Wiser Than a White Male?

Judge Sotomayor’s Self-Image

David C. Stolinsky, MD
June 1, 2009

We think in words. English has no gender endings for words, which may be one reason that English-speaking nations tend to have greater gender equality. My wife thinks of herself as an American, not as an “Americana,” a female American. There is no such word in English.

But President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, thinks of herself as a “Latina.” What she learned at Princeton and Yale reinforced her tendency to see people not as individuals, but as members of groups defined by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and economic class.

Such thinking is now called “liberal” and “progressive,” but in fact it is reactionary and anti-democratic. Sotomayor saw nothing wrong with making this statement:

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.

What if a white woman said that she was inherently wiser than a black man? The racism and sexism would be obvious. Why is Sotomayor excused from this accusation? Is it because liberals think more of her, or less, for being a Hispanic woman?

Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group. Some claim the name means “the people,” but that is el pueblo or la gente. La Raza means “the race.” Is liberals’ acceptance of this organization a sign of their respect, or their disrespect? Liberals seem to be saying, “This name would be racist if the organization were composed of whites, but Hispanics don’t know any better.”

Sotomayor pronounces her last name as if she were speaking Spanish. People can pronounce their own names as they please. But the President also tries to pronounce it as if he were speaking Spanish. So do some commentators.

A man of Hispanic ethnicity corrected a friend of mine when she pronounced the name of a town as it is spelled, “Calabasas.” He insisted that she say “Cahlavasas.” But that is Latin American Spanish. In pure Castilian Spanish it would be “Cahlavashash.” If we can’t use American English, they can’t use Latin American Spanish.

Spanish radio and TV stations make it unnecessary to learn English to be entertained. Multilingual ballots make it unnecessary to learn English to vote. Bilingual education makes it less necessary to learn English to remain in school. That’s our fault.

Some newscasters pronounce the names of American people and places as if they were in Mexico. One newscaster is no longer Linda but “Leenda.” Other Hispanic newscasters compromise by pronouncing their first names in American English and their last names in Spanish. San Francisco is pronounced “Sahn Frahnceesco.”

But we are speaking English, not Spanish – or a mixture of the two called Spanglish. Besides, Saint Francis was Italian. If one insists on a non-English version, it should be his real name, Francesco, pronounced “Frahnchesco.”

The problem is not foreign accents. Some of my favorite relatives had accents. All of us, including American Indians, are descended from immigrants. The problem is that people who speak English are pressured to pronounce words of Spanish origin as if they were speaking Spanish.

Purists wouldn’t call a truck a “troca.” They would use genuine Spanish words. Speakers of Spanglish are in a poor position to insist that English speakers use “correct” pronunciation.

This insistence on pronouncing names of persons and places as if they were in Mexico is a not-so-subtle way of implying that they are in Mexico – that the Southwest should “go back” to Mexico, to which it “belonged” before we “stole” it. Really?

The Southwest belonged to the local Indian tribes. Aztecs or Mayans have no more business in Los Angeles than do Anglo-Saxons. Spain conquered the area by force. Mexico revolted and achieved independence in 1821. Texas revolted and achieved independence in 1836, so Mexico controlled Texas for 15 years. Texas was an independent republic, which then sought admission to the United States. If Texans had no right to independence, neither did Mexicans. If Texas belongs to Mexico, Mexico belongs to Spain.

Californians revolted and raised the Bear Flag in 1846. Mexico controlled California for 25 years. The argument that the Southwest “belongs” to Mexico is similar to Bin Laden’s claim that Spain “belongs” to Muslims, who conquered much of it in the Middle Ages. They too claim that any area they ever occupied “belongs” to them forever, regardless of who lived there before or who lives there now.

If the Southwest “belongs” to Mexico, Mexico “belongs” to Spain, but Spain “belongs” to the Muslims. And judging from the bombings in Madrid, they may be preparing to take it “back.” Such arguments are inherently racist. They are reminiscent of “Lebensraum,” the Nazis’ notion that their “race” needed more room to live – at others’ expense.

Newspapers now use the tilde, the wiggle over the “ñ,” in Spanish words. Newspapers also use the acute accent, as in Guantánamo and Chávez. But we should be consistent and print all words of foreign origin with accent marks. The front of a building must be a “façade,” baked custard must be “crème brûlée,” and a part we play must be a “rôle.” We mustn’t disrespect the French. They are very proud.

What about German? We must pronounce the governor’s name “Ahnold Shvahrtzeneggah.” The “r” is pronounced with a gargle. And if a paper declares “Arnold uber alles,” it must be spelled “über Alles,” with the Umlaut (two dots) over the “ü,” and “Alles” capitalized, like all German nouns. We mustn’t insult the Germans and Austrians. That caused real trouble in the past.

The University of Idaho is located in “Moskva.” We mustn’t insult the Russians by calling the city Moscow. And the city in New Hampshire must be “Mahnchestah,” as a native of the British city would say it. Surely we can’t slight our British allies.

We must use Æ, Ø and Å for Danish. Icelandic requires Ð and Þ for the “th” sounds in “these” and “thin,” respectively. Czech requires a “c” with a small “v” over it, as “č,” and Polish requires an L with a slash through it, as “Ł.” But some computer fonts don’t have these characters. Houston, we have a problem.

A kid I knew in junior high was named Sawicki. He pronounced his name as it is spelled. Later I learned that in Polish, it is pronounced “Savitski.” But if a teacher had called him that, he would have been insulted. Back then, we all were Americans. We spoke American English. Pronouncing someone’s name as if it were in a foreign language would have been seen as an ethnic slur.

We now spend so much time trying to speak poor Spanish that we have no time to speak good English. Even university graduates say, “They invited George and I.” Those who make egregious errors in their own language are in a poor position to insist on the accent in “Hugo Chávez” or try to say “Sotomayor” as if they were speaking Spanish.

We should debate Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. We should examine her view of people not as individuals, but as members of groups. We should examine her view of judges as makers of policy. But before we begin the debate, we first need to decide what language to use. Will it be English or Spanglish? Must we pronounce her name as if we were speaking Spanish? Must we refer to her as a Latina, not as a Latino, and certainly not as an American?

Or we could save ourselves a lot of trouble and just go back to speaking English. We could teach children to be proud Americans. We could make movies showing our people in a positive light. But then we would have to recognize that we are living in America. Now there’s a radical idea.

In order to have homeland security, first you need a homeland.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com