Silence and Segregation

This thread has the potential to be a real train wreck. I hope Hey Skipper is busy.

This is a nice take, and to an extent I’m inclined to agree. But one odd thing, if I’m reading this right, is that this makes, “Rarely did race come up,” all about Thomas’ silence. Whereas surely, the silences or otherwise of the White people around are equally relevant here.

“Oh dear. That often happens to me here. What do you have in mind?”

Sorry Corey I didn’t mean to imply it was your fault and I completely agree with your take on Justice Thomas’s remarks. I am just remembering the last time race relations in the US during 1950s and 60s came up at Crooked Timber. The thread got real ugly real fast.

So Thomas was teased when he spoke when he was young, when he was in college at Holy Cross, and in law school. So if teasing had anything to do with race, then no one in the school he desegregated ever teased him and this was the only place in his entire education where he was not teased. Or perhaps he was teased for his dialect there too but he does not count such teasing as having to do with race.

I wonder what the racial composition of Gullah speakers is.

From my experience debating conservatives on the issue of race, I’ve concluded that they see the discussion of race itself as “racist.” Obviously, I can’t know there motivations or their thought processes, but that’s what comes out in their speech all too often.

People who talk about racism in America, in their eyes, are the real “racists.” They get a lot of this, of course, from odious hacks like Limbaugh.

I’m in my 50s and must admit I didn’t see that coming. It’s quite a clever maneuver. To try to shut down and delegitimize even the discussion of racism or the history of race in America by calling that racist.

This is where that silence and lacunae come in. Silence is victory. It speaks far more powerfully for the conservative view than actual speech. Speech on the subject is almost an admittance of defeat, of “consciousness” regarding race. But where things get all twisted up in knots is when a Clarence Thomas buys into all of this.

On a side note, regarding silence and its potential sublime . . . one of the greatest poets of metered silence was Edmond Jabes:

“WIDE, the margin between carte blanche and the white page. Nevertheless it is not in the margin that you can find me, but in the yet whiter one that separates the word-strewn sheet from the transparent, the written page from the one to be written in the infinite space where the eye turns back to the eye, and the hand to the pen, where all we write is erased, even as you write it. For the book imperceptibly takes shape within the book we will never finish.

There is my desert.”
― Edmond Jabès

Yeah, one of the few things I remember from Lacan is something “what is important is what is not said” Actually it may have been “the silences” Looking at Wiki, there is also by Lacan “The I is always in the field of the Other” (Sersly? Autre?). There is also of course the importance of what is taken for granted, the “naturalized” parts of the hegemony.

Taking that stuff seriously means in any given local discourse you’ll always be a troll.

I like this take a lot and hereby summon Scott Lemieux who has written very thoughtfully on Thomas to now appear in comments.

Thomas’ claim to be the only black student in his Savannah High School is interesting.
This article http://savannahnow.com/news/2013-08-18/1963-desegregation-changed-lives-19-savannah-teens-society#.Uv6drn-9KK0. discusses the desegregation of Savannah’s high schools and would seem to somewhat contradict Thomas’ account. Wikipedia says that at 16 Thomas entered a seminary for the purpose of studying for the priesthood and that he was the first black there.
A Roman Catholic seminary is probably a bit different than Savannah’s heretofore segregated schools especially when it comes to how race was discussed. Thomas’ discussions of himself and his life often seem to have the characteristic of a script written with the intent of conveying a particular message.
As far as discussion of race in the Jim Crow south, there seems to be a theme around the idea that it wasn’t that big a deal, sort of along the lines of the recent thread on Phil Robertson. As someone who grew up in that time my memory is that a great deal went unspoken or was discussed in hushed tones. It wasn’t only race, alcoholism, divorce, and a whole set of behaviors that were considered socially unacceptable we’re not discussed openly.
The idea that everyone was happy and got along is a myth designed to let folks feel better about uncomfortable things.

Toward the end of his life the legendary French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan would lead his seminars in almost absolute silence.

I wonder how that actually worked.

There’s no more effective a silencing technique than driving someone to silence themselves.

The battle for desegregation was won by argument, but the peace was won by silent perseverance of people like Thomas, not re-igniting the war.

You mean it’s over?

I don’t think the right in this country believes that, anymore than they believe that the battle for reproductive freedom is over. And these are the people who put Thomas on the Supreme Court.
~

Similarly, “Talking about inequality is class warfare.”

Same approach…mention the class warfare that our owners have been waging on us since the Powell Memo, and you will be accused of waging class warfare.
~

A pregnant pause is one thing; more extended silence might be well viewed as indicative of sterility. Though as noted above Thomas’ silence has overdetermined explanations, perhaps parsimony can help: he effectively stepped in Thurgood Marshall’s shoes, and in the same year when Marshall retired was appointed by HW Bush, rhetorically depending on references to racism and “lynching” to secure his appointment in prime ignoratio fashion against powerful harassment charges while depending on the very grounds of the recognition of racism as bravely fought for by Marshall, maybe Thomas finally realized he was not in Marshall’s league. Maybe he’s like a lot of us–afraid that we’re frauds, and afraid to be found out. Against the giant Marshall, Thomas certainly looks like a lock-step-voting conservative little ogre. Maybe deep down he knows that he is.

Alan White @25
…Thomas certainly looks like a lock-step-voting conservative little ogre.
Actually the “lock-step-voting” is something of a misconception; he doesn’t vote in complete lock step with anyone. He has his own jurisprudential views (some really wacky, some a bit less so) and is perfectly willing to file a solo dissent when no one else happens to agree with him. (See S.Lemieux on Thomas, linked by someone above.)

I think Thomas has claimed that the judges have already made up their mind before oral arguments, so anything they say there is just showboating, and others in the know have not disagreed. I suppose that would then raise the question of whether every other justice is a showboater.

Reading his account of childhood reminded me of the Daily Show segment with John Oliver on conservative commentators talking about the good old days of their childhoods.

The Wiki has his biggest influences as Sowell, Rynd and Richard Wright (!?). Thomas said, Native Son and Black Boy “capture[d] a lot of the feelings that I had inside that you learn how to repress.” Help. Any actual or faux psychologists who can make sense out of that along with the OP quote? Or is this a fools errand?

While not quite “I was reading Toynbee this morning while shaving,” the OP’s “I thought of Lacan when I read this statement from Clarence Thomas…” is pretty damn good.

And I guess I could see how that might inspire a young man to want to be a lawyer.

32

Just to get the dates right: ’89 nomination for the Court of Appeals and ’91 for the SC. My bad.

Thanks for the remarks Belle; actually there’s little you say that I could disagree with. Still, Thomas’ appointment was (I’ll say) more the result of the politicization of that process that really took off under Reagan than anything else. Such a process doesn’t make it the highest priority to acquire the best scholars, although I have to agree that anyone nominated has to have some chops to get through. I overstated my case; thanks for calling me out.

From what I’ve seen of Scalia, he’s an idiot. I don’t think he ever had much in the way of intellectual chops, and he pretty much gets the conservative home town discount on that score.

That’s the discount given to conservatives who really can’t go toe to toe with leftist intellectuals, but people want to be “fair” or appear to be “fair.” So they elevate them.

We’ve had too many recent studies on the conservative mind — Chris Moody’s, among others — for us to keep giving that discount.

Obviously, there are exceptions to everything, but in general, conservatives tend to think in far less complex terms, operate more on fear, see threats when they don’t exist, consistently score poorly in matters of empathy and moral compass. There have even been recent studies that show that when we drink too much, we become “conservative” in our thinking.

Again, exceptions. But, in general, conservatives can’t hang intellectually with lefties. And Scalia is not that exception. I haven’t seen (or read) enough of Thomas to draw the same conclusions.

correction: “if he were an idiot…”

LFC,

Every time I hear him make a public comment, it’s clearly idiotic. Perhaps he just can’t speak in front of people . . . but his comments just don’t inspire respect for his intellect. Far from it. At least not from me. The opposite is inspired. I despise the creep.

Also, I don’t think election to the Supreme Court has anything to do with brainpower. It’s all about political power. And Scalia has been one of the best fighters/shills/cheerleaders for the 1% in American history, as far as the Court goes.

Again, I think he got the conservative home town discount, and we’re all supposed to respect his brainpower because . . . because . . . . based on what, exactly?

The illusion of intellectual strength, based on one’s title. History is loaded with people who have achieved power and powerful titles while being nothing more than “clever.”

Btw, those Supreme Court justices do very little of the actual work on their cases. They have large workforces to do the research and collate the material.

The Justices have clerks, around four each on average I think; typically they are people who graduated at or near the top of their law school classes, generally (prob. with a few exceptions here and there) from the “top” law schools; many of them have previously clerked for a lower federal judge. These clerks are smart, presumably, but they are not a “large workforce” nor do they do all the work. Sometimes they will draft opinions that a Justice will then rewrite or fiddle with or whatever, but in Scalia’s case he pretty clearly writes his own opinions: they usually, or at least often, have a distinctive voice.

As to how much work each Justice does, I’m not in a position to know precisely and I’m sure it varies. I wd guess they probably each put in roughly at least a 9 to 5 day, reading briefs, working on opinions, etc, and during crunch time probably longer. Do they have time to go to social and cultural etc events in the evening and all that stuff? In general, I wd think sure, at least those without young(ish) children do, but I think not all of them want to be on that circuit. Some are and some aren’t.

They don’t work in the same way in the summer when the Court isn’t in session, and some of them do find time to write books, give lectures, etc., have cushy teaching gigs when the Court’s not in session, whatever. But they do work. They have to read briefs, prepare for oral arguments, go to the conferences, cast a vote on the case etc. The clerks and the staff help but they don’t/can’t do everything for them.

Anecdote: Some years ago I was walking, in the morning (forget the exact time), from the Union Station subway stop to the Lib of Congress (where I was at the time doing some work). My route took me past the entrance (at the back of the bldg) to the Court’s underground parking. Who should I see pulling in but Sandra Day O’Connor, driving herself, just the way any other commuter might drive to work.

Thomas is probably the least self aware person on Earth and it is one of the things that allows him to survive

I wish advocates of silence as a political tool would shut the fuck up .

One of my law professors attended Yale law with Clarence Thomas. Far from being silent or reticent about his background, Thomas was described by his classmate as sometimes wearing rustic clothing like bib overalls and spouting African nationalist ideas. Was this playing against the perceived biases of other law students? Possibly, but it wasn’t silence.

Does anyone know whether Thomas actually was an affirmative action beneficiary in his admission to Yale? He has certainly been vocal and bitter about that perception. But it’s hard to exclude race as a factor in Thomas’ rise to the Supreme Court. He was in the middle of his law class with a decent but humdrum legal career. His gravitation to right-wing politics does distinguish him from most black lawyers of my acquaintance.

I don’t know if it’s correct to say that Scalia deviates from originalism so he can be more right-wing than Thomas either. Often enough when they reach different conclusions, it’s Thomas who’s more right-wing and Scalia balks at letting originalism override precedent (or simply common norms) to that extent. They also have a formalist vs pragmatist divide which is orthogonal to left vs right politics.

I remember _Strange Justice_, a bio of Clarence Thomas, as being fascinating. A biopic of his life could be amazing, but he is so complicated, and his life so bizarrely tied up with the civil rights movement, it would take a great writer to put it together.

And yes, if it’s true – and it seems to be – that Thomas’ first language was Gullah – or “Sea Island Creole English”, as ethnologue calls it – he probably was exposed to merciless teasing if he hadn’t learned much standard or African-American vernacular english when he went to school.