more profound understanding to these discussions, including legal deliberations, than most of us would. It is not that whites can’t get it. After all, white men in Brown ultimately overturned the evil deeds of other white men in Plessy. But the ability to see injustice is likely keener for those who have long been the targets of it.
Historically, one can see the role played by racial identity in the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley when he voted to strike down post-emancipation civil rights protections in 1883. Bradley insisted that blacks had become the “special favorites of the law,” thanks to programs like the Freedman’s Bureau, and that the time had come for them to no longer benefit from this so-called preferential treatment. Instead, Bradley insisted, they should “take the place of mere citizens.” That he could say such a thing, ignoring that whites were not “mere citizens” but privileged ones—who had been the only legal citizens until just a few years before he rendered this judgment—is stunning confirmation of Sotomayor’s comments. Here was an otherwise competent jurist, making a fundamentally ridiculous argument, because as a white man, he had never had to consider his elevated status as anything but ordinary and natural.
And speaking of supposed “preferential treatment” and “reverse discrimination”—the bogeymen to which Justice Bradley gave voice just two decades after emancipation—these too have been raised by the right in its attack on Sotomayor. To many, her nomination is evidence of unjust affirmative action, by which they mean the promotion of less qualified people of color to positions they don’t deserve.
Paleo-bigot Pat Buchanan—who appeared twice on a radio show hosted by an overt white supremacist and close friend of David Duke—calls her an intellectual “lightweight.” This, coming from a man who, in a syndicated column, once praised the “genius” of Hitler. Fred Barnes not only claims Sotomayor has been a recipient of affirmative action, and may never have gotten into Princeton without it, but goes further. To Barnes, the fact that she graduated summa cum laude means nothing and might well have been the result of lenient grading, unlike George W. Bush’s “gentleman’s C,” about which the former president bragged a few years ago as though it were perfectly respectable.
That white people are so quick to presume preferential treatment is at work whenever someone who looks different from us makes it to the top is a hallmark of racist thinking. Too, it is based on the notion that when white men obtain such slots, it must have been merit-based rather than the result of a race or gender preference for us—even though the history of white male success has been almost entirely one of preferences given, favors done, and the receipt of unearned, unjustified advantage. Indeed, this is true even for white men who grew up in more modest conditions. To wit, the aforementioned Bill O’Reilly, who often ruminates about growing up lower-middle-class in Levittown, on Long Island, but forgets to mention that the community in which he grew up was racially restricted to whites, at the behest of the developer.
As it turns out, Sonia Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed, racism notwithstanding, and for that, we can be grateful. But let us remain aware of the strong undercurrent of bigotry that continues to poison our politics, and to which millions still respond. That the ability of angry white men to derail a Supreme Court nomination has diminished is nice. That we still have to be subjected to their bile—and that such biliousness will only grow as they see their hegemonic grip on the country slip—serves as a reminder that they are still very much out there, and capable of significant damage.
IMAGINE FOR A MOMENT
PROTEST, PRIVILEGE, AND THE POWER OF WHITENESS
SOMETIMES THE BEST way to understand an issue like privilege and how it operates in the lives of white folks is to think about recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people in the scenes one conjures, picture people of color instead. Then imagine how these events would have played out, and been perceived, had the principals been of color, rather than white.
For instance, imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington, D.C., and northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with semiautomatic rifles, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these black protesters spoke of the need for political revolution, and even armed conflict, if the government enforced laws they didn’t like. Would these protesters—these black protesters with guns—be seen as brave defenders of the Constitution, or would most whites view them as a danger to the republic? What if they were brown-skinned Muslims? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in tow, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s leaders if the need arose.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by hundreds of angry, screaming, black people, berating them for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, violent, even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently to members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Imagine that a black rap artist were to say, in reference to a white politician and presidential candidate: “He’s a piece of shit, and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” And what would happen to any prominent liberal commentator who then, when asked about that statement, replied that the rapper was a friend and that he (the commentator) would not disavow or criticize him for his remarks? Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said in 2007 about Barack Obama, and that’s how Sean Hannity responded to Nugent’s comments when asked about them.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough (“living fossils” as he would call them) “so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, and about liberals, generally.
Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.
Imagine a black talk show host merrily predicting a revolution by people of color if rich white men continue to “destroy” the country, or calling Christians or Jews non-humans, or saying that when it comes to conservatives, we should “hang ’em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values”? After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting a white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or stated by Savage about Arab Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman John Culberson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.
Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing done wrong by the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas, IRS building was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Ann Coulter said about Tim McVeigh when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.
In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol being hurled at President Obama by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on “thuggish” behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?
To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have had the luxury of seeing themselves as