Jonathan Zimmerman: Judge Sotomayor, a mythic 'Hispanic'Roundup: Historians' Take
Here's a good argument for putting Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court: She's knowledgeable, respected and deeply experienced. As a federal judge for nearly two decades, she's heard thousands of cases and written hundreds of opinions.
And here's a lousy argument for confirming Sotomayor: She would be the first "Hispanic" on the court.
I put the term in quotation marks because it's a recent invention, dating to the 1970s and '80s. Before then, when Sotomayor was growing up with her Puerto Rican family in New York City, she was not Hispanic.
And words make a difference. As many commentators have reminded us since President Obama nominated Sotomayor, judges are inevitably shaped by their life experiences. But these experiences are themselves shaped -- and, sometimes, distorted -- by the terms that we use to describe them.
How did Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Salvadorans, Panamanians, Nicaraguans and Guatemalans all become Hispanic?
Amid the African American civil rights struggle of the 1960s, many of these groups joined hands to demand voting rights, bilingual education and social services. Here they received a big assist from an unlikely source: Richard Nixon. Eager to bring Mexicans and other Latino immigrants into the Republican fold, Nixon also saw them as a potential bulwark against black political aspirations.
"All Spanish-speaking Americans share certain characteristics -- a strong family structure, deep ties to the church, which makes them open to an appeal from us," wrote one GOP campaign strategist on the eve of Nixon's 1972 presidential reelection bid. "The Democratic Party is under suspicion for favoring politically potent blacks at the expense of the needs of Spanish-speaking people."
So Nixon threw his weight behind bilingual education, which has since become a bête noire for the GOP. He also ordered the Census Bureau to add a query on its 1970 form asking whether respondents were "Hispanic," hoping to further solidify this new voting bloc.
Census Bureau officials balked, noting -- correctly -- that the term lacked scientific and historical precision. They also worried that respondents wouldn't recognize it. So the most commonly used census form in 1970 asked respondents if they were of "Spanish" origin, not whether they were Hispanic.
All that would change in 1977, when the Office of Management and Budget instructed federal agencies to classify Americans as one of four races -- white, black, American Indian/Alaskan Native or Asian/Pacific Islander -- and also to distinguish between two ethnic categories, "of Hispanic origin" and "not of Hispanic origin." Since then, the census has asked people their race and whether they're Hispanic, which is not listed as a "race" per se.
Increasingly, however, Americans thought of it as such. Government agencies used "Hispanic" alongside "Asian" and "black," making Hispanic into a de facto racial category. Businesses and educational institutions counted Hispanics -- or, sometimes, "Latinos" -- as a race in diversity and affirmative action reports.
Not surprisingly, then, Hispanics became more likely over time to identify themselves as a separate race too. In the mid-1990s, 60% of the respondents to a study of more than 5,000 Latin American immigrants self-identified as "white," for example, but only 20% of their children did so.
That's an unprecedented development, as the United States had continuously absorbed people formerly identified in the census as from nonwhite races into the white majority. Jews, Italians and Slavs were all once classified as separate races; now, they're white. But Hispanics are moving in the opposite direction -- from white to nonwhite. In our minds, at least, they've become a minority race.
The language of race is a unifying one, blinding us to the irreducible diversity that a single category can contain. Consider Sotomayor's now infamous comment that a "wise Latina woman" would render a better judicial decision than a white male. While GOP antagonists accused Sotomayor of reverse racism and Democrats rushed to her defense, nobody pointed out that wise Latina women come in all shapes, sizes and ideologies. Would a wise Cuban woman in South Florida see eye-to-eye with a wise Mexican woman in San Diego, or with a wise Salvadoran woman in Washington, D.C.? Probably not.
Even worse, the idea of race tricks us into seeing "Hispanic" as a biological category rather than a cultural one. I frequently do an exercise with my students, asking them how a scientist would identify their race. The most common reply is also the most troubling one: via a blood test. In fact, that would tell you the opposite: We all come from the same ancestor, in East Africa, and we're all mongrels. The blood test does not identify your "race," which primarily exists only in our minds.
As a child, Sotomayor was probably classified as white; now she's Hispanic. But her DNA is the same. The only thing that has changed is the way we look at her. Belying every shard of evidence, we continue to believe that races are different under the skin.
So let's hope that the Senate confirms Sotomayor, one of the most qualified nominees in the history of the Supreme Court. Then let's welcome her as the first person of Puerto Rican descent on the court, not as the first "Hispanic."
If you think the words don't matter, you haven't been listening.
comments powered by Disqus
marte hall - 6/19/2009
Thank you, Jonathan Zimmerman:
I have nothing of substance to contribute here -- at the moment, any way. [If "substance" is what ... for the yin/yang word mode ... is "yang"; all I have at the moment to ?contribute? is "yin".]
I'm pushing 80 years old [female, "caucasian" -- if that matters?! :-)]. I've alternatively (or sometimes both together) watched/participated in many battles for clarification of thought (words) and harmony of practic (people, daily life, events and individual responsibility). This post of yours seems to me to do a first rate job separating and identifying both. Judge Sotomayor's objective professional qualifications vis-a-vis much of the discussion (and something perhaps less dignified? than "discussion") surrounding her nomination.
Meanwhile -- born in 1930 -- the whole cyperspace mode grows increasingly difficult for me to navigate; with its proliferation of visual (screen) distractions and bombardment of information, disinformation, spams and scams.
It was shortly after 9/11/01 that I asked a[n] historian friend of mine to tell me Internet sites I could use to find serious and "in depth" comments on ongoing issues of immediate political "but/and" also longstanding history and historical importance.
I am ?"inordinately"? ("the jury's not in" on that one just yet) grateful to HNN and posting writers like you, which/who arrive into my daily Inbox as a major contribution to both sanity and hope.
And so, once again:
[Now I'll be interested to read other people's comments!! :-)]
Randll Reese Besch - 6/19/2009
That includes if you are a man or a woman and the social meliux you are raised in. Such things can give one a different and maybe sometimes a better way of making choices than just a white male. Wouldn't it? Couldn't it? Shouldn't it?
Even so we need a diversity of opinions and points of view on the court. Homogeneity isn't what we have in the real world and it shouldn't be on the court either.
- Historian James Harris says Russian archives show we’ve misunderstood Stalin
- The Invisible Labor of Women’s Studies
- Lincoln University historian mourns decision to abolish the history major
- Hamilton College conservative historian questions diversity requirement
- Historians on Donald Trump: A Huge Hit on Facebook