People of Individuality

It’s time to move away from the vernacular of race and ‘people of color’

Since when do we as an American society have to stay stuck in the language of the American Pravda media? When did we agree that ‘people of color’ is the definitive word on differences between people? What about shape? Weight? Height? Like or dislike of poetry? Preference for classical or rap? Football, basketball or baseball—or fencing? Vegetarian or carnivore? Gardener or painter? Skateboard or Harley? Cats or dogs? Recliners or bean bag chairs? Salsa-mild or spicy? Pick an answer to each of these questions, show them to a friend, and then ask what's the skin color of the person who's been described? An honest friend will have one answer: I have no clue.

We could go on of course, but you get the point. We are individuals. We have thrived and been blessed by living under the foundational American ideal of individual freedom and responsibility under God. We are not defined by our epidermis; we do not wish to have others define us by our epidermis.

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be a Supreme Court Justice has set up a great platform for opening up this broader issue, as her comment on the richness of her experience as a Latina woman making her a better judge than a white man has made the rounds of the internet and prompted much more serious thinking among engaged Americans than Pravda would like to believe.

For handy reference, here's her comment:

'I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life'

No amount of spin or backtracking can make Sotomayor’s patently racist and wrong attitude into a righteous one. It wasn’t taken out of context. She didn’t misspeak. The only thing she could do that would actually help is to publicly acknowledge that her statement was wrong, apologize for it and recant it and promise to judge without regard to skin color or any merely material factor. We doubt she will do so, because everything we’ve read suggests this is how she really thinks—which is why Obama picked her in the first place.

Pravda and the Beltway elite retain their view of the rest of America as bigoted hayseeds, but Americans are in fact much more enlightened than their elitist overlords (which is a big reason the content of the mainstream media doesn’t connect with Americans anymore and why the MSM’s main outlets are going bankrupt). Americans understand what racism is and why it is morally indefensible as well as irreconcilable with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. But they know that racism isn’t just a black v. white or black v. Hispanic or white v. Hispanic thing—it is all of those and any others which start and stop in their view of others with the idea (or some variant thereof) that ‘people of color’ is a meaningful or perhaps the meaningful distinction which explains every different point of view.

Martin Luther King was onto the truth as he described the ideal when all are ‘judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character’. Mr. King’s words imbibe the spirit of America; his “I Have a Dream” speech is infused with a deep and far-reaching insight into the oneness of American ideals with the spiritual message of the Bible in its teaching of what it means to be the individual child of God. That’s why the speech was so stirring at the time; that’s why its message resonates to this day. It is anchored in truth.

It is yet another testimony of the upside-down, Orwellian nature of our times that those who most grasp and embrace the message of Martin Luther King are the ones who are and should be most opposed to have any judge, much less one of nine Justices of the Supreme Court, espouse the unmistakable intent to judge people not by the content of their character but by the color of their skin.

The prevailing spin on the Sotomayor nomination is that Democrats are lockstep in support of her, and Republican opposition is not only numerically futile but obviously so vulnerable to being cast as racist that it must be muted if not altogether silent.

We’ll venture a different take, though it may be awhile to see the consequences. We think most Americans—of every skin color—oppose the racist substance of Ms. Sotomayor’s comment. We think most Americans—of every skin color—do not want to be judged in a court system that will make skin color into a decisive factor in determining justice, while character, honesty, truth, and motive are relegated to some secondary role. In short, we think most Americans would oppose Ms. Sotomayor as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Now, can Pravda find a few race-baiters to get on TV and threaten violence if Sotomayor is not confirmed? Of course—White House press secretary Gibbs was making threats within 24-48 hours of her nomination. Can Pravda gin up a poll saying a majority of Americans favor her confirmation? Absolutely. Pollsters can get whatever answer they want by phrasing questions to impel the answer they want. But neither the race-baiter interviews nor the phony polls can change the truth. Sotomayor’s attitude is not appropriate for juror, judge or Justice—it should not be part of the American judicial system at all. And the Senators who go along in lockstep support of this attitude may think their votes reflect the views of Americans. They don’t. And the electoral consequences that flow from support of approving racism in the judicial system will not be minor.

Paul Gable

Posted May 30, 2009