NR’s Sotomayor Cover
So National Review decided to run this very odd cover image of Judge Sonia Sotomayor:
It seems that what happened was that, as conservatives are wont to do, they tried to do something that would be racist, but also arguably not racist. Hence, instead of depicting a Latina with a racist stereotyped image of a Latina, they depicted her with a racist stereotyped image of an Asian. It’s hard to know exactly what to make of that. But National Review editor Rich Lowry seems to have known exactly what to make of it since as this post makes clear he was anticipating people criticizing the imagery.
At any rate, then he waited around a bit, got the accusations of racism he was waiting for, and then got to engage in every white conservative’s favorite passtime of wallowing in self-pity and calling his accusers humorless.
Unfortunately, there’s not a good shorthand term for the psychology behind this kind of behavior. “Racism” doesn’t, I think, capture it. But there’s this deranged fascination with walking up to the line and dancing around there in hopes of getting called on it. Then you get to become indignant. Because, again, the contemporary right’s main view on race is that actual racism against non-white people is only a tiny problem compared with the vast social crisis that allegedly exists around people being vigilant against racism.
Hat tip on this to Brian Beutler who adds a funny unrelated joke “Also featured on the cover in the current issue: ‘Jonah Goldberg On His Critics.’ That better be a long article.”
134 Responses to “NR’s Sotomayor Cover”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 5th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Something tells me that what’s inside is even dumber.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
What do they call it when soccer players grab their knees and make huge grimaces after someone from the opposing team looks at them funny? Lowry isn’t trying to score points as much as get yellow cards against the other team.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Unfortunately, there’s not a good shorthand term for the psychology behind this kind of behavior.
Martyrdom complex.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Maybe they went the Chinese route b/c they didn’t want to upset K-Lo. Inquiring minds want to learn what she thinks.
Something tells me that what’s inside is even dumber.
“Jonah Goldberg on His Critics” They’re liberal fascists?
June 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I think #2 might be on to something.
Apparently, the Republicans can do something very similar with a ball.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Congratulations to National Review for opening up a new front for Operation Gringo. I have to say they did accomplish complete operational surprise.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
there’s not a good shorthand term for the psychology…[of] this deranged fascination with walking up to the line and dancing around there in hopes of getting called on it.
Adolescence?
June 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Unfortunately, there’s not a good shorthand term for the psychology behind this kind of behavior.
How about “needlessly hostile”?
June 5th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
That’s a concise description. Anyone who grew up with an annoying sibling can recognize this maneuver. It’s the “Na, na, but I’m not touching you” school of political rhetoric.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Unfortunately, there’s not a good shorthand term for the psychology behind this kind of behavior. “Racism” doesn’t, I think, capture it
How about assholes? Immature assholes with very little imagination.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Just putting her in the robes would have made the comparison clear. The cartoonish asiatic features weren’t remotes necessary. Everyone knows what a vedic monk looks like, even if they don’t know what a vedic monk is.
Is it racism? Yes. It’s just not bigotry. Using racial angst to take and hold power is racism, regardless of their personal views on race. Guys like this rwhip up a racial shitstorm and then try to lead white people in the resulting furor. Half of them are fine with black folks, and don’t really think they’re inferior at all. To them it’s ‘just business’. This behaviour is still the very epitome of racism. This is what sets racism apart from simple prejudice.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Yeah. It’s hard say who this is more insulting to: Buddhists and Asians, Catholics and Hispanics…wise people? While the idea of political incorrectness and “no sacred cows” etc. can be appealing, when it comes to the “conservative” right, it rings completely false. Notice what groups that are not being “roasted”: whites and Protestant; and I say this as someone who is white and nominally Protestant.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Sure there is: arrested development. These clowns have never moved beyond the “Dartmouth Review” stage: now, as then, they confuse getting a rise out of people with actually making a valid point. For them, “mission accomplished” meant pissing off liberals, which is why, as the past eight years amply demonstrate, they should never ever be trusted with the task of actual governance.
FWIW, I don’t think the cover is racist: to paraphrase Talleyrand, it’s worse than racist, it’s just plain stupid and sophomoric.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
OK, I apologize for suggesting that the contents of this issue of the National Review would be dumb, espcialy sincae my opts coantined a typo.
Because nothing could be dumber than this guy at the Moonie Times.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
i’d call it “trolling”. also negative attention seeking.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
They would interpret wisdom as something esoteric and exotic by American standards, wouldn’t they?
June 5th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Of course, as a Latina Buddhist, I find this so beyond insulting i don’t even know where to start…Assholes indeed.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
You think this is bad you should have seen the one where she was dressed as an Imam….
June 5th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
That’s funny: Sonia Sotomayor doesn’t have buck teeth.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
The NR editors obviously faced that challege familiar to Pictionary aficionados: How do you draw a picture of “wise”? It’s hard to do. Solution: Draw a Buddhist monk!
But of course no one forced them to draw or commission a drawn picture at all. The fact that they chose to do so shows they don’t give a shit that no one likes having their ethnicity and/or religion pictorially caricatured by representatives of the dominant group. Indeed, they clearly relish causing offense in this way so they can further demean such people for being “too sensitive”. It’s win-win.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
For some reason, it never fully occurred to me that the people running the clown-car enterprise known as NR’s The Corner were actually responsible for the actual print-content of the magazine itself. What kind of human being looks at a magazine, notices that it’s edited by Richard Lowry and includes pieces from Jonah Goldberg and Andy McCarthy and thinks that it’s he or she would like to read? Whoever they are, I bet they’ll think this cover is extremely clever.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
It’s called flopping.
So, how about:
Race Flopping: purposely engaging in racially-offensive speech for the purpose of complaining about the subsequent accusations of racism.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I think this will approximate the discussion that went into that cover image.
NR doofus #1 – “Let’s rip on her for that “wise Latina” thing.”
NR doofus #2 – “Are there any latino symbols of wisdom we could mock?”
NR doofus #2 – “Latino wisdom? Isn’t that an oxymoron?”
NR doofus #1 – “Ha!”
NR doofus #2 – “Can we draw her as some sort of Catholic monk with her head in the clouds?”
NR doofus #3 – “Uh, I think the Catholics are the good religion as long as they’re not talking about poverty or the death penalty.”
NR doofus #1 – “Hey, didn’t that Kung-Fu guy just off himself in a closet? That show was sooooo cool.”
NR doofus #2 – “Wait a minute. What if we draw her like a Shao-lin priest, with the slanty eyes and everything?”
NR doofus #3 – “Genius!”
Mike
June 5th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Take two, this time with fewer typos:
For some reason, it never fully occurred to me that the people running the clown-car enterprise known as NR’s The Corner were also responsible for the actual print-content of the magazine itself. What kind of human being looks at a magazine, notices that it’s edited by Richard Lowry and includes pieces from Jonah Goldberg and Andy McCarthy and thinks that it’s something he or she would like to read? Whoever they are, I bet they’ll think this cover is extremely clever.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
No, it’s because she’s so wise, like a monk…get it!
This is sort of like Death Wish–that’s got to be on NRO’s top conservative movies for sure–where Bronson provoked the gangbangers into attacking him because he wanted to fight them, but didn’t want to be the attacker cause then he couldn’t claim self-defense.
How about we call it a victimization fetish? Or anti-PC chic?
June 5th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Wherever he is, William F. “Marley’s Ghost” Buckley is probably groaning in the chains he made with his 1950s writing on Civil Rights.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I was talking about this very point with a friend a couple of weeks ago. We decided that “racist” was pretty good after all. I do think it’d be good to popularize a term for this.
“quasi-racist” is okay, but too vague.
“asshole” is accurate but not specific.
“Trolling” is good, but doesn’t capture the part where they fake being indignant that closes the routine.
“Winding people up”/”Wind up artist”/”Wind up merchant” is an old term for it, but it sounds too classy for wingnut bullshit.
“right-wing hissy fit” is too broad, because anything can initiate that (e.g., Obama shakes somebody’s hand). Matt’s example is something where the wingers are putting it out there in the first place.
“race flopping” is good.
Somebody ask Atrios. He’s our best aphorist.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
[...] tags: current events, politics, Racism, wordpress-political-blogs by Marc Though I disagree with Yglesias that depicting an asian as the Buddha would be, in fact, racist (numerous reasons why not – [...]
June 5th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Unfortunately, there’s not a good shorthand term for the psychology behind this kind of behavior.
In developmental psychology, it’s called “testing limits.” It’s generally understood to be the province of toddlers and adolescents. See also, “acting out.”
June 5th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
[...] So Matt Yglesias runs the whole thing down here. [...]
June 5th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
the reason it’s hard to describe is because it’s what missing in this genre of homo sapiens that describes them best. it’s the word that got them all exercised at the beginning of this process: empathy.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
It’s like they so desperately wanted a stereotype, but knew that a Hispanic stereotype would be too blatant, so they just randomly picked another one and slapped it on her anyway.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I’m not sure why Lowry keeps insisting that his critics are humorless. We certainly spend enough time laughing at him.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
For crying out loud, they gave her eyes a 45 degree downward slant. That isn’t a caricature, like drawing Clinton with an exaggerated chin and nose, or drawing Barack Obama with exaggerated ears (or, heck, doing a caricature of Sotomayor which exaggerates some notable feature she really does have, like maybe the bangs on the left side of her face). What were they not doing, if not trolling?
June 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Wow. I mean wow!!!
It’s been a long time since I’ve been shocked at anything in a political discourse but when I saw this the first time on Matthew’s page my jaw literally dropped.
Good job with keeping it classy National Review, two racial stereotypes in one cover, you’ve got to work hard to piss off that many people.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I think NR saw how the cover of the New Yorker blew up, and decided that a more hatchet-jobbed route would be a great way to get mentioned on the nightly broadcast news.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Because, again, the contemporary right’s main view on race is that actual racism against non-white people is only a tiny problem compared with the vast social crisis that allegedly exists around people being vigilant against racism.
Just admiring the dead-on succinctness of that characterization.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
“Jonah Goldberg on his critics”
Why do images of King Kong Bundy sitting on some other classic pro-wrestler’s face (Sargent Slaughter??) and “tea bagging” him in the corner of the ring spring to mind?
June 5th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Err… by talking about “drawing Clinton with an exaggerated chin and nose,” I was referring to Bill Clinton.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Thank you, for this image. By which, I mean: WHAT THE FUCK!
June 5th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Yglesis,
You’re nuts! Sotomayor is white. And you are skipping back and forth between race and ethnicity. You are way off target becuse you are wrong.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias sees racism in the new National Review cover, and his dittohead commenters agree to a [...]
June 5th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Perhaps, but I think Matt and all of these commenters agreeing are being too sensitive. This picture strikes me as mocking, not racist.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
The NRO editors make it abundantly clear that they can’t even tell the difference between various Asian people. The saffron robes, seated pose, position under a tree, etc, clearly are an allusion to popular portrayals of Buddha under the Bodhisattva tree. But the slanty eyes and buck teeth are features of caricatures of the Japanese during WWII. The Buddha was Indian, not Japanese. Not only are the fine folks at NRO racist, they’re also just not all that smart.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Unfortunately, there’s not a good shorthand term for the psychology behind this kind of behavior.
“Childish,” perhaps? This is the same mindset of a child who, instructed to stop touching his brother, puts his hands *this* close to his brother’s face and dares the kid to get annoyed.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
what a joke
June 5th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Ya know, it’s really interesting that there are comments here telling others that they rae being “too sensitive,” because some people don’t see it as “racist” but as mocking.
I found the cover insulting. That doesn’t necessarily I think everyone has to see it that way, but I found it offensive on a number of levels. I wouldn’t necessarily discount anyone’s experience as it just being mocking, because for whatever reason, it doesn’t bother some people. Just because it doesn’t affect you personally, doesn’t mean that other people’s reactions are not valid in their own right.
This view of “You are too sensitive, becuase I don’t feel the way you do, so you must be wrong,” strikes me as being pretty egotistical.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Yglesias and the rest of you are completely illogical and possibly paranoid. Hello! Sotomayor is white. Yglesias is whiningly confusing ethnicity with race, but how can he help but err when his premise is wrong?
June 5th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
I think this cover will substantially help Sotomayor’s nomination. Not joking BTW.
B
June 5th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
The funny thing is about ethnicity and race in many Latino and Hispanic communites, is that those concepts, are incredibly mutable. I am Latina, of Mexican heritage, and I don’t consider myself white, but many people of my background do, and some think of themselves as mixed race. My Cuban good friend likes using the term Hispanic, I don’t, I prefer Latina, she hates that term. Who knows what Sonia’s take on her own race is? I don’t know, this race thing is not so clear in Latin America…
This mixture of cultures, races and ethnicities are there in Puerto Rico too.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Does this mean that being “wise” is now a negative in right-wing circles? They’ve already turned so many similar words with this type of attack, soon there won’t be any way to describe a Republican who is intelligent.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
homogeneous pride
June 5th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
homogeneous pride
proud of the familiar
June 5th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Blurtman, leaving aside the question of Sotomayor’s race, what’s your point? If the American Prospect had portrayed George W. Bush as a black guy with giant lips with one hand in a bucket of fried chicken and the other holding a slice of watermelon, can’t you see how that might be racist?
June 5th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
This is an old trick that Nixon taught them (along with so much else). As described in “Nixonland” (Rick Perlstein’s wonderful book about the quasi-civil war of 1965-1972). Nixon would set up his mark with a series of half-truths, and then when the opponent took the bait and made the charge that Nixon was “lying” “slandering” “playing politics with war” etc., he would take the part of the self-pitying injured party, just an up and coming regular guy, who is being put down by the swells and stuff shirts. Its a great play to the white middle class resentment card. The problem is that the demographics in the country leaves it being a card that only resonates with a shrinking minority.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Julian Elson Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Blurtman, leaving aside the question of Sotomayor’s race, what’s your point? If the American Prospect had portrayed George W. Bush as a black guy with giant lips with one hand in a bucket of fried chicken and the other holding a slice of watermelon, can’t you see how that might be racist?
*********
You are really reaching here because you are wrong. That is not what was done. And if you have such stereotypes in your head, you should do some serious soul searching.
If the American Prospect had portrayed Scalia as Sotomoayor has been displayed, Yglesias would not be uttering a peep.
The meditating Buddha like cartoon is depicting wisdom, making light of her wise Latina comment. I suppose they could have cartooned Einstein as well, but paranoid neurotic types would have trouble with that, too.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
eebee Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
The funny thing is about ethnicity and race in many Latino and Hispanic communites, is that those concepts, are incredibly mutable. I am Latina, of Mexican heritage, and I don’t consider myself white, but many people of my background do, and some think of themselves as mixed race. My Cuban good friend likes using the term Hispanic, I don’t, I prefer Latina, she hates that term. Who knows what Sonia’s take on her own race is? I don’t know, this race thing is not so clear in Latin America…
This mixture of cultures, races and ethnicities are there in Puerto Rico too.
*********
Right, not too clear. But at least consistency can be achieved. Country of origin is not synonymous with race or ethnicity. But imbeciles like Patrick Leahy confuse the difference, when convenient.
If Roberts or Scalia had said they were proud of their white heritage, or that as a wise white man, they could make better judgements than others, they would no longer be considered for the Supreme Court.
It’s great to be proud of where you are from, where your folks are from, i.e. what country or countries. But if colonization by forced adoption of the conquerer’s culture makes for a race, than people from Northern Ireland are of the same race as people from India (no offence to either peoples intended).
June 5th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Wait wait wait…National Review adds big buck teeth and slanty eyes to a drawing of Sotomayor in order to make her look Asian, and you’re whining at Matt for “skipping back and forth between race and ethnicity?” Whatever.
I love this “I’m rubber you’re glue” defensive posture wingnuts strike. For those keeping score at home: National Review can use buck teeth and ridiculously slanted eyes to make someone appear Asian, but no one is supposed to know that those are racial stereotypes for Asians. Sure, that makes sense.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
And in order to make sure we got that they were depicting Sotomayor as a Buddhist, they decided to give her the features of a “Jap” from a World War 2 propaganda poster.
If they’d cartooned Einstein with an enormous honker, forelocks, and a couple of little horn poking out, yeah, “paranoid neurotic types would have trouble with that.” Go fig.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
I have no idea what the racial breakdown of Sotomayor’s Puerto Rican heritage is. Nor do I care. (For that matter, while I have some highly educated guesses, I don’t really know what the racial breakdown of my Puerto Rican heritage is either; nor do I care.)
The point, sidestepping your other bullshit, Blurtman, is to pose for yourself this question:
Do the people behind this cover image (and, presumably, the associated story) conceive of Sotomayor as white?
June 5th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
It’s antisocial in a manipulative, jr. high sort of way. It reminds me of the Heathers in the movie Heathers but clumsy rather than wicked-sharp.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
This is very problematic because racism is rarely treated as subjective. Either they are or aren’t racists; something is or isn’t racist. If racism is subjective, then racism is not wrong (or at least is up for debate) because it is simply a perception of the observer. I think for the concept of racism to be useful, it needs to be an absolute, and it needs to be wielded carefully, certainly more carefully than it has been here.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Blurtman, have you looked at any actual portrayals of Buddha and other important Buddhist figures? Like this Buddha head? What about this Prajnaparamita statue?
They don’t have eyes that are slanted at a 45 degree downward angle.
Why does the Sotomayor on the National Review’s cover? Is it just artistic incompetence on the part of the artist — a failure of accurate knowledge of human anatomy?
June 5th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
This doesn’t matter. All they have done is show how stupid they are. They can continue to do that as far as I’m concerned. But Bill Buckley must be rolling in his grave. I rarely agreed with Bill, but I always respected him and his publication. But now the publication has gone so far off the cliff that it’s just silly.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
“This picture strikes me as mocking, not racist.”
It’s mocking her by using racist visual cues, yes. One could almost say that it is mocking and racist, if that weren’t an obvious contradiction in terms.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Worth noting that drawing Judge Sotomayor as a Buddha has the added virtue — to a right-wing dork — of insulting her for being overweight.
Did K-Lo and Jonah miss this meeting somehow?
June 5th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
I doubt it. Buckley didn’t really have a problem with racism or facism, he just happened to use ten cents words and long winded sophistry to advocate for them instead of farting noises like the current dipshits at NR. Buckley was just an erudite pig.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
joe from Lowell Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
The meditating Buddha like cartoon is depicting wisdom, making light of her wise Latina comment.
And in order to make sure we got that they were depicting Sotomayor as a Buddhist, they decided to give her the features of a “Jap” from a World War 2 propaganda poster.
I suppose they could have cartooned Einstein as well, but paranoid neurotic types would have trouble with that, too.
If they’d cartooned Einstein with an enormous honker, forelocks, and a couple of little horn poking out, yeah, “paranoid neurotic types would have trouble with that.” Go fig.
************
Joe
In the cartoon, the teeth are clearly behind the lower lip, i.e., not “bucked.” Your perceptive capabilites are about as developed as your logic. Not very.
—-
If they’d cartooned Einstein with an enormous honker, forelocks, and a couple of little horn poking out, yeah, “paranoid neurotic types would have trouble with that.” Go fig.
**********
What type of bizarre images are running through your mind, exactly? Don’t project your prejudices on others, please.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Julian Elson Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Blurtman, have you looked at any actual portrayals of Buddha and other important Buddhist figures? Like this Buddha head? What about this Prajnaparamita statue?
They don’t have eyes that are slanted at a 45 degree downward angle.
Why does the Sotomayor on the National Review’s cover? Is it just artistic incompetence on the part of the artist — a failure of accurate knowledge of human anatomy?
*************
So your complaint is that the caricaturist did not do a good job? Give it up man, and examine your bogus belief system.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
the password is: inscrutable.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
No. I think that the caricaturist did a good job of conveying stereotypical racist portrayals of East Asians. Why? Maybe to stoke racist sentiment among NR readers, or maybe in the hopes of provoking a response (trolling), so that they could later assume an air of wounded greivance when people do respond. However, I raised the possibility of artistic incompetence because it’s the only other explanation I could think of. What do you think?
June 5th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Medrawt Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
I have no idea what the racial breakdown of Sotomayor’s Puerto Rican heritage is. Nor do I care. (For that matter, while I have some highly educated guesses, I don’t really know what the racial breakdown of my Puerto Rican heritage is either; nor do I care.)
The point, sidestepping your other bullshit, Blurtman, is to pose for yourself this question:
Do the people behind this cover image (and, presumably, the associated story) conceive of Sotomayor as white?
**********
I don’t know, but I bet you believe you do. They are clearly lampooning her wise Latina comment.
So pose for yourself this question: If Roberts had claimed pride to be a white person, or if he expressed the belief that as a white man, he could deliver better judgements than other of different race, would he have been seriously considered for the Supreme Court?
June 5th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Don’t you guys see, by noticing how conservatives say and do racist things and then pointing them out, YOU are the real racists! If you weren’t, you wouldn’t notice what they say and do is racist!
June 5th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I nominate Horowitzism.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
This isn’t racist whatsoever. But the Republican Party top brass is full of complete fucking morons, what the fuck is wrong with them.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Blurtman
So pose for yourself this question: If Roberts had claimed pride to be a white person, or if he expressed the belief that as a white man, he could deliver better judgements than other of different race, would he have been seriously considered for the Supreme Court?
Who is mixing up race and ethnicity now?
I certainly have never heard someone speak of how proud they are of being Irish. Or Italian. Or German. Etc etc etc.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Julian Elson Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
No. I think that the caricaturist did a good job of conveying stereotypical racist portrayals of East Asians. Why? Maybe to stoke racist sentiment among NR readers, or maybe in the hopes of provoking a response (trolling), so that they could later assume an air of wounded greivance when people do respond. However, I raised the possibility of artistic incompetence because it’s the only other explanation I could think of. What do you think
***********
Honestly, I think you are paranoid. Look at the comments from people who believe similar things, using words like “Jap” for example. They just know, but without any proof. I think you and others are the other side of the racist coin. You have the same beliefs as the bad racist, which you know are wrong, and so you project them to others. I think the problem is within you.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
@ 13 Roberto
That’s it! For months I’ve been trying to figure out where these clowns were getting all the put upon “sensitivity” and self-parody. Dartmouth Review! You nailed it. Here we’ve all been giving the GOPers credit for being adults of their chronological ages, when in fact none of them ever got beyond their sophomore year of college intellectually, emotionally or philosophically. Its amazing these guys can even get their mortgage payments in the mail on time.
I think, given this interpretation, the actual intent of the picture and its various pieces and parts doesn’t really matter. They did exactly what they set out to do: piss us liberals off.
Of course the fact that they’re also pissing off larger and more varied segments of the voting public wouldn’t have entered their fuzzy minds.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
lfv Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Blurtman
So pose for yourself this question: If Roberts had claimed pride to be a white person, or if he expressed the belief that as a white man, he could deliver better judgements than other of different race, would he have been seriously considered for the Supreme Court?
Who is mixing up race and ethnicity now?
I certainly have never heard someone speak of how proud they are of being Irish. Or Italian. Or German. Etc etc etc
**********
I believe my question is valid as Sotomayor refers to herself as a person of color.
Nonetheless, If Roberts had expressed the belief that as a European American, he could deliver better judgements than others of different ethnicity, would he have been seriously considered for the Supreme Court?
June 5th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Feel free to continue making ad hominem attacks on me, Blurtman, but I would recommend that you supplement them with actual discussion of the topic at hand: namely, the National Review cover and its portrayal of Sotomayor. My character flaws, however greivous they may be, are not the primary topic of discussion on this thread.
So, the portrayal of Sotomayor — to what do you ascribe its peculiar features? Do you, in fact, believe that the artist was incompetent and ignorant of anatomy? I don’t, but I raised it as the only exculpatory interpretation that I could think of. What’s your interpretation?
June 5th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
If you can tell me what insight Roberts experience as a privileged white male would add to his understanding of cases involving discrimination/sexism/racism, then sure.
After all, it is entirely reasonable to believe that having African American judges would have resulted in the same outcome in Dred Scott.
Or you can continue to distort her remarks.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
in 20th century racism, wise plus asian is unacceptable,
because they’re inferior, white? …er, I mean, right?
their intelligence could not be attributed to enterprise, creativity, moral patience, or innovation; it could only be devious. The pre vietnam pan asian slur was the “inscrutable [_insert asian nationality_here].”
Subtle, deep, dark; and with a plausibly unique sense of history that makes everyone else seem less erudite.
Not to mention the underlaying misty tones of siddarthic utopianism. Taken together its a familiar but pedestrian old conservative wine in a new bottle. WFB would be semi-proud.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Julian Elson Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Feel free to continue making ad hominem attacks on me, Blurtman, but I would recommend that you supplement them with actual discussion of the topic at hand: namely, the National Review cover and its portrayal of Sotomayor. My character flaws, however greivous they may be, are not the primary topic of discussion on this thread.
**********
Jesus, your heart doth bleed.
—
So, the portrayal of Sotomayor — to what do you ascribe its peculiar features? Do you, in fact, believe that the artist was incompetent and ignorant of anatomy? I don’t, but I raised it as the only exculpatory interpretation that I could think of. What’s your interpretation?
****************
I have a small fat Buddha figurine that I bought in Tiananmen Square. Guess what features the Buddha has? I have seen reclining Buddhas in Thailand. Same question.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Evening all…
Quit arguing with (validating) the sock puppets and read #’s 70 and 82.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Somehow the hyporcrisy of liberal Dems is much more entertaining to watch than that of conservative Republicans. Watching Dick Durban claim that Sotomayor’s wise Latina comment was an expresssion of pride of her country of origin. Hey Dick, where is the country of Latina on the map exactly? Ho, ho, too rich.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
think i’m kidding about the literary history
google “inscrutable” and see what google suggests.
#8: asian. #10: chinese.
adios, amigas!
June 5th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
we’ve ended it, yo
just leave blurtman hanging…
disengage
June 6th, 2009 at 12:03 am
[...] I agree with Matt Yglesias; this isn’t so much racist as deranged. [...]
June 6th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Do you go into hibernation for the month of March? There is a whole day that is all about being Irish. The pride is so strong that people who aren’t Irish pretend to be. I for one am proud of my ancestry, not in a superior sense, but just in a appreciation of my culture.
Anyway, when I look at the cover, it looks like Sotomayor to me in the style of caricature, just as much as it would look like me if I went to the area of Central Park where all the artists hang out and had a caricature made of me. The whole point of caricature is to not look realistic. It doesn’t look “Asian” or “Hispanic”…it just looks like her.
June 6th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Mr. Yglesias, here this black, Latino, Dominican libertarian-leaning conservative have some advice for you. Lighten up, ok? That picture is only racist in you white-guilt-condescending mind. You’re so immersed in it that you can’t see how offensive your “defense” of us is (”Oh, the poor Latinos… how they will suffer when they see this horrible picture in the cover of National Review.. buahh…!”)
Remember when Tom Tancredo said that Miami was a ‘Third World Country’? That was offensive. Miami is 66% Hispanic, so you know that he meant that we turned a mayor U.S. city into a third world country. That is offensive and uncalled for.
By the way, now that we are into the Sonia Sotomayor thing, I don’t think her “wise-Latina” statement was racist (See? I listen to Rush Limbaugh and I don’t agree with everything he said…amazing, isn’t it?) It is not a racist statement.. but it surely is stupid. The first “big word” I learn in high school was “ethnocentrism“. IMO Sotomayor “wise-Latina” statement is ethnocentric, because she assumes that the “richness of her experiences” is exclusively Latin and white guys? What about their experience? Who decides that their experience is “rich” or not? Who appointed Ms. Sotomayor as “ethnic-richness” judge?
June 6th, 2009 at 1:48 am
As a cartoonist, I don’t think that this cover is racist, it’s just a mocking caricature. She is NOT depicted with buck teeth — you’ll notice that her maxillary incisors, i.e. her front teeth, are not any larger than the rest of her teeth. I’ll agree that the angle the artist chose to draw her closed eyes was perhaps unwise considering the Asian imagery, but to call it deliberately racist is WAY overblowing the situation.
There are plenty of real examples of conservative racism, and calling something like this racist dilutes the word and robs it of its power to condemn actual examples.
June 6th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Self-induced persecution complex with masochistic tendencies?
June 6th, 2009 at 7:32 am
It’s not racist, it’s just a wind-up. Their problem isn’t that they’re actively racist, it’s that they’re garden variety assholes.
June 6th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Sotomayor’s speech is worth looking at again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html
Excerpts:
Who am I? I am a “Newyorkrican.”
The Latina side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions.
For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandules y pernil – rice, beans and pork – that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events.
Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy.
Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina? Obviously not ….
For example, I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication. You can tell that I have been very well educated. That antiseptic description however, does not really explain…
I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul.
——-
About why there is a need for Latino organizations:
“This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities. I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history. These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.”
—-
….Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law.
…
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor — I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area – Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.
That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice.
….
Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases.
…
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.
======
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. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
June 6th, 2009 at 8:11 am
It seems blindingly obvious to me that what Sotomayor was saying is that e.g., on women’s issues, it is easier for a woman to understand certain things – e.g., a female plaintiff’s claim of discrimination at work. Not that nine white men can’t see it; but the immediacy of experience is not there.
The recent example where the male judges could not see the impact of a strip search on a teenage girl, and Ginsburg had to educate them, comes to mind.
If Sotomayor is a racist, then so is Ginsburg.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-05-05-ruthginsburg_N.htm
“Ginsburg said the court’s gender imbalance has real, although not entirely obvious, consequences.
“You know the line that Sandra and I keep repeating … that ‘at the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same judgment’? But there are perceptions that we have because we are women. It’s a subtle influence. We can be sensitive to things that are said in draft opinions that (male justices) are not aware can be offensive.”
The differences between male and female justices, she said, are “seldom in the outcome.” But then, she added, “it is sometimes in the outcome.”
…
“In my lifetime, I expect to see three, four, perhaps even more women on the high court bench, women not shaped from the same mold, but of different complexions,” she told the senators.
“Yes, there are miles in front,” Ginsburg said then. “But what a distance we have traveled from the day President Thomas Jefferson told his secretary of State the appointment of women to public office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared. ‘Nor,’ Jefferson added, ‘am I.’
June 6th, 2009 at 9:07 am
They’re like the class assholes who make nasty jokes that only they think are funny, and then when you try to get angry at them, they only giggle and point at you more and more like you’re the stupid one, not them. You end up sputtering at them in futile wordless rage because you just can’t get through to them what vile idiots they are. They, on the other hand, think they’re the smartest, cleverest fellows in the universe for getting you so riled up.
June 6th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Yeah… those liberals… I don’t like their humor, either….
June 6th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Just another asian with Buddhist family members jumping on the thread to say: yes, this magazine cover strikes me as obviously, offensively racist.
Assholes.
June 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
The problem is a subtle one. The trouble with Sotomayor’s comment is not that she claimed to be Latina, but that she claimed to be wise. But the truly wise tend to doubt their own wisdom; so maybe Sotomayor displayed overconfidence.
But how does one depict overconfidence? Or wisdom? If true wisdom had a look, then every fool would adopt it; if fake wisdom had a look, then every fool would avoid it. Therefore images cannot capture wisdom.
NR ran afoul of this problem. They could have posed her as The Thinker; but instead they gave a compliment/insult to Buddhism. You see, to National Review, Buddhism is exotic; and so is wisdom.
June 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Blurtman,
It’s a stupid picture that drips of bigotry with crystal clear visual cues to WWII anti-Japanese propaganda. The fact that you can’t see anything wrong with that says much more about your own complete lack of empathy and understanding than it does about those who find the cover outrageously stupid. The fact that you continue to post dozens and dozens of times without ever making a comprehensive point beyond the fact that many racists don’t understand what race technically is only show that you are deeply unable to actually converse with anyone, despite going through the motions.
Do me a favor and don’t bother to respond. Your arguments are thoroughly repetitive at this point.
June 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Matthew Yglesias:
Isn’t idiocy still a psychological term?
June 6th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
The NR cover goes so far over the line that it helps Sotomayor. Kinda like Limbaugh repeatedly aiding Obama with his ridiculous rants. You’d almost think the far right is trying to kill off the Republican Party so they can replace it with something in their own image. Wait….!
June 6th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I’m starting to enjoy the GOP’s descent into their becoming a club for white resentment. They can sit around and nod along with Lou Dobbs sucking his dentures till hell freezes over as far as I’m concerned.
June 6th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Shorter Blurtman:
If you look at my drawing of a black man with enormous lips, ape-like features, holding a watermelon in one hand and a crack pipe in the other, while leering at a white woman, and you detect anything racist in that, that makes YOU the REAL RACIST.
Oddly enough, I didn’t have the slightest bit of trouble sleeping last night, even though I was able to figure out that National Review was using stereotyped Asian features. Hypocrite! Hypocrite!
June 6th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Denial: not just a river in Egypt.
June 6th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I’m amending my definition:
Race Flopping: purposely engaging in racially-offensive speech for the purpose of complaining about the subsequent accusations of racism and accusing those who took offense of being racists for recognizing the racist references you uses.
June 6th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
The problem is a subtle one. The trouble with Sotomayor’s comment is not that she claimed to be Latina, but that she claimed to be wise
Why don’t you provide the exact words and we’ll see where the trouble lies.
June 6th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Her exact words;
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.
So O’connor (or Coyle) can imply that they themselves are ‘wise’ and that some (presumably white) old woman might also be wise.
But no Latina old woman is allowed to assume she might imply herself to be wise, in these Republican minds.
June 6th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Why are liberals such idiots on this particular case? Soto Mayor claims to be wise so the artist depicts her as a wise meditating buddhist monk. There is nothing racist going on here! There are no wise Puerto Rican stereotypical images to use, but people often see buddhists monks as being wise so the artist went with that. When will these Libs shut up? They already have Obama, they already have Socialism, and now they’ve got their racist supreme court “judge.” It’s still not good enough. They want the rest of us to eat their crap, smile and ask for more!
June 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Soto Mayor claims to be wise so the artist depicts her as a wise meditating buddhist monk. There is nothing racist going on here
WHAA HAHAHAHAHAH HAH HAHAH HA ha ha h ahha
whew
June 6th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“If Roberts had claimed pride to be a white person, or if he expressed the belief that as a white man, he could deliver better judgements than other of different race, would he have been seriously considered for the Supreme Court?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, considering that O’Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have all, to one extent or another, expressed racial, ethnic, or gender pride, and have even indicated that they consider it when ruling, I’m guessing Roberts could’ve gotten away with it, too (indeed, several aspects of his rollout, from emphasizing his family to his upbringing, WERE implicit racial/ethnic appeals, and saying so doesn’t indicate racism, just basic observational skills).
June 6th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“Mr. Yglesias, here this black, Latino, Dominican libertarian-leaning conservative have some advice for you. Lighten up, ok? That picture is only racist in you white-guilt-condescending mind.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think you might want to check the origin on the name “Yglesias”…
June 6th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
No she does not. Based on your inability to spell her name correctly, I am guessing you have difficulty in reading comprehension. Unsurprising, I suppose.
June 6th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
That’s not the problem. I don’t have anything against depicting her as monk to make fun of the “wise” comment. I don’t agree with that particular line of argument, but it’s not per se racist.
The problem is that their depiction of a Buddhist looks like one of the “Japs” from a World War Two propaganda poster, with grotesquely exaggerate, stereotyped facial features. Get it now? If the picture had actually looked like Sotomayor – or even if it looked like a caricature of her – sitting in the lotus position in saffron robes, nobody would be making a big deal.
June 6th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
It’s kind of amazing: the people who looked at Sotomayor’s speech and managed to imagine all sorts of racist, hateful, Latino-nationalist, whitey-hating bigotry look at this – let’s call it what it is – look at this racial caricature and think “Meh. I don’t see what the big deal is.”
It’s almost as if they aren’t approaching the issue of racism in good faith. Almost.
June 6th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I do have to give NR’s artist credit, though.
The lotus tree behind her is an outline of Obama’s head. Check out the ear behind/above the N in National.
Very subtle. I imagine the artist thought the racism in the depiction of Sotomayor’s face was subtle, too.
June 6th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I think perhaps the word for what’s happening in that article is “xenophobic”?
June 6th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
All of you libs, every single one, needs to get a life. My God…You guys could find racism in a ham sandwich.
June 6th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
“You guys could find racism in a ham sandwich.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That sounds kinda antisemitic, dude.
June 6th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias gets it: [Re: National Review's bizarrely racist Asian caricature of Sonia [...]
June 6th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
What’s awesome is, YOU GUYS CAN’T ARGUE THIS ANYMORE! Not for a while, anyway, because you Einsteins spend the last two weeks wailing about the horrible racist Sonia Sotomayor, utterly without cause.
Right, those liberals, always crying racism – you tell ‘em, Rush. That’ll work.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:18 am
Colby,
Mr. Yglesias last name have nothing to do with this, is his aptitudes. For all I care, his parents could have come from Mexico, Spain, Puerto Rico or any other Hispanic country… but he still is using the twisted-policically-correct logic to declare that the cover is racist when anyone with a pinch of common sense will agree that it is not.
By the way, “Yglesias” is just a name. My father’s name is “Jorge”, adopted by Christian Lebanese inmigrants when they arrived in the Dominican Republic. My mother’s name is “Bidó”, rooted in the french “Bideau”. That doesn’t make me an expert in Lebanese or French culture… but… that was a good try anyway… I’ll give you that…
June 7th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Blurtman wrote:
Joe
In the cartoon, the teeth are clearly behind the lower lip, i.e., not “bucked.” Your perceptive capabilites are about as developed as your logic. Not very.
and Mike wrote:
As a cartoonist, I don’t think that this cover is racist, it’s just a mocking caricature. She is NOT depicted with buck teeth — you’ll notice that her maxillary incisors, i.e. her front teeth, are not any larger than the rest of her teeth. I’ll agree that the angle the artist chose to draw her closed eyes was perhaps unwise considering the Asian imagery, but to call it deliberately racist is WAY overblowing the situation.
Guys, try googling some actual anti-Japanese propaganda images, like this one or this one, you’ll see that the cartoon stereotype was generally just about big front teeth, not necessarily “buck” teeth. And Mike, if you’re suggesting that the angle of her eyes was merely an accidental “unwise” choice and not a deliberate attempt to make her eyes look “asian”, you’re in serious denial, if you look at pictures of Sotomayor her eyes don’t look slanted at all, there’s no natural reason a caricaturist would think that drawing her eyes at that extreme slant way would be a good way of capturing the essence of her face (although the rest of the drawing is a pretty good caricature).
June 7th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
[...] Yglesias: … there’s this deranged fascination with walking up to the line and dancing around there in hopes of getting called on it. Then you get to become indignant. Because, again, the contemporary right’s main view on race is that actual racism against non-white people is only a tiny problem compared with the vast social crisis that allegedly exists around people being vigilant against racism. [...]
June 7th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
@ joe from Lowell
It’s kind of amazing: the people who looked at Sotomayor’s speech and saw that she said in clear declarative sentences that the judgement of a Latina woman was superior to that of a white man look at this caricature that looks a lot like Sotomayor (who has squinty eyes) and say “Meh. I don’t see what the big deal is.”
A prima facie racist statement is what it is.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
“Colby,”
Yes?
“Mr. Yglesias last name have nothing to do with this”
That’s only true if we ignore the fact that you accused him of having a “white-guilt-condescending mind.” But I don’t want to insult you by ignoring you like that, so I gotta point out MY’s REAL ethnic heritage, and pointing out his last name is a cheeky way of doing that.
“That doesn’t make me an expert in Lebanese or French culture”
I fully believe that you are no expert.
I never claimed MY, or anyone else, was an “expert” in anything, or that they even had specialized knowledge about anything. I just pointed out MY’s ethnic heritage, because in the face of that, the “white-guilt-condescending mind” meme is pretty ridiculous.
But that was a pretty good try to knock down a straw man. I’ll give you that.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
So simple and declarative that you won’t quote them. Odd, that: the people who keep making this dumb-assed assertion won’t actually provide quotes to back it up, while the people who find nothing objectionable in the language like to quote the speech extensively. Gee, I wonder why that is?
I’ll never understand wingnut trolls. We can all look at the drawing – it’s right there, at the top of the page – and see that they drew slanty eyes that look not a bit like Sotomayor’s, but rather like a racist caricature of an East Asian. Do you imagine that people are going to forget what Sonia Sotomayor looks like, and start imagining that her eyes look like those on the National Review cover, because you said so? It doesn’t work like that, you know.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
1. Simple? Nope.
2. Declarative? Nope.
3. the judgement of a Latina woman was superior to that of a white man? Nope.
The quote is on the damn thread. We can all scroll up and see it. Anyone who will have read your comment will have already read the quote from Sotomayor’s speech, and immediately realize that you’re lying about it.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Oh, of all the things for conservatives to make a strong public stand on, it’s great that they’re drawing this Sotomayor episode out. You’d think they’d be embarrassed by it and want to quickly put it into the dustbin of memory. Instead, they want to draw it out into a long, painful process.
This cover makes me think they simply like the humiliation and pain that comes with public recognition of racism. Albinomasochism, we could call it.
June 7th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
[...] fin, no sé ni por donde empezar. Los republicanos creen que la mayor amenaza contra las esencias del país estos días es el [...]
June 7th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
You’re right, I can only dream of one day being a enlightened know-it-all like you and not having to depend on liberals to tell me when conservatives are being “racist”…
June 7th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
It’s a great cover, and you ARE humorless.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I just call people like this putzes. I don’t think that you need to get fancy about it.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
[...] on the cover of the National Review is also generating complaints that it’s racist. And some are saying National Review editor Rich Lowry knew that and wanted it be [...]