pageok
pageok
pageok
"Hispanics" and Sotomayor:

Tom Goldstein:

To Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark. It really is impossible to overstate its significance. The achievement of a lifetime appointment at the absolute highest levels of the government is a profound event for that community, which in turn is a vital electoral group now and in the future.

I'm genuinely curious about how this will play out. I know "Hispanics" are a census category, an affirmative action category, a politically correct category, the target of common mass marketing in Spanish-language and other media, and, to some extent the target of undifferentiated discrimination, especially for those who "look" Hispanic.

On the other hand, "Hispanic" includes everyone with Spanish or Portuguese speaking ancestors, and I wonder how much pride, say, Mexican-Americans in California or Central Americans in the Northern Virginia suburbs take in the success of a Puerto Rican woman from the Bronx. One can imagine satisfaction that a fellow "Hispanic" is being nominated to the Supreme Court, but one can also imagine resentment that the first "Hispanic" nominee to the Court is from a relatively small demographic group, Puerto Ricans who live in the mainland, and not from by far the largest group of Hispanics, Mexican Americans.

I guess this is another way of asking whether there is really a common identity of Hispanic among descendants of Spanish speakers in the U.S., or whether they primarily think of themselves as Mexican, Cuban, Colombian, Salvadoran, etc., the way people of European descent considered themselves German, Italian, Irish, etc., not "European." And if the latter, whether there is still enough of a common identity that it's good politics to nominate a "Hispanic," even from a relatively small (and overwhelmingly Democratic) group.

Comments open for four hours.

Terrivus:
That post sounds like one of Tom Goldstein's cert petitions. Dramatic and overwrought, but in the end, not much there (or DIG'd).
5.26.2009 9:59am
Marian Kechlibar:
An Argentinian told me that the whole Spanish-speaking part of South America has at best unfriendly, at worst outright hostile relations with their Spanish-speaking neighbors, and that regular military exercises with the theme "Neighbors have attacked" are the norm.

This may, of course, be different in a Gringo country, or on personal level. I can imagine that LatinoAmerican politicians find it useful to fuel resentment against neighbors.
5.26.2009 10:03am
krs:
I am not "Hispanic", but I remember the outpouring of pride from lots of different people who might be lumped together as "black" when Obama became President. For something like a Supreme Court appointment, I doubt that most people that the census would classify as "Hispanic" would slice things as finely as they might in other circumstances.
5.26.2009 10:04am
Tracy Johnson (www):
My wife, a Chilean expatriate, who is going to William &Mary, told me "Hispanic" is a made up American (U.S. Census?) term that those in Latin America do not use. (Unless they have had long term exposure to U.S. terms.)
5.26.2009 10:05am
BZ (mail):
@Terri = Goldstein was analyzing the political issues, and he is likely in the mainstream of such analyses. The core of his analysis, as in most cert petitions, is in what he left out. See, e.g., Stuart Taylor's analysis of last Saturday, before the announcement:
Stuart Taylor on Sotomayor

In political terms, this is where the political meat lies. Can opponents galvanize around statements that white males are inherently inferior? Anyone who counters that argument runs the risk of triggering the traditional PC attack, which is, of course, still in full flower: see the WashPost glowing account of how the CFTC's Brooksley Born stood up to the white males. Goldstein just said of that debate: meh.
5.26.2009 10:06am
Houston Lawyer:
Is it only white guys who are supposed to be over the whole personal is the political thing? I'd far prefer someone on the court who thinks like me over someone who looks like me.

I remember an episode from Hill Street Blues where a "Hispanic" man was being honored for being promoted. He was pissed because the breakfast they served for his honor was Huevos Rancheros, and he was definitely not of Mexican descent.
5.26.2009 10:07am
klp85 (mail):
What krs said, while keep in mind what Marian said.

{Written before refreshing to see other comments:
Maybe the same reason the Black people have been happy to have Obama as the first Black president, even though he's of recent immigrant (East) African descent and biracial, rather than the descendant of the American (West) African slave trade/Jim Crow? I can't speak for Latinos, but I don't see why the dynamic would necessarily be radically different, unless there's some major tension between Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and others of which I'm unaware (beyond perhaps [Miami] Cubans being a strongly anti-Democratic demographic).}
5.26.2009 10:07am
Rock Chocklett:
Even if Hispanics do share such a common identity that most of them will take pride in the nomination of a Hispanic outside of their own demographic group, I still wonder how much lasting political power the nomination will have. I imagine that most Hispanics would at least find it "nice" that Obama nominated Sotomayor, and some probably find it "profound" and "absolutely historic" as Goldstein puts it. But the fact that an administration places a minority in a high-level position would seem to do little to enhance the administration or party's status in the eyes of the minority group compared to policy decisions that the minority group considers favorable or unfavorable to them. As examples, George H.W. Bush's nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, or George W. Bush's choice of Condoleeza Rice as SOS did little to advance the Republican party among black Americans. I understand that Thomas was not the first black Justice, and a SOS nomination may not have the same "oomph" as a SCOTUS spot. But it seems that while this kind of nomination could push a borderline demographic towards the nominating party in the short run, I doubt it has significant, long-lasting effects that could overcome other perceived deficiencies.
5.26.2009 10:14am
Brazilian:
As far as I know, the term "Hispanic", as used by the Census Bureau, does not include descendants of Portuguese-speakers.

In any event, the mistrust and downright hostility between the various national groups of "Hispanics" is absolutely true. No Cuban-American sees himself in his fellow Mexican-American, or Argentinian-American, or... that is it. It is a PC Anglo-American artifice.
5.26.2009 10:15am
jj08 (mail):
This is Obama's attempt to vote "Present". But the fact that she is "Hispanic" (whatever that means) does allow the Democrat Party to make its usual appeal to racial and ethnic hatreds if needed.
5.26.2009 10:16am
Joe T Guest:
Let me see if I get this. WEe need to have "diversity" of opinions, whether in school, work, or on the Supreme Court. We can arrive at this wonderful diversity using race, ethnicity and gender balancing.

To get to that conclusion, I think you need to accept the idea that race, ethnicity and gender are a reasonably good proxy for how people think.

I find that odd. Coming from Bull Connors' mouth we'd dismiss it as bigoted. Coming from somebody who claims not to be racist and sexist, with the right party affiliation, we call it enlightened.
5.26.2009 10:17am
GSW:
Setting aside the issue of whether those of Portuguese descent are "Hispanic" (and thus raising the question of whether Cardozo was the first "Hispanic" judge), the amount of intra-group rivalry among Latinos and Latinas is not sufficiently high that this is a real issue. You are right that it is not a homogenous group, but it is also realistic identity group, if for no other reason than common languages spoken by the first generation immigrants.

To my mind, the comparison is not "people of European descent" but maybe "people of Italian descent" or "German descent". Germans and Italians had comparatively little in common with one another and therefore would not be expected to (and did not) form cross-national identities as immigrant groups. Yet among these groups there were wide ranging differences that on their face might have hindered immigrant identity groupings. After all, until 1866 or so neither was a unified country, and people were far more apt to identify with their region than some pan-national ideal even far into the nation-state era. Yet when they came to the new world, these people both identified readily with other immigrants speaking (roughly) the same languages for decades and even into the present day. Certainly the various Italian dialects or German dialects spoken are farther apart than the Spanish spoken by Puerto Ricans and Mexicans (as hard is that to believe if you grew up in California speaking and hearing the Mexican style and then move to New York to hear the very distinct Puerto Rican dialect).
5.26.2009 10:20am
Andy L.:
My wife was born in Mexico and I've spent a good part of my marriage (15 years) straddling the lines between American and Hispanic culture in the United States. From my experiences, identification among Latinos as Hispanic or Latino or as a Spanish-speaker overwhelmingly outweigh any separate nationalistic identification. My wife will perk up anytime an hispano gets the nod or a mention in government or pop culture. This is not to say that there isn't a huge nationalistic pride (Vive Mexico! etc., especially when it comes to futbol) within the Latino subgroups, because there is.

So to answer your question, is there "really a common identity of Hispanic amoung descendants of Spanish speakers in the U.S."? My answer is: definitely.

BTW, I've heard people question the authenticiy of the term "Hispanic" without or within the Hispanic community or Spanish speakers. I've heard enough different Spanish speakers (both inside and outside the U.S.) refer to themselves as hispanos in Spanish and among each other (and me) enough times such that I view the whole don't-call-us-Hispanics thing as a bit of a canard.
5.26.2009 10:21am
Eric Rasmusen (mail) (www):
Unfortunately, this pick may do for the image of Hispanic judges what the pick of Thurgood Marshall did for Black judges and Sandra O'Connor for female judges-- that is, confirm the stereotypes. Politically, though, it's the thought that counts, and I don't suppose anyone will be accusing President Obama of purposely trying to smear the image of Puerto Ricans.
5.26.2009 10:21am
monboddo (mail):
Prof. Rasmusen--Perhaps you'll enlighten us on how the selection of Thurgood Marshall confirmed stereotypes about "Black judges"? Marshall was a solid, albeit unspectacular, Justice, but he was one of the most distinguished American lawyers of the twentieth century. Would that more of us--of whatever race--measured up to him.
5.26.2009 10:32am
prosa123 (mail) (www):
As far as I know, the term "Hispanic", as used by the Census Bureau, does not include descendants of Portuguese-speakers.


Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), who is of Portuguese descent, is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
5.26.2009 10:32am
A.C.:
Most of the Hispanics I know insist they are white and claim to be more European in outlook than non-Hispanics born in the US. Based on my observations, I think this means more liberal and more into clothes.

Of course, Latin America itself is noted for its incredible class divisions, which track race divisions to a large extent. Those divisions may be more important than country of origin.
5.26.2009 10:39am
pluribus:
Tracy Johnson:

My wife, a Chilean expatriate, who is going to William &Mary, told me "Hispanic" is a made up American (U.S. Census?) term that those in Latin America do not use. (Unless they have had long term exposure to U.S. terms.)

"Gringo" and "Yanqui" are made up Latin-American terms that those in the U.S. do not use. So what? It doesn't mean that people here don't think of a group of people under the rubric of Hispanic (or Latino, or whatever term you may prefer), or that people in Latin America don't think of a group of people under the rubric of Gringo or Yanqui (or Norteamericanos, or any other term you may prefer).
5.26.2009 10:49am
pluribus:
Eric Rasmusen:

Unfortunately, this pick may do for the image of Hispanic judges what the pick of Thurgood Marshall did for Black judges and Sandra O'Connor for female judges-- that is, confirm the stereotypes.

Did Brandeis or Cardozo confirm the stereotypes of Jewish judges? (People are anxious now to assign Cardozo to the Hispanic roll, but they forget that he was Jewish and, as such, treated rudely and contemtuously by anti-Semites like McReynolds.) Did Taney confirm the stereotypes of Catholic judges? (He was a devout Catholic, appointed during a time when anti-Catholic feeling in the U.S. was virulent.)
5.26.2009 10:54am
Desiderius:
He really is the Progressive Reagan.
5.26.2009 10:56am
pluribus:
A.C.:

Most of the Hispanics I know insist they are white and claim to be more European in outlook than non-Hispanics born in the US. Based on my observations, I think this means more liberal and more into clothes.

You don't subscribe to stereotypes, now do you?
5.26.2009 10:57am
M N Ralph:
Bernstien raises an interesting question. Based on the Hispanic community's response to the immigration debate, it seems to me that there is some significant shared identity. I have a hard time seeing Sotomayor opponents successfully attacking her without engendering a backlash among Hispanics generally. Different Hispanic groups have too much in common for them not to stick together on such a prominent appointment.
5.26.2009 11:04am
klp85 (mail):

To get to that conclusion, I think you need to accept the idea that race, ethnicity and gender are a reasonably good proxy for how people think.

I find that odd. Coming from Bull Connors' mouth we'd dismiss it as bigoted. Coming from somebody who claims not to be racist and sexist, with the right party affiliation, we call it enlightened.


Two things:

1. Maybe, to the extent that it's true that people draw different conclusions from different kinds of statements about whether race, ethnicity, and gender are legitimate proxies, it depends on what one means by "thinks." I don't even mean this in a modern left-right sense.

If the "thought" in view is that all Black people must obviously must like to spend their welfare checks on fried chicken, red Kool-Aid, malt liquor, and menthol cigarettes, or that all Black people must obviously feel oppressed in a country as irreparably racist as the U.S.A., one might come to a different conclusion than if pointing out that Black people in this country lean Democratic. There might even be a similar difference between if one attributes this modern inclination to Black people's own agency as opposed to being stuck on a "Democratic plantation."

2. To the extent that Black people (or other members of minority groups, or women) don't think alike, these divergent views may often be informed by similar experiences. Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell, for example, both seem to have had their beliefs informed by their experiences as Black men. Both are highly skeptical of the government's competence, and possibly even sincerity, in resolving the issues that confront low-income minorities, in large part because of what they see as government's current failures in this area. See, e.g., Thomas' dissent in Grutter and much of his autobiography. In other threads, people have also pointed Thomas' comments about cross burning in Virginia v. Black.

It shouldn't be controversial to expect that people's experiences as minorities/women inform their worldviews, even if it's problematic to stereotype individuals of these groups or depict individuals who draw different conclusions from such experiences as sell-outs.
5.26.2009 11:05am
A.C.:
I'm talking about specific individuals who do happen to behave that way. Most are from big cities and tolerably well off, and they WANT to be like rich people from Paris. Which I consider a negative trait, but they embrace.

Is it stereotypical to zing the fashionistas from Paris and Milan? Or, for that matter, New York? Those people do exist.

Of course I don't think poor people from rural Mexico behave that way as well. Which was sort of my point.
5.26.2009 11:06am
Javert:

To Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark.
Why, because they're a bunch of tribalists?
5.26.2009 11:26am
pluribus:
According to Wikipedia:


Some of Cardozo's ancestors were Portuguese Jews who immigrated to Britain's North American colonies in the 1740s and 1750s from Portugal[1] via the Netherlands and England. The surname Cardozo (Cardoso) is of Portuguese origin. He was a cousin of the poet Emma Lazarus. He was named for his uncle, Benjamin Nathan, a vice president of the New York Stock Exchange and the victim of a famous unsolved murder case in 1870.


Cardozo's ancestors had been in the U.S. for close to two centuries before he was named to the Supreme Court. Some had spent some time in the Hetherlands and England on their way to the U.S. They were so prominent in the U.S. that one of his uncles was a vice president of the New York Stock Exchange half a century before Cardizo joined the Court. Sotomayor's mother and father came to the U.S. from Puerto Rico. Her father had a third grade education. They lived in projects in the Bronx. She grew up speaking both English and Spanish. All in all, the parallels between Cardozo's ethnic roots and those of Sonia Sotomayor seem tenuous.
5.26.2009 11:30am
NowMDJD (mail):
Sotomayor isn't the first Hispanic justice. There was this guy Benjamin Cardozo whom Herbert Hoover appointed to the Supteme Court a few years ago.
5.26.2009 11:32am
pluribus:
Hispanics in the U.S. are not "a bunch of tribalists." Hispanics like Sonia Sotomayor are American citizens of accomplishment and attainment who have worked hard and believe that they have a right to share in the American dream. They share the quaint notion that you don't have to be a white male to be a Supreme Court justice.
5.26.2009 11:33am
M N Ralph:


To Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark.


Why, because they're a bunch of tribalists?


People tend to sympathize and support people of similar backgrounds. At least electorally, that's been shown time and time again. It's true for Hispanics, blacks, whites, Asians, Baptists, Catholics, Jews, men, women, etc, etc.
5.26.2009 11:39am
CDU (mail) (www):

All in all, the parallels between Cardozo's ethnic roots and those of Sonia Sotomayor seem tenuous.

Perhaps it's the very idea of 'ethnic roots' that ought to be seen as tenuous?
5.26.2009 11:43am
pluribus:
I always thought Shimon Peres was a Jew. Those who claim Cardozo was a Hispanic must claim that Peres is Hispanic too. Revisionism is alive and well in the anti-Sotomayor camp.
5.26.2009 11:46am
Javert:

People tend to sympathize and support people of similar backgrounds.
And if they do so on the basis of ethnicity, then they are (to that degree) tribalistic. There's no doubt that the phenomenon of hyphenated Americans (Asian-American, Hispanic-American et al., ad nauseum) is widespread. All that means is that America is becoming more collectivist and tribalist, and much less individualistic.
5.26.2009 11:48am
martinned (mail) (www):

All that means is that America is becoming more collectivist and tribalist, and much less individualistic.

Have you seen Gangs of New York yet?
5.26.2009 11:57am
metro1 (mail) (www):
If Hispanics watched Supreme Court vacancies so closely, why didn't they object more when Senate Democrats blocked even having a vote on Miguel Estrada for the D.C. Court of Appeals - and likely nomination thereafter to the U.S. Supreme Court (by George W. Bush)?

See here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77667,00.html
5.26.2009 12:01pm
PabloF:
My father's parents immigrated from Spain 90 years ago, and although I don't think of myself as Hispanic, I speak Spanish and identify with Hispanic Americans of various backgrounds. I feel a certain amount of pride in Sotomayor's nomination, although as a lawyer who used to practice in Manhattan, I wonder about how effective she will be as a Supreme Court justice.
5.26.2009 12:12pm
Cato The Elder (mail):
Yeah, that quaint notion is now historically abolished, now that Obama has made a judicial appointment based on the fact that you shouldn't be a white male to be appointed to the Court, which makes it so much better! That's the "right" kind of discrimination, Judge Wood! (I wonder what her private thoughts are at on this day, whether if only for a moment something in her heart twinged.) Oh what, you mean the classic argument against racism persuaded people based on its appeal to "neutrality" with regards to race, relying rather on merit?

Once our country is hopelessly racialist and divided, the leftists who started us upon this path will not apologize, and will resolutely refuse to acknowledge that the path to Third-World jurisprudence from their "enlightened" sophistry was pretty easy to visualize. South Africa - is an aberration. India - is an aberration. Malaysia - is an aberration. The new heady politics of change changes EVERYTHING, of course.
5.26.2009 12:15pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@PabloF: I've wondered about that: How do American "Hispanics" relate to actual Spanish people, such as Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz. IIRC, their Spanish is different in many ways, the same way that English English is different than American English, and generally I wouldn't tend to classify them as "Hispanic" in the ordinary US meaning. They're European, meaning that culturally, economically, etc. they are much closer to French, Italians and even Germans than to Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Am I wrong?
5.26.2009 12:15pm
J.W. Brewer (mail):
Tom Goldstein more or less by definition thinks Supreme Court Justices are very very important, probably more so than the median American of any ethnicity. Even if, e.g., Mexican-Americans in Texas do feel a strong sense of identification with Puerto Ricans from NYC, would they feel that this particular first is of earthshattering importance (compared to a first Hispanic VP, or Secretary of State or Treasury or Defense, for example)? In particular, I think the Supreme Court looms larger in the history of blacks in the U.S., for both good and ill (maybe ill or good chronologically - Dred Scott, Plessy, Brown, etc.) than it does for the history of Hispanics, and of course Thurgood Marshall's role as advocate in Brown made the history-making nature of his Supreme Court appointment even more dramatic. Does, e.g., Katzenbach v. Morgan (which directly related to the political power of the Puerto Rican community in New York) have that same aura of historical drama?
5.26.2009 12:16pm
Laura Victoria (mail):
I l,ive in Mexico and socialize with many educated middle class Mexicans. They can't stand multi-generational Chicanos who come down here all snooty when a real Mexican assumes (logically) by their looks that they speak Spanish. The Chicano's response is to proudly preclaim (chip planted squarely on shoulder, chin elevated al esilo Obama) that they don't speak Spanish, they only speak English. I (a gringa) had this experience once. I then explained to Ms. Orange County that I err on the side of assuming someone is Mexican rather than American because they would consider being assumed American an insult. She then thought about this and said, "Oh, I guess that's because this is their country, huh?" I was restrained in my reply to this moron.

Acutal Mexicans would also not feel much bonding with Puerto Ricans, as the latter for some inexplicable reason look down on Mexicans. (See,Chip on Shoulder).

Still, when their is a worldwide achievement of this magnitude, it is natural for anyone to hop on the bandwagon. A detailed story is on the front page of "Esmas.com", the top news and entertainment website in Mexico (part of Univision). (I wrote the first comment, to correct the point that the plaintiffs were not all white, one was a Latino). Bottom line is most of the "Hispanic" voters are pretty Americanized without much knowledge or interest in their roots and will hop on the generic Hispanic bandwagon as part of pure indentity politics which has benefited many, many of them via AA.

Ironically, just last night I explained affirmative action to a young, educated Mexican woman. She had never heard of it and her jaw was hanging open in shock over such an absurd concept (they hold quaint views about grades, tests and meritocracy). She then better understood some of the strife regarding Mexican immigrants to the U.S.
5.26.2009 12:36pm
Floridan:
Cato: "Yeah, that quaint notion is now historically abolished, now that Obama has made a judicial appointment based on the fact that you shouldn't be a white male to be appointed to the Court . . . "

Let's see, there have been 110 Justices of the Supreme Court. Of that number, two have been black and two have been women.

In fact, just beginning with Thurgood Marshall's nomination, over 70 percent of the justices confirmed have been white males. Based on the 2000 census, white males comprise about 40 percent of the U.S. population.

I don't think you have anything to worry about.
5.26.2009 12:39pm
Javert:

All that means is that America is becoming more collectivist and tribalist, and much less individualistic.


Have you seen Gangs of New York yet?
Have you heard of a "melting pot," yet?
5.26.2009 12:46pm
PabloF:
Martinned, that's a great question, and one that I have been interested in myself. The short answer is, I don't know. At the personal level, my experience has been that Latin American Hispanics "connect" with me a bit more once they learn that I'm of Spanish descent. At the "macro" level, I'm not sure that there's much identification between Latin American Hispanics and Spanish Hispanics. Then again, as commenters above have alluded, how much identification is there between, e.g., Colombian Americans and Dominican Americans?

Your post also brings up the extremely interesting question of what "hispanic" means vis-a-vis Spaniards. The grandparents of Gloria Estefan, who is certainly considered "Hispanic," came from the next town over from my grandfather. Did she become "hispanic" simply because her family stopped off in Cuba for 50 or 60 years? It's the same thing with Castro, whose father was Spanish. At the end of the day, it is a question of how you define the term "hispanic."
5.26.2009 12:49pm
Seamus (mail):

Acutal Mexicans would also not feel much bonding with Puerto Ricans, as the latter for some inexplicable reason look down on Mexicans. (See,Chip on Shoulder).



And Cubans (at least Cuban-Americans) tend to look down on both.
5.26.2009 12:51pm
martinned (mail) (www):

All that means is that America is becoming more collectivist and tribalist, and much less individualistic.

Have you seen Gangs of New York yet?

Have you heard of a "melting pot," yet?

Ignoring for now the question whether the US are as much of a melting pot as they'd like to think, I'd simply like to point out that one's identity as a WASP, Irish or Italian matters much less today than in the period depicted in that movie, or even 50 years ago. But my point was that, overall American society is no more or less "tribalist" than 150 years ago. (I'm not very happy about that word, but since you chose it, let's stick with it.)
5.26.2009 12:55pm
DJ (mail):
I think it's interesting that everbody here seems to assume that this Sotomayor pick was made for partisan political reasons. I expect that that assumption will color the reporting and water cooler talk about the nomination and that, in the end, this means it will cost Obama politically at the margins.
5.26.2009 12:56pm
Floridan:
martinned: "But my point was that, overall American society is no more or less "tribalist" than 150 years ago"

This is absurd, it is much, much less "tribalistic" than it was even 50 years ago.
5.26.2009 1:00pm
LaurenceB (mail):
I'm married to a Guatemalan, and lived a few years in Brazil. I speak fluent Spanish and Portuguese, and we have many immigrant friends and associates.

In my opinion, most Latin American immigrants only barely identify with Ms. SotoMayor's roots. It is true that Mexicans are not Chileans are not Cubans are not Puerto Ricans.

But - I hasten to add - they will quickly rally around her as a fellow hispanic if there is any attack on her based on her ethnic background - especially when it comes (as it inevitably will) from the Michael Savage wing of the Republican Party. The recent track record of the Republican Party with respect to hispanic immigrants has made them(rightfully) sensitive to such things.
5.26.2009 1:09pm
Kim Scarborough (mail) (www):
It really is impossible to overstate its significance.

Hmm, really? Let me try:


The Sotomayor pick is more historically significant than the Declaration of Independence, Pearl Harbor, and September 11 combined.


Yay, I did the impossible before lunch!
5.26.2009 1:15pm
David Chesler (mail) (www):
FWIW, the closest I come to Hispanic is that my father had his bar mitzvah studies at Shearith Israel, but even though she's from the South Bronx and I'm from the Northeast Bronx, her projects were probably lower income than mine, she went to Spellman while I went to Science, we have different ethnic and religious backgrounds, and my brother, not I, wore the orange and black, I still felt a little pride that a Bronx girl made good.
5.26.2009 1:51pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.