Okay, it just dawned on me — if having Spanish speaking ancestors makes you Spanish, or speaking it yourself, these people are all Hispanic!!!

–William F. Buckley. According to the biography Strictly Right, Buckley grew up speaking Spanish and French before he knew English, because his family was involved in international trade, and he grew up in Mexico and France before living in an entirely Anglophone environment.

–Marilyn Monroe. In her autobiography (though it’s contested) she says the reason for her strange speaking style was that as a girl in Los Angeles all her neighbors were Mexican and Japanese. She acquired a Spanish/Japanese accent in English which she tried to fix through speech classes, but the diction instruction made it worse.

–Robert E. Lee. After serving in Mexico, he returned and became a leader in West Point. In the early 1850s, he introduced Spanish as a foreign language at West Point, which was the beginning of the widespread instruction of the language in American schools. French, Greek, and Latin had previously been the languages of choice.

I think she cited that to bolster her argument that she insn’t a judicial activist, hence she has “repect for precedent” and “respect and deference to…..the other branches”

Again, it’s an obvious lie, because it flies in the face of her past actions, both inside and outstide the courtroom.

The evidence is that she is an idealogue, and would defer or oppose the other branches based on her personal ideology. Moreover, she is a bully, and if she disagrees, she will show contempt, not respect to the other branches.

We already discussed that precedent is a judge’s way of taking the fifth on the hotbutton political issues. Truth be told, I don’t think Sotohater has any interest in following precedent, however she might cite obscure and illogical precedents in history to try and support whatever it’ll be Obama calls her to do for him.

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be deferential. It is a watch-dog leg of our tri-pedal government; a very, very important one since it is supposed to be the one of reason for times like this when the people run stupidly amok and line the halls of the legislative and executive branch with morons. To say you admire a deferential justice during a time when being deferential would equate to a blank check for this administration and congress to do with the constitution as they please; it is very revealing – but again, in no way surprising.

I don’t get it either. The best I can offer is that “Hispanic” came, via Nixon politics circa 1970, from the Spanish term “hispano” which came from “hispano-hablantes” which means “those who speak Spanish.” so the term Hispanic referred to people who spoke Spanish; the term seemed to make sense in the early 1970s when they were searching for an umbrella term to cover three different ethnic groups all of which had increased in size — Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans were mostly Democrat, while Cubans were mostly Republican. Mexicans were largely mestizo (Indian + white), while Puerto Ricans in the US tended to be largely Afro-Castilian (black + Spanish), and Cubans in the US tended to be mostly white even though many Cubans in Cuba — at that time, before the Mariel boatlift — were entirely black in appearance. Cubans and Mexicans were technically immigrant groups coming from other countries, while Puerto Ricans were not because Puerto Rico was an estado libre asociado, or free partnered state (though neither free, nor a state, nor a partner).

Nuttiness! The problem for Nixon was, what term do we use to encompass these 3 groups? To think of them in political terms would group Mexicans & Puerto Ricans together against conservative Cubans. To think of them in racial terms would pit Puerto Ricans & Cubans (both sharing black/white issues) against Mexicans (who were more mestizo). To think of them in immigrant terms would pit Mexicans and Cubans against non-immigrant Puerto Ricans.

In the early 1970s, the only thing Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans in the US had in common was LANGUAGE. Or at least, ancestral languages, since in all three groups, it was around 25% who spoke only English, 50% who spoke both, and 25% who spoke mostly Spanish.

The term “Hispanic” served as a category for these three difficult-to-classify groups together. The problem is that eventually all kinds of other people popped up in the mix; including, the groups you mention — SPaniards, Brazilians, and Portuguese people — as well as many “Hispanics” who spoke no Spanish and didn’t want the Hispanic title.

So they came up with Latino. Latino sounded more political, but the problem is it comes from “Latin,” which points to ancient Rome and her linguistic descendants, spanning out into the Francophone, Italian-speaking, Lusophone, and Hispanic worlds simultaneously.

There’s no answer to the questions to pose. But these paragraphs above might help show why we came upon such strange and illogical terms in the first place.

Ciao!

I now think the biggest problem with Sotomeyer is that she seems so willing to lie about what she has said. If, instead, she thought about it and said something similar to what you said, I would not be so concerned.

But it’s hard to fathom a willing liar on the Supreme Court.

I truly cannot speculate on Sotomayor’s every decision, and so I won’t attempt to do that. I’m sure you know more than I do. But I would like to think a woman who has come this far has exercised some fairness in judgment. But alas I could be wrong as my mom tells me on several occasions. This will be all for today as I am fighting the urge to include a disclaimer, lol.

The bigger issue at hand is that Sotomayor makes decisions based on that bias and merit. Not based on the root of law, which is the Constitution. No justice should make a ruling based on empathy and merit, or even precedent for that matter (which she seems to do a lot) but on the rule of law. That…is called justice.

I disagree with your viewpoint as I’ve seen law swerve dangerously away from constitutionality and instead move into the empathy-arena with “hate-crimes” being the most obvious incarnation of that.

Having a tough time wrapping my brain around how someone with a Spanish or Portugese background, but no Central American ancestors can be Hispanic.

The whole deal about Hispanics is the Central American part.

People don’t think someone from Spain or Portugal is Hispanic.

It’s even questionable, imho, to say that somebody from South America is Hispanic.

But it also isn’t worth arguing about, because what SHOULD matter is a person’s current values, not their lineage.

I am proud to be an Anglo-American, as I embrace my Scots/Irish heritage everyday. Not only in my speech=patterns but in the clothes I wear, my food preferences and my choice of music.

Apparently, you have no idea what it’s like to receive the racially charged stares when at a stop light in my Crown Victoria with the windows down and the Ray Coniff Singers turned up loud, as I sit there in my relaxed, but attentive posture…..quietly gazing around me, taking it all in.

Naturally, those gazes continue when I’m at the airport when people stare at me if I get out exact change to pay for my SBarro pizza slice with cheese, onion and beef on it. Or when I ask a question to the gate agent in polite, hushed tones with well- enunciated English.

You have no idea how hard it is when people make fun of me for wearing a single-shade, pullover polo shirt, perhaps with a designer moniker on it, and they point at my belt or at my carefully laced and tied “sneakers” and laugh.

It’s hard to be a proud Anglo-American in today’s society. When I get in my Crown Victoria with the stock size tires and factory-adjusted suspension and nondescript paintjob….and all the pointing and staring that happens. It hurts.

Someday, maybe the college campuses will have an “Anglo-American” studies curriculum, or even Anglos only dormitories or libraries. That way young Anglo-Americans will be able to study unencumbered by the prejudice that flows so freely from other people of this country who think they are the only ones here.

And when I turn on the TV…..almost NO programs at all that I can relate to. Always some comedy about a dysfunctional family, or some people who’s ethnicity is very pronounced…but no shows about a decent, hard-working dad and his wife and kids all facing those little things in life that make it funny. Like the time I went to school and forgot to bring two #2 pencils for the scholastic aptitude test day. Boy….did I catch heck for that! It all worked out though since Mr Murphy had brought some spares (just in case) and he let me borrow one. But not before I got that evil-eye.

And I had to give it back after the test.

Pretty exciting stuff.

Nope….just TV shows about kid bringing guns to school, getting pregnant, or being wanted for murder. My Anglo-American heritage is all but ignored. As a matter of fact, if they DO have a Scots/Irish kid on one of those shows, they just use him as the brunt of all the jokes. You have no idea how that makes me feel as a person. Well, I’ll tell you. It makes me feel small; Like I don’t matter. Not ALL Anglo kids are stupid. And just because we’re Anglos doesn’t automatically mean we’re all good at math, either.

Well, I suppose I’ve said enough. But to be honest, I’m tired of being segregated out because I don’t fit in in their eyes.

(ok…the preceding is a satire on how some people in society see it. You can easily see that with the tables turned how ridiculous it is)

It used to be in the terms of the sauce – where all the people blended together in similar fashion and spoke the same language.

Now it is like the meat and vegetables put into the pot – different shapes and sizes and not blending at all – sucking up a little of the flavor but not meshing quite as well.

Which leaves people like you and me – a veritable hodge podge of American ancestry out in the cold. Not part of any single group.

Which keeps all the racial issues and divisiveness alive and well – and used as a pc hammer to quash any and all debate and real discussion. My problem with Sotomayor is that she does not rule in accordance with the Constitution (which is what the Supreme Court is about) but rather with her own skewed view of America. And that is the primary reason, she should not be approved.

It is not what America was built upon and is destroying the greatness of her.

And yes, I dislike so much the stereotyping of groups – that everyone in the ‘group’ thinks a like, acts a like and of course votes a like. You’d think with that attitude – most Americans wouldn’t vote Dem at all.