From: varvel@plains.NoDak.edu (Andrew Varvel)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: Lies, %%$&* Lies, and Statistics
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:41:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: plains.19255
Organization: University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

In article <1992Jul18.152758.5167@hippo.ru.ac.za> ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za (F. Jacot Guillarmod) writes:
>In <19196@plains.NoDak.edu> varvel@plains.NoDak.edu (Andrew Varvel) writes:
>
>>Of course, in a truly non-racial society, racial statistics shouldn't have to
>>be taken.  But if the South African government was (and maybe is, I don't know)
>>going to take these statistics, I can at least poke fun at what their numbers
>>could possibly mean.
>
>There are already a few mutters of dissatisfaction about this.  After
>all, if there is no breakdown by race in various statistics it becomes
>difficult to show that there is possible discrimination in, say, housing
                                                                  ^^^^^^^
>loans by banks.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is a very legitimate point here.  However, I doubt that taking racial
statistics would combat this problem.  What would keep bankers from lending
copious amounts of money to "friendly" blacks (say, the IFP) and "not having
enough money" for ordinary South Africans?  This would certainly obfuscate
the issue, and make the use of racial statistics worthless.

Further, there are other ways to combat this problem.  A uniform code of
lending practices would help.  So would other legislation guaranteeing every
South African to a minimum amount of credit.

But even if laws are made, who is going to enforce them?  Quite simply, if
individual rights cannot be protected, then the country's law enforcement
and judiciary must change so that the laws are enforced.

Even without this, economic boycotts have been relatively successful in
South Africa.  A credible threat of bank boycotts may make banks want to
reconsider whether they really want to discriminate.

There is no point to taking racial statistics unless group rights are at
stake.  If you want South Africa to be a multiracial state on the basis of
group rights, taking racial statistics makes sense.  If you want South
Africa to be a non-racial state, there will be no need to have the artificial
legality of race.

Ante-bellum Lebanon is one of the best examples of rights being protected on
a group basis.  Political power was partitioned on the basis of religion, in a
situation where religious sects acted like tribes (or nations, and in the old 
usage, races).#  Bellum Lebanon is of the best examples of rights being abused 
on a group basis, in a war resulting from petty squabbles over the partition of
power (particularly on foreign policy).  The result was effectively separation 
of the sects, and later, the de facto annexation of Lebanon by Syria.

Also, many medieval European constituitions had group rights as their
basis.  For example, pre-Revolutionary France had three separate estates,
the nobility, the clergy, and everybody else (with their own separate
parliaments).

If group rights are what you want, so be it.  It seems to me that idea
of group rights is quite medieval.  It also seems that there may be people
other than you who may have doubts about a medieval-style constitution.#

>Catch 22.
>-- 
>  F.F. Jacot Guillarmod     PO  Box 94     \        |     ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za
>  Computing Centre       Grahamstown 6140   \      /     +27 461 22023 xt 284
>  Rhodes University        South Africa      ;___*/   33 18 30 S | 26 31 45 E

--Andrew Varvel--

# For all those politically correct folks here, the terms "medieval",
"tribe", "nation", and "race" meant their dictionary meanings.  (Try looking
them up in the dictionary.)  If you see any connotations and/or values to 
these terms, they are your connotations and values that you have put onto 
those terms.  The ANC has not hesitated in describing South Africa as
medieval, with all of the negative connations of the word.