Racism vs. Racialism
"To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." - origin and author unknown
President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to The Supreme Court has generated the typical amount of controversy that these nominations always do. Due to the fact that Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, would be the first Latina woman to sit in the highest court in the land, much of the discussion has centered around racial issues. However, there is another reason why race seems to be prominent in discussions surrounding her nomination. Both in statements that she's made and in opinions that she's authored, there is ample reason to believe that Justice Sotomayor feels strongly that her race (and, to a lesser extent, her gender) has played and will - and should - continue to play a part in her judicial philosophy and in her decisions as a judge. President Obama's statements on behalf of Justice Sotomayor's candidacy reveal that he has chosen her for nomination based in no small part on this very belief. Indeed, he has chosen her precisely because of what he feels is the unique and necessary perspective which he believes she can bring to The Court.
Critics of Justice Sotomayor, such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, have pointed to these statements and opinions and have gone so far as to call her a racist. I don't believe that she is a racist in the commonly understood definition of the word. I do, however, believe that there is some danger that she is a racialist.
National Review columnist Jay Nordlinger defines "racialism", simply, as "an emphasis on race or racial considerations in interpreting events". I believe that there is a great danger in viewing the world primarily through the prism of race, and I believe that such tendencies played a large role in the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.
I have some very good friends who are enthusiastic supporters of President Obama. There is nothing intrinsically unique about this. Obviously, many people share their enthusiasm. What troubles me is my suspicion - admittedly based solely on intuition - that their support for him is almost exclusively due to his race. I don't know if they could articulate his positions on any major policies, but this is probably more common than most people realize. A large percentage of American voters are woefully uninformed. What is worse in the case of my Obamaphilic friends is that I don't know if he could have possibly taken any policy position on any subject that would have prevented their voting for him and reveling in his election. I think that even if Barack Obama had admitted to raising, torturing, and killing puppies for his own amusement, my friends would still have voted for him because of his race. The temptation to be a part of electing THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!!!! was simply too great for these people, no matter the possible consequences to the nation.
The possibilities here appear to be either ordinary, garden-variety ignorance or willful ignorance. If my friends didn't know Obama's positions on important issues like abortion, national security, and foreign policy and voted for him, this is one thing. Still wrong, but perhaps understandable in some ways. The much worse alternative would be if they knew his positions on these policies, perhaps had some moral or ethical objections to them (as they perhaps should have as Christians), and supported him anyway because of the color of his skin. This is much worse, in my mind, because it fits the definition of racialism.
Whichever the case, their support for Obama saddens me. It's their right, of course. The point I'm trying to make is that blind support of him simply because of his race is just as wrong and dangerous as someone choosing not to support him simply because of his race. The latter would certainly qualify as racism. But the former is an egregious example of racialism. Pure and simple.
Cheers!
President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to The Supreme Court has generated the typical amount of controversy that these nominations always do. Due to the fact that Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, would be the first Latina woman to sit in the highest court in the land, much of the discussion has centered around racial issues. However, there is another reason why race seems to be prominent in discussions surrounding her nomination. Both in statements that she's made and in opinions that she's authored, there is ample reason to believe that Justice Sotomayor feels strongly that her race (and, to a lesser extent, her gender) has played and will - and should - continue to play a part in her judicial philosophy and in her decisions as a judge. President Obama's statements on behalf of Justice Sotomayor's candidacy reveal that he has chosen her for nomination based in no small part on this very belief. Indeed, he has chosen her precisely because of what he feels is the unique and necessary perspective which he believes she can bring to The Court.
Critics of Justice Sotomayor, such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, have pointed to these statements and opinions and have gone so far as to call her a racist. I don't believe that she is a racist in the commonly understood definition of the word. I do, however, believe that there is some danger that she is a racialist.
National Review columnist Jay Nordlinger defines "racialism", simply, as "an emphasis on race or racial considerations in interpreting events". I believe that there is a great danger in viewing the world primarily through the prism of race, and I believe that such tendencies played a large role in the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.
I have some very good friends who are enthusiastic supporters of President Obama. There is nothing intrinsically unique about this. Obviously, many people share their enthusiasm. What troubles me is my suspicion - admittedly based solely on intuition - that their support for him is almost exclusively due to his race. I don't know if they could articulate his positions on any major policies, but this is probably more common than most people realize. A large percentage of American voters are woefully uninformed. What is worse in the case of my Obamaphilic friends is that I don't know if he could have possibly taken any policy position on any subject that would have prevented their voting for him and reveling in his election. I think that even if Barack Obama had admitted to raising, torturing, and killing puppies for his own amusement, my friends would still have voted for him because of his race. The temptation to be a part of electing THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!!!! was simply too great for these people, no matter the possible consequences to the nation.
The possibilities here appear to be either ordinary, garden-variety ignorance or willful ignorance. If my friends didn't know Obama's positions on important issues like abortion, national security, and foreign policy and voted for him, this is one thing. Still wrong, but perhaps understandable in some ways. The much worse alternative would be if they knew his positions on these policies, perhaps had some moral or ethical objections to them (as they perhaps should have as Christians), and supported him anyway because of the color of his skin. This is much worse, in my mind, because it fits the definition of racialism.
Whichever the case, their support for Obama saddens me. It's their right, of course. The point I'm trying to make is that blind support of him simply because of his race is just as wrong and dangerous as someone choosing not to support him simply because of his race. The latter would certainly qualify as racism. But the former is an egregious example of racialism. Pure and simple.
Cheers!
posted by Dave at 9:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home