another.
anyway....
I've always found it rather odd to be asked the question "So, what are you?" as opposed to "So, where are you from?" at like a 95:5 ratio. Maybe there is some subtle significance the former has that my diluted European origins wash away, but where I personally came from/have been raised has always been the most important/defining factor of, well, me. And I think Gorefiend may have been saying something along those lines, possibly.
I know that the "what are you?" that I get is different from other people's, as mine usually has more question marks, maybe an exclamation mark, and different inflection/intention. But I think it's just used differently in that context, I.e. You ARE a southerner, you ARE british, you get the idea, they're asking you where you're from, but in a weird way. But then I don't know how ambiguous looking you are personally.

I guess the rules are in effect because they're entrenched shitty rules we all have to follow? Minorities are at more of a disadvantage, though I can think of a million cases of white teenagers/young adults dressing punk or goth and they wouldn't get anywhere in the corporate world either.
Go into your local hair-care store, if you don't have a store exclusively for hair care in your neighborhood, damn, sucks for you, go find one. Now go looking in the aisles for a "Nappyfication" product. You are'nt going to find one, now count the hair softening and/or hair straightening products. Remember to bring your laptop....