Enraged mobs from one of India's myriad lower castes blocked roads with fiery barricades, stoned police and battled rival castes across a wide swath of northern India for a week to make a single, simple point: They want to be even lower.
With 25 people dead, the unrest spread to the fringes of the capital before the Gujjars — a class of farmers and shepherds — called off their protests.
They did so only after officials agreed to consider their demand to be officially shunted to the lowest rung of India's complex hereditary caste system, so they can get government jobs and university spots reserved for such groups....
Discrimination under the system was outlawed soon after independence from Britain in 1947, but its influence remains powerful and the government has sought to redress discrimination against those on the lower rungs by setting up quotas for government jobs and university spots.
But instead of weakening caste affiliations, the result has been a fracturing of politics along caste lines, with each of the lower groups vying for its share of the quotas....
"Nowhere in the world do castes queue up to be branded as backward," [the Indian Supreme Court] said. "Nowhere in the world is there a competition to become backward."
Affirmative action has its good points and bad points, but I think it's undeniable that when government distributes benefits based on particular characteristics, lots of people will want to be identified as having those characteristics, there will be lobbying to ensure that the relevant characteristics become legally immutable at a minimum ,or broadened, and people will organize and lobby around their common claim to the relevant characteristic. This all makes it a lot less likely that the relevant societal distinctions that led to the need for the affirmative action policies to begin with will wither away.
Query: If the Irish, Scandinavians, and Italians in the United States--all groups that were once suffered a great deal of discrimination and were relatively disadvantaged compared to the Anglo-Saxon/German majority (plurality?)--had been offered government benefits based on their ancestry one hundred years ago, would these groups be as integrated into American life as they are today? If not, then this is a cost to such policies that must be weighed against the benefits.
Thanks to my colleague Lloyd Cohen for the pointer.
UPDATE: The Comments function seems to be malfunctioning, at least for now. Sorry.
- Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (Blackwell, 1983), pp 150-51.
But don't US jurisdictions have to identify voters by race to police the Voting Rights Act?
Of course,, maybe if I'd been born African American I wouldn't say that... Where's Tireisias (or John Howard Griffin) when you really need him.
and
MEREDITH V. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
i wish the VC authors would specualte more
The real challenge is of devising a proper remedy for a now recognized wrong inflicted in the past. Even a couple of generations make this a vexing problem. Afterall, an overwhelming majority of Nazis did get away after abetting one of the largest extermination exercises in the known history of the world (I am ignoring the boasts of slaughter of those lacking a covenant in the Bible).
As far as I can see, if Nazism were to be ingrained in the form of a religion, and hence qualify for Constitutional protection beyond mere free speech, it would be impossible to stamp out the destructive teachings. This is not a law school hypothetical, but a real world problem.
India has such a problem, as does much of South Asia, Middle East and many other places in the world. Religions are not easily suppressed, hence legally requiring their teachings be modified is not a viable solution in most situations.
Requiring of strongly encouraging intermarriage to provide a common vested interest is also a rather coercive remedy. Changing property ownership rules to grant inheritances to former slaves and their descendants, the untouchables and other oppressed of India and the like are politically infeasible strategies. Thus, one is left with the Quixotic attempts to provide remedies that are really election campaigns masquerading as remedies. Not surprisingly, the protection offered to the injured classes by the remedies in vogue in India is minimal as is the case in the US.
I do not know of any democratically enforceable solution to this problem of finding an enforceable remedy.
Thus, the prudent course may be to focus on the future and ignore the past injustice. To this end, providing universal education to all, or providing universal healthcare, pensions, or some other entitlement to all may be the best bet. While it does not compensate only the injured, it guards against continuing future injury, which otherwise is the most likely outcome.
It is the human capacity to think in abstract terms that does disservice at times. Compensating for the wrongs due to discrimination is possible in the abstract. When concrete (politically viable) solutions are reviewed, it seems the wrong players get compenstated a lot more. This apparently is true in India and elsewhere as Thomas Sowell has argued so well.
It depends on the situation. Take the Holocaust, there were basically two kinds of compensation in that situation - (1) return of stolen property that could be traced and recovered; and (2) compensation that was due to the whole group of victims. The first kind isn't that hard - the property is taken and given to the rightful owner. The second kind is more difficult to determine. The way the abolition of slavery was handled might be instructive. The people who were enslaved received a direct payment of compensation, their ancestors have access to various programs.
The real challenge is of devising a proper remedy for a now recognized wrong inflicted in the past. Even a couple of generations make this a vexing problem. Afterall, an overwhelming majority of Nazis did get away after abetting one of the largest extermination exercises in the known history of the world (I am ignoring the boasts of slaughter of those lacking a covenant in the Bible).
It is more difficult when multiple generations are involved, although obviously someone that was tortured, raped, slavetraded, assaulted, and had their property stolen is going to receive more compensation than someone that wasn't.
Incidently, do you know what passage of the Bible refers to those without a "covenant"?
Requiring of strongly encouraging intermarriage to provide a common vested interest is also a rather coercive remedy.
That could actually operate as a vehicle of future oppression.
Thus, the prudent course may be to focus on the future and ignore the past injustice. To this end, providing universal education to all, or providing universal healthcare, pensions, or some other entitlement to all may be the best bet. While it does not compensate only the injured, it guards against continuing future injury, which otherwise is the most likely outcome.
Things like education aren't a magic bullet. Some of the african americans before the civil rights movement have stated that it didn't matter how much education they acquired, they wouldn't have been hired anyway.
X gets the square, Johnny!
Happened on a book about the Eastern Pequots and got it for my father because he grew up near their rez in Connecticut.
At one point, there were about five left.
Then a sharp attorney connected them to federal laws about NA gaming regs. They are now infinitely wealthy and...there are lots of them.
In our state--perhaps it's federal but I haven't checked--anybody one-quarter or more NA gets free tuition at state universities. Of course somebody who's three-quarters cauc and from an average family isn't exactly suffering, and seeing a freckled blonde getting the goodies doesn't punch up the sympathy.
So, yeah, it pays to be one of the downtrodden, as long at it's only formal and not actual.
I thought the Irish in particular DID use the government to advance, especially through machine politics. The stereotype of the Irish cop exists for a reason too. What's different now is that the FEDERAL government gets involved and we debate the subject nationally. It used to be more of a local matter, but it was still plenty contentious.
Answer: It wasn't. But Officer O'Malley could never find it when he went to Mass.
Hah-- I can beat that! My Great-Uncle's club in New York wouldn't even have let me in the door fifty years ago. Probably not even thirty or forty years ago. But, um . . . So? I don't need Affirmative Action if I want to join now; I just need a pile of cash and an introduction from my uncle. Or something like that. I have only the vaguest understanding of how these institutions work. Maybe there's a background check.
In any event, removing an outright ban (antidiscrimination) and adding a plus factor for certain people (affirmative action) are two distinct things.
Sowell's book is an eye opener. It discusses how US racial grievance mongering has been imported into other societies, much to their detriment.
Or do you disagree that they were given special preference in regard to participation in government, housing, education, etc?
What it is meant to point out is that past discrimination in this country and others was extremely destructive and that affirmative action for the dominant group was the norm. Also, David has absolutely no problem, and in fact is a staunch supporter, of the state of Israel, a state founded precisely to address past wrongs and maintained specifically to advance affirmative action for the Jewish people. It seems more than a little hypocritical that he worries about affirmative action in other countries, especially one where discrimination based on caste has had a long and tragic history.
And, anon, I would certainly deny that there were any official government preferences for Anglo-Saxons or Germans. If there had been, it would have been a lot more difficult to abolish their privileged position, or to prevent it from spreading officially to other groups with political power which is the point. (I.e., not that there is no discrimination and no ethnic cleavages without affirmative action, but that when government officially provides privileges based on ethnicity or other characteristics, that tends to create lobbying groups to preserve these privileges, encourages individuals to organize themselves around these criteria, encourages group conflict, etc.) So, if you want to turn around the question to, "if Anglo-Saxons and Germans had been the beneficiaries of privileges granted by law based on their ancestry one hundred years ago, would the progress the U.S. has made toward an ethnically egalitarian country have been more or less likely to have occurred," I'll accept that as additional good question.
Every racial, cultural, religious, etc. group has their own history and situation. That means that any particular treatment based on those sorts of distinctions isn't going to result in a good general solution, especially when you're attempting to address historical wrongs. Of course, that doesn't mean we can just ignore the issues.
To the extent that the groups are distinguishable, advocating particular policies in reference to one group but not another is not necessarily blatant hypocrisy. The modern state of Israel involves a lot of historical particulars that don't really apply to Mongolians or Krishnas, and vice versa.
It is certainly possible to argue against abolishing Native American reservations without arguing in favor of establishing reservations for African Americans.
Any questions?
If he actually lacks some skill or ability due to treatment of his ancestor, then is it rational for me to discriminate against him in favor of someone who does not lack the ability or skill? This would say there is a real difference between the minority person and the non-minority. If there were no difference, then the affirmative action would not be necesary.
Actually it is, since to obtain German citizenship you have to demonstrate German heritage. At least you did, the rules might have changed.
I would certainly deny that there were any official government preferences for Anglo-Saxons or Germans.
There most certainly were. immigration policy in this country was blatantly and deliberately based on preferences for Anglo Saxons and Germans from the mid '20s until 1965. And what about legally enforceable covenants that kept neighborhoods free of blacks and Jews and any other undesirable elements that a person cared to put in the deed? What about Jim Crow? Are you also forgetting all the anti-miscegnation laws that were written to protect the purity of the white race?
Also, I don't know why it isn't affirmative action just because it happens to benefit the group in power. Do you think that the State Department or CIA hired many Jews or Blacks, or heck even many people who didn't go to Ivy League schools, until the 1960s? What else could legacy admissions to Ivy League schools be described as other than affirmative action for rich WASPs?
I don't exactly understand what bizarre definition of "affirmative action" you are using if you don't think that Israel, carved out of the desert by non-residents, born of a horrible and tragic genocide, that preferentially considers Jews for citizenship, is not a state founded upon and perpetuating affirmative action for Jews.
Chicago (can anyone say Daly), New York, Boston, Kansas City to a lesser extent/
The difference isn't whether the policies involve discrimination, it's in the stated purpose and evaluation. The pro-Anglo-Saxon policies you mention were certainly discriminatory, but their reasoning wouldn't fall under the concept of Affirmative Action. The Jim Crow laws were enacted to retain the existing disparity between racial groups, and for a while they were largely effective. Affirmative Action programs were enacted in order to reduce the economic and social differences between groups, and so far they have been largely ineffective.
'Being in the Majority' People always have and always will prefer people LIKE themselves. That can be defined with or without race. Based on Culture, education, NASCAR, whatever. Being in the Majority doesn't mean you put others down, don't like them, or discriminate against them. It just means that you belong to a group.
'Affirmative Action' The Government is FOR some group. Doesn't matter what distinguishes that group. As anybody with a brain knows whatever the Government is FOR insures that people will want IN. You will get More of whatever the government is FOR.
'Jim Crow Laws' The opposite of 'Affirmative Action'. Prime example under 'Jim Crow Laws' you have Black People 'Passing' as White. Under 'Affirmative Action' you can have Whites 'Passing' as NA. Few people want to be IN a group that the Government is againist.
Words have MEANINGS. Why is it that those who want to yell discrimination, call people racist, and in general support the left seem to want to blur or change the meanings of words?
'Affirmative Action' is just as BAD as 'Jim Crow Laws'. They both insure that racism will never go away and keep everybody's nose rubbed in it. But those who WANT to keep group priviledge alive and well support 'Affirmative Action'. By the very definition if someone needs 'Affirmative Action' they LACK something that those in the Majority have. And since the Left believes that 'Affirmative Action' will always be needed and since the Left believes that they are in the Majority, they believe that they will always have something that THOSE people LACK. What could be more racist then that?
If someone says that you need 'Affirmative Action' you should feel INSULTED.
Chris Rock's kids don't need 'Affirmative Action'. If they LACK something it isn't anything that can be fixed by 'Affirmative Action'.
And preferring people like themselves is different from discriminating against people unlike themselves how?
And certainly you would be wrong. Amazingly and profoundly wrong.
And, Thomas, it's simply an abuse of language to refer to something like Israel's law of return as "affirmative action." If you want to say that Israeli law has ethnic preferences, that's true. Part of the point of these preferences is to demarcate and encourage ethno-religious identification, even at the expense of potential inter-communal conflict with the Arab minority(though it also provides Jews from very different parts of the world with a common identity). Anyway, that is a GOAL of the Israeli system. But Israel was founded to be a Jewish state, while hte U.S. is the "first universal nation," in Ben Wattenberg's term. If the goal is to demarcate and encourage ethnic identification, then having a political system that grants or withholds favors based on such identification is surely a good way to do it.
Every racial, cultural, religious, etc. group has their own history and situation. That means that any particular treatment based on those sorts of distinctions isn't going to result in a good general solution, especially when you're attempting to address historical wrongs. Of course, that doesn't mean we can just ignore the issues.
That's the thing - the groups that got over on a particular group would love to ignore it. They would come up with dozens of excuses why certain crimes and atrocities "weren't so bad". And also a number of reasons why what is their is theirs and why what is yours should still be theirs too.
By the very definition if someone needs 'Affirmative Action' they LACK something that those in the Majority have.
You have to be careful with reasoning like this. There have been groups that use reasoning like this and certain tactics to discriminate against people that actually have merit. For example if a particular individual is "uppity" sometimes they'll bait and provoke them until they respond angrily, then claim the person is "lacking" something - that they're "boorish", "arrogant", "have no manners", etc. Of course it is all organized smearing and fraud. And by your logic, if these groups themselves had any merit they wouldn't need to resort to cowardly and deceptive bullshit to get ahead and keep ahead - they would be able to do it on their own - honestly and directly.
OK. Let's consider that. Why do blacks need affirmative action in college admissions? What do they lack that demands affirmative action? What is it about the average black applicant that warrants special treatment? How does this applicant differ from the rest of the applicants? I am asking about the average applicant, not his ancestors.
Is there a difference? If so, we should be able to say what it is. Does he lack the knowledge, ability, or skills of the other applicants? If that's the problem we are trying to fix, we should know about it and acknowledge it. If that's a problem we are trying to ignore, then we should know that, too.
If there is no difference, then we should be able to use applications which do not mention race.
If the average 18-year-old black lacks the knowledge, skills, or abilities of the rest of the population, then is it rational to prefer hiring a non-black?
(Substitute any affirmative action group for blacks in the above, and the same questions apply.)
Can you please explain to me what ethnic groups populate northwestern Europe besides Germans and what would be broadly classified as "Anglo-Saxons". And I realize that you can get hyper technical and break it down into Celts, nordic groups, Normans and so on, but generally when people say "Anglo-Saxon", the mean generically the the people of Northwestern Europe (granted the other unstated assumption used to be "not Roman Catholic", but even that has fallen by the wayside).
Excuse me, when you stated that there was never a government policy that favored Anglo-Saxons or Germans, I didn't realize you were referring only to those Anglo-Saxons or Germans who were already U.S. citizens. You really should be more precise. My parents and I (who immigrated from Great Britain in 1963 under the old per country quota system--where the quotas were deliberately chosen based on the proportionally highest year of immigration from Great Britain) were certainly the beneficiaries of such favorable government policies.
Have you never heard of the Jim Crow laws in the South (and to a lesser extent, elswhere)? Now, I suppose if you discount laws regarding education, housing, voting, dating and marriage, transportation, and a whole bunch more, I guess you are correct.
Or maybe you are of the opinion that whites (Anglo-Saxons and Germans, if you will) were not the beneficiaries of these laws?
Japanese-Americans have made it, despite internment. Friend of mine who is JA opined that internment broke up the JA community and forced them into the mainstream, which is the place to be if you're going to make it.
Yet other groups succeeded and thrived through networks, diasporas, etc. It seems there's no magic formula, each group has its own unique situation. I can tell you that if it were a case of me being enslaved and/or my property being taken I would make sure that compensation followed. Someone without property rights is no better than a slave, and you will never succeed if you let people steal from you.