This is my ballad to identity politics in America.
The conservative reaction to Sonia Sotomayor has not only been telling of the clear paranoia and fear that conservatives have around women of color and their appropriate place in our society, but is also really predictable. That doesn't change how racist it is. Lindsey Graham's testament to how he is critical of Sotomayor for her "fiery" temperament is probably the best encapsulation of white male fear of a woman of color in a position of power. Fiery is frequently a term used to describe women of color that are considered outspoken or hot. It is both racist and sexually demeaning, catering to fantasies about Latina women's sexual potency. It wouldn't make sense as a pejorative if the one accused was white or was not female.
There has already been a lot written about Sotomayor, both about her stance on judicial issues (imagine that!) and about the racism endemic in many of the criticisms of her. All I can really add to this is that it is a sad state of affairs that she is being called a "reverse racist" and as Roger Simon discusses in anunusually solid piece (or, as Mattbastard called it, so full of WIN), it seems the only kind of racism conservative white men get enraged about.
How come the only racism that bothers some people is reverse racism?People of color have been oppressed for centuries in this country, and while progress has been made, it has come slowly.
But Sonia Sotomayor makes one speech suggesting that her background as a Latina might actually give her superior insight or wisdom to a white man, and there is an explosion -- an eruption! a volcano! -- of indignation.
She is a reverse racist! She has dared to suggest that a nonwhite woman could ever be superior in any way, under any circumstances, to a white man. So how can she now sit on the Supreme Court (a court that for most of its existence has resembled a country club board)?
Newt Gingrich, a former Republican speaker of the House, called her a "Latina woman racist" and said she should withdraw her name from consideration.
Pat Buchanan, an MSNBC commentator and former Republican presidential candidate, said on "Hardball With Chris Matthews" that Sotomayor was an "affirmative action" choice for the job.
And so while the Repubs play their unwieldy and inaccurate "damned if you do, damned if you don't," game of identity politics, liberals have been forced to call it out for the racism it is. And while I obviously fall on the leftier side of things, I am concerned about this kumbaya attitude about Sotomayor feeds into the post-racist doctrine a tad bit. Sotomayor is a good person for the job and then also happens to be a person of color. The way that racism functions, we can't have both things without them being related to each other. Liberals want her to be a POC because this shows that the American dream works, POC can be whatever they want irrelevant of their POC-ness. Conservatives want to highlight her POC-ness to show how she is different and play off stereotypes of how she is both unfit for the job and also because she doesn't deny that she is a POC or the keen and unique insight this might give her, is also a reverse racist.
Sotomayor is caught in the trap that most women of color face when they gain any degree of visibility. Their race and gender is necessary to the conversation for both camps to justify or deny her progress. It is still a form of tokenism, even if an unavoidable form. It is progress on one level that she is a WOC that is going to be on the SCOTUS. She is hardly the most liberal person for the job, which is what keeps her in the running and such a smart choice. But the question I am grappling with is, is this really progress or just another round in the identity politics game? Is her nomination going to change the way Latina women are treated globally? (Or am I the one "asking the wrong questions and opening the wrong doors"...as Stephin Merritt would say..)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sotomayor's Fiery Temperament. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14116
"[The word Fiery] is both racist and sexually demeaning, catering to fantasies about Latina women's sexual potency. It wouldn't make sense as a pejorative if the one accused was white or was not female."
To highlight that point, and how important the phrase 'as a pejorative' is, I did a quick google for "Scalia fiery" (without the quotes). Not all of them are relevant, but those that are appear to be generally complimentary or neutral. See for yourself: http://www.google.com/search?q=scalia+fiery&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS300US300
What I don't get is how people keep harping on the fact that she said her experiences will affect her opinions, etc.
Everyone's experiences color their outlook. She has to uphold the law, but it's not just she who has a perspective on an issue. Everyone does!
I'm not even going to mention his name, but that radio douchebag was one of the first to call her a racist, and that's insane.
Also, what's with EMPATHY being a negative buzzword!?! Empathy is necessary, if not then often necessary for compassion. When did these things become something to be ashamed of?
i totally agree, it proves how much the people making these comments (like gringrich and buchanan) see themselves as the standard. because they're men, they're without gender. because they're white, they have no race. it's crazy! everyone's experiances shape their thought.
Didn't you hear? Empathy and compassion are icky emotion-based female characteristics. Real men have to rid themselves of this silly, irrelevant, female emotions if they are going to be logical, objective and conscious REAL MEN. Us stupid women can't think clearly because all this emotion and empathy and compassion is running around in our heads.Thank you very freaking much Descartes.
one more thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory
Minor thing- I have heard the word "fiery" is used to stereotype Latino men also, as in angry, violent, overly sexual, loud etc. etc. Takes on specific meanings when applied to different genders, but I have heard it used this way.
to add insult to injury, Sotomayer's "controversial" quote was put in context for the first time (for me at least) in a post today by Grit TV's Laura Flanders on Women In Media News blog ( http://www.wimnonline.org/WIMNsVoicesBlog/?p=1266WIMN ).
Quoting FAIR, Flanders points out that Judge Sotomayer was specifically discussing decisions on race and gender discrimination. That someone who's experienced race and/or gender oppression may--shockingly--have a different insight on those issues. A more relevant insight.
These oppressive forces have every confidence that the majority of folks hearing these mis-quoted quotes will never have access to the truth or far worse, have access but will never exercise it. In our media the loudest lie wins.
One thing: in reading news, it looks to me like the "fiery temperament" thing is often applied to her brash New York attitude.
And I legitimately think that being too "fiery" or abrasive is something that should be taken into account for a judge on our highest court.
That being said, I certainly don't think Judge Sotomayor crosses any lines. I'm just saying that the "fieriness" of a judge can (and should) be brought up outside of a racial context.
Well sure, but the articulateness of presidents and cabinet members is also relevant. Curiously, it always seemed to be Colin Powell and Barack Obama who were most often called articulate...
Can "fieriness" be brought up outside of a racial context? Temperament is an issue, but the vocabulary surrounding it feeds into racist memes.
Totally agree with this post, although I think the assumption that fiery is only used as a pejorative with racial connotations is a bit oversimplified:
Fiery "wouldn't make sense as a pejorative if the one accused was white or was not female."
Google John McCain and "fiery temperament" and it is usually used in the pejorative or in news accounts acknowledging a pejorative attitude towards his temper.
More accurately, fiery is a loaded term like "angry" for black women and "hysterical" for women in general. These terms can make sense when applied to others, but they bring in a whole host of inappropriate connotations when applied to their specifically maligned groups.
I think this has to be counted as progress. As it is now, every promotion of a female or POC seems to be partial tokenism. Until we get a fair number of women and people of color into white male dominated fields, each new addition to diversity is a step in the right direction.
I also think that it is really important to have visible role models for all identities.
John Bolton was often described as "fiery" during his confirmation hearings.
"Fiery" gets used for redheads, who are usually white. However, red hair is popularly associated with Irish people, who were victims of prejudice in North America in centuries past.