From: m1pkd00@fed.frb.gov (Prasad K. Dharmasena)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.sri-lanka
Subject: Re: Forced Integration
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:03:57 GMT
Reply-To: m1pkd00@fed.frb.gov ()
Organization: Federal Reserve Board, Wash, DC


{ I posted this earlier, but seems like it never made it out of my site.
  So, here goes the second try. --prasad }

muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

> In article <5561@arccs1.fed.FRB.GOV> m1pkd00@fed.frb.gov () writes:
> >muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

I said:
> >Even in those days when segregation was being practiced
> >widely and openly, the constitution did not enforce such a segregation.

Ranjan said:
> But that didn't stop the rich landowners (or even most of those
> who wrote the constitution :-() from not "owning" slaves.  In axiomatic
> form, the constitution looked nice on paper.

Agreed.  It's the by-laws, regional and state laws that kept slavery
alive in the South (farm states).  Remember, in the North (industrial
states) there was no slavery and negroes (PC term for Blacks in those
times) were "free."  Not that the negroes were welcomed with open arms,
but those who managed to live there were free.  Incidentally, the whole
point of secession of the southern states was to keep the Abolishonists
off Southern white plantation owners' backs.  They saw that Abraham Lincoln 
could become the next President. Even though Lincoln himself wasn't an 
Abolishonist per se, his thinking was very much in line with them.  The 
South didn't want Lincoln to abolish slavery in their part of the world.  
[Though some people credit Lincoln with abolishment of slavery and the 
emancipation proclamation, it was the Northern Black leaders who got the 
emancipation act together.  What Lincoln fought very hard for was to keep 
the Union together.  And with the win over the south, he saw the 
opportunity to abolish slavery which was the cause for the civil war.]

Also agreed that some of the people who ratified the U.S. constitution
were in fact slave owners.  However, doesn't it strike as odd that these
same people managed to write the constitution without having clauses
to legalize slavery on all the states, and with keeping the state and
church separate?  (For instance, if you look at Thomas Jefferson's ideals,
you can see that he was very much a devoted Christian.  But he knew
where to draw the line with respect to church and state.)

Yes, I know, I've gone on a big tangent... but, compare this to SL records.

> The "forced 
> integration" part came about the time of signing of the affirmative action 

Yes, the slavery was abolished and all the slaves were emancipated
at the end of the civil war in 1865 (or so).  But, segregation was
way of life until Rosa Park and MLK in Montgomery, AL almost a century
later in the 1960s.  So, the US in those times very much needed the
affirmative action law and it still does.  However, I'm not so sure if
affirmative action really works with respect to other minorities such
as Asians (All of us are lumped together as Asians.  What bozos!), 
Hispanics, Native Indians, etc.  Moreover, if you look at places like
UC Berkeley, reverse affirmative action is what's needed to keep the
Caucasian student population up to par with the others.  So, I guess, the
point I'm trying to make is that there are times and places where 
affirmative action is needed and not so needed.  As for Sri Lanka, I don't
know if we need an affirmative action.  I have not studied (as opposed to
just glancing at them) the statistics.  [Yeah, now Ranjan goes, "oh no,
not the 'statistics' again."]  BTW, affirmative action is not needed for
"forced integration."  It's needed to give a head start to those who
are effected by unfair disadvantages.  

I said:
> >However, "forced integration" is very hard to do in Sri Lanka.  It was
> >easy in the US, because, at least, Blacks and Whites spoke the same
> >language.  In Sri Lanka, that's not the case among Sinhalese and Tamils
> >who do not speak English.

Ranjan said:
> I don't think the language barrier is as much an issue as made out to
> be (by the "liberal elite"...just to quote GB on this:-). 

Or "media elite" as GB (AND Sony, BASF, Memorex, etc.) would have said.
BTW, isn't "liberal elite" an oxymoron?  :-)

IMHO, language barrier is an issue.  When we are set out to change
the attitudes of a whole society, we are talking about making a new
generation of people with new attitudes.  Where else is the best
place to start this than the school?  The new generation has to start
interaction as kids.  We can tell them until we are blue in the face 
that the kids in the school across the street are just like us except
they speak a different language, but it's still not the same thing 
as getting them together.  (Okay, a note to Vasee: for a change I'm *NOT*
talking about combining boys' and girls' schools. ;-))  That's one thing
"forced integration" did do in the U.S.

Ranjan asked:
> >> What happens if the set of rules were agreed upon before I was 
> >> born ? Nobody asked me anything!  

I babbled:
> >Again, in theory, you do have ways of expressing your grievances, right?

Then so did he:
> It would indeed be interesting to speculate about when say a group
> of people should have the "right" to stand up and fight.  

As extreme examples:  If I don't like the "no loud music after 10pm"
rule in my apartment complex, I don't think it's really "right" of me
to stab the apartment manager with an ice pick.  But if he kicks me
in the rear for no apparent reason, I think I have the right to kick
his ass so hard that he doesn't know what hit him.  (sort of *like* self
defense.) Likewise, if a group of people are so oppressed, then they
have the right to kick some ass.  But, how oppressed is "so oppressed?"
And when do you stop talking and start kicking?

> A non-violent
> fanatic would say it should never be done.  But most of the time those
> advocating such views are the ones doing the suppressing :-).  I'm not 
> advocating any sort of violence myself of course :-).

In that case, are *you* one of them who's "doing the suppressing?"  :-)


prasad

--
Prasad Dharmasena      Internet: <pkd@fed.FRB.GOV>     UUCP: <uunet!fed!pkd>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.sri-lanka,soc.culture.nepal,soc.culture.tamil,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian.telegu,soc.culture.indian