From: mvij@ocf.berkeley.edu (Manish Vij)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: = Opportunity etc.
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:14:32 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu


Tapesh Yadav writes: [> is Tapesh, MV> is me]

> While we are generalizing, :), I would put it in a different way: 
> The successful/rich ones are strongly meritocratic. The unsuccessful 
> ones tend to justify/explain it off to unfairness.
 
... And the college students come from middle-class sensibilities
but adopt socialist views :-).  It is possible to be successful/rich
and still acknowledge this society's flaws.
  
> I am not offering any answer to inner-city children. I do not, nor do 
> you, know the facts or the REAL problem. All we see are symptoms. 
> To find answer to anything, wouldn't you agree, we should first
> explore causes, the real problem, the facts as they are now.  
   
   [...]
    
> We are not exhorting any absolute morality from anyone, let alone 
> impoverished. Who are we to judge, or to decide for anyone else 
> what his/her morality should be. All we are discussing is about 
> the role of the individual as part of society (thru government).
     
I anticipated this response.  I am merely applying your arguments,
which are familiar to me, to some very relevant issues.  They just don't
make much sense.
      
The thread started out on the Indian constitution and then on the role
of individuals in society.  The latter leads to the role of society
when dealing with the individual.  The thread is labelled "= [Equal]
Opportunity etc."  Ron talks about lack of equal access to education.
You respond with your generalized beliefs.  I believe it's very
reasonable to examine them with regard to socioeconomic issues, where
people like you and people like me differ.  If it is unreasonable,
please tell me that your beliefs only apply to a specific realm; I
agree with your hands-off approach in parenting, for example.  It's
just that I find it ridiculous when discussing equal opportunity
in America.
       
We already have established causes to the problems in the most abject
neighborhoods of, say, Ron Hira's D.C., or Oakland right next to my
university.  Much research has been done on the effects of living in
low-income neighborhoods, with poor education, poor health care,
a high crime rate.  It is called a cycle of poverty for very good
reasons.
	
You may argue for a subtler interpretation: why, you may ask, does
an individual in Oakland deal drugs?  It must be some deficiency
at the individual level.  Let the individual grow and unfold without
undue restriction, and we will see the true unveiling of the human
spirit.
	 
I appreciate your style of thinking in the sense of self-actualization.
I do not think it appropriate to analyzing all social evils.  Basic
security of living conditions is a grosser need than spiritual
fulfillment, and you miss it entirely.
	  
    
MV>I think you assume rational and well-fed intellects, like your own,
rather 
MV>than people living in fear, crime, and poverty.  The power of one
exceptional 
MV>individual to rise above the squalor is very rare.  What about the
rest? 
MV>The basic quality of life must be up to a certain level before we
begin 
>exhorting absolute morality from the impoverished. 
     
> Ahem brother, ahem.  
> 
> Lets extend above argument to "how to raise kids?" (we had a long
debate 
>on this - for those new to this newsgroup). 
> We can say then, in the spirit above, that "the power of one exception
al 
> kid to decide and be self-dependent is very rare. what about the
rest?" 
> Would you suggest then, that parents extend their "we know what is
right  
> for you, do what we say" to all kids? 
	      
No, the argument is that, although someone following your advice may
achieve the success of, say, a Bill Clinton -- rising from a broken
family to become President -- it is not common.  For every successful
person of color, for example, there are many unsuccessful ones.  Too
frequently, people point to the exceptions and ignore the majority.
It is valuable to examine the successful and see what can be learned,
but it is cold-hearted to use the exceptions as a basis for cutting back
on, say, affirmative action, anti-redlining laws, or free enterprise
zones in blighted inner-cities.
       
Extending this argument to raising kids is invalid because it's a
different situation.  In the socioeconomic arena, the issue is whether
to lend a helping hand to those who are not different from the rest.
In the home, when you propose that parents limit freedom for those
who are not different from the rest, you're suddenly limiting freedom
rather than increasing it.  My views, like yours, are consistent in
that we're both for increasing individual freedom; however, it appears
that you don't see anti-poverty measures as liberating, which I
confess baffles me.  There's also no connection between
the poverty issue and the parenting issue except our talk of those who
are exceptional, which is off on a tangent anyway.

>Manish, these "generalizations to utter hopelessness" are false traps,
IMHO. 
> I, and you, are ignorant either way - about kids in rich neighborhoods
with 
> internal (family) fear; or kids in poor nghbrhd with external fear. 
> All you know is yourself, and all I know is myself.... 
> My thesis is to leave the individual alone. Always.  
> Let him/her "Think, persevere, exist....." 
		 
I guess here is where we disagree.  When there is an opportunity to
aid an individual, I am in favor of doing so rather than leaving that
person alone.  Always.
		  
> Consider another example. There are many in this newsgroup who believe 
> that "long hairs and a bike" lifestyle is an emotional problem, some 
> sort of immaturity, rebelness, self denial etc..... 
> You and I agree that long hairs are the individual's choice. And the 
> individual can choose to have long hairs because he/she wants it,
> likes it.  
> Now what if someone argues:  
> "the power of one exceptional Manish to decide about his lifestyle 
>  is very rare. what about the rest?" 
> Does this suggest that the rest be presumed to be "not rare" and
> conformed to social norms. 
> Nay, brother nay. :) 
    
Again, personal stylistic freedom is a different issue from socioeconomic
policy.
		     
> Lets be consistent. Lets leave the individual to discover, learn, struggle 
> by himself and herself. Let him/her decide what his/her happiness is/will be. 
> Let him/her take care of himself/herself first. Lets leave the individual 
> alone. Don't push him, don't pull him. Let him grow to his natural wonder. 
> 
>T.Y. 
>---- 
>tyadav@athena.mit.edu 
		      
Tapesh, I like your advice in terms of tolerance and acceptance of people.
I think it's great advice as applied to parenting.  However,
"leaving people alone" is damn poor advice in terms of equal opportunity
and access.  It may not surprise you that I work at the Staff Affirmative
Action Office here at Cal... :-)
		       
Manish

-- 
"You cannot be president of the U.S. if you don't have faith.  Remember
Lincoln, going to his knees in times of trial and the Civil War and all
that stuff.  You can't be.  And we are blessed.  So don't feel sorry for --
don't cry for me, Argentina."   -- President Bush and his keen analytical mind