All Men Are Created Equal (with no regard to gender and race)

Before we think about the translation of the Declaration of Independence, I wonder if we can't think about its interlation.

I'm thinking about the little clause therein that goes "all men are created equal." What did the original author, Thomas Jefferson, and the original signers intend by "men"?

Well, sure, some of these white men owned black women and african men and had their own wives without the same rights and protections as they, the husbands, enjoyed under the law of the new states and the new federal government, which did not recognize the governments of "the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions" because, well, because they were Savages and merciless. But proof positive that these original American men had an inclusive intention for "men" is that they quickly formed a Constitution constituted by "the People."

Never mind all those unnecessary Sentiments of Elizabeth Cady Stanton (a woman) and Frederick Douglass (a black man) and others in 1848, who declared that all men might read "a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her."

Never mind all those briefs of Dred Scott's lawyers who ignored what the Supreme Court of "all white men" would eventually write so precisely: "The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing." and " The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive." Which means. . . .

Never mind what Abraham Lincoln had to address among bodies, not all white men, at Gettysburg: something "conceived" not yet delivered.

Never mind what Martin Luther King, Jr. scribbled, questioning how extreme all men must be, while jailed by all-white men: "And Thomas Jefferson: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ...' So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be."

Never mind that these words of Jefferson were intended to mirror the Enlighted words of John Locke and of the Bible of King James, men whose concern was not the gender or the race of "all men."

Never mind that some Germans in 1776 mistook that in translation as "alle Menschen." (or that that woman, namely Laurie G. Alberts, backtranslated that as "all people" in 1999.)

(Now, I'm trying to understand our little word problem here. If we allow "all men" to be anything other than "all men" in uni-directional translation, then we'll have to allow "translation" to be something like "interlation" whether in the original source language or in the target language. Sex and skin color are not good things by which to confuse Language or good translation. And language, if we can't fix it, will just be un-fixed.)

I am Sonia Sotomayor.

"No you're not," you say pointing to my white skin and my pants. "You are NOT Sonia Sotomayor. Besides and more importantly," you add (while looking into my blue eyes), "you think so much differently than she does."

Well, exactly what I've been thinking about some today are the felt confessions of some other guy. He says:

"My experience as a southern white boy in. . . Georgia in a low-income/working class family certainly influences how I think."

And he adds the following, now with the legitimate academic credentials of a thinking professor (imposed credentials of the thought that we must be thinking people without color or sex). Nonetheless, he can think and still say:

People of color are now in prominent positions of power and spectacle. It is astonishing to me that the “race card” is still being dealt for political labor, although I probably should confess that the idealistic reality of the academy—our active working toward equality—shields me from the harsher, brute reality of non-academic careers. I suppose this absurd rhetoric is proof positive there is no such thing as post-racial politics. Same as it ever was . . . but with one difference: in the days of acceptable racism, one would use racial slurs without a thought. Today, the racists exercise their racism by calling the racialized Other racists.

"Yes, see that's what I mean," you cry.

And you add: "See that other guy 'thinks' so much more differently; he doesn't seem to think much of the Bible, using labels like 'Republichristians' and being all concerned about 'postmodern racism,' etc."

"But what," I ask you, ". . . what if thinking requires hermeneutics? And what if this line of thinking becomes her.menuetics?"

"What if," I reason further, "the one with her her.menuetics calls herself a mother and a grandmother? And writes for The Christianity Today blog for women? What if she, then, says, 'Sonia Sotomayor: I Feel Your Pain'? And what if she addresses her own kind first and some of the rest of us too trying to get us to think in our own skin, with our pants still on?"

She says:

Women: Imagine you’ve been having problems with pre-menstrual depression or unpleasant menopausal symptoms.

Men: Imagine you’re having problems that are probably prostate-related, or maybe you’re having trouble getting it up. All else being equal (though of course it never is), would you rather see a male or a female physician?

Empathy matters. That’s why I’m not worried about the line from Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s 2001 lecture, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

. . . I am not saying you should be thrilled about Sonia Sotomayor. Honestly, I don’t know enough about her to say one way or the other. I’m just saying: If we want objective, impartial judgments that result in equal justice for all, we’d better not throw empathy out the window.

That would certainly be some different kind of thinking, wouldn't it? Sort of like Jesus listening to thoughtful individuals so different from him, like the one Mark labels "the woman . . . of the Syrophoenician race" and the other whom Matthew tags as "a Canaanite woman."

----

UPDATE: I just read Phyllis Chesler's post - Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Singing Sensation Susan Boyle -

"Judge Sonia Sotomayor is now the fourth woman ever in the history of the United States to be nominated for the Supreme Court. For the last 220 years, 180 men and two women have served on this Court. President Obama has earned the right to nominate Sotomayor; he won the election." Want to keep reading?

I am George Tiller.

This isn't a post I planned.

(Last month, I did exercise my God-given legal choice to listen to how the Top 10 feminist bloggers and Top 10 bibliobloggers were speaking out early about President Obama's contention:

"No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject [of the legal choice of abortion and abortion itself] are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable."

Today, how do we reconcile another death? Top biblioblogger Dr. Jim West calls the "anti-killer killers" of Dr. George Tiller "vile" and "godless servants of the Devil." And Ann Friedman, an editor of the Top feminist blog feministing.com, quotes Cara Kulwicki, author at Feministe, another Top feminist blog: calling the killing a terrorist act. Friedman goes on to say, "It is the culmination of an ongoing campaign of intimidation and harassment." [Update: Paul the Spud, of the #2 Top feminist blog Shakesville, joins in by saying "it's about time these acts are labeled 'terrorism'." And Joel L. Watts, aka Polycarp, the #2 Top biblioblogger of May, says it is "a grave thing" and "a senseless act."]

These are strong words. But they're just not strong enough.)

And ask yourself, if you dare, Who am I? Want to know who I am this sad morning? I am George Tiller.

-----

UPDATE: http://iamdrtiller.com/ HT Jill at Feministe