From: m1pkd00@fed.frb.gov (Prasad K. Dharmasena)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.sri-lanka
Subject: Forced Integration
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:33:36 GMT
Reply-To: m1pkd00@fed.frb.gov ()
Organization: Federal Reserve Board, Wash, DC

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

> The Brown vs. the board of education set the stage for the US govt. to 
> intervene in the form of forced integration.  Was that right ?  Well, by 
> definition a govt.  is supposed to uphold the law of the land.  What is the 
> law of the land ?

"Forced integration" is one way to look at it.  Another way to think of
it as is "upholding one individual's right."  Yes, it did set a president
in the US.  Was that right?  In hindsight, yes, it was right.  Was it right
in that time frame?  Even in those days when segregation was being practiced
widely and openly, the constitution did not enforce such a segregation.
All branches of the government have the right to interpret and uphold the
constitution.  So, it was right for the government to intervene.

In theory, a democratically elected government is not only supposed
to uphold the law of the land, but also supposed to make amendments
and new laws when necessary.  "Democracy is the recurrent suspicion 
that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time,"
said E. B. White.  In that sense, the government is supposed to intervene
and do what it thinks what people think is right.

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.  What is a government supposed to do in a
situation like that?  Require everyone to speak Sinhala and Tamil?
Require government workers to speak Sinhala and Tamil?  Require them
to speak Sinhala, Tamil AND English?  Or just any two out of three? 
Somehow, I feel that all those options are lacking in some sense.
What to do?  (said in that infamous Sri Lankan attitude)

> What 
> happens if the set of rules were agreed upon before I was born ? Nobody asked
> me anything!  What should I as an individual do, now that I don't like it 
> (after being born:-) ?

Again, in theory, you do have ways of expressing your grievances, right?
If your concerns are legitimate, then chances are, you will find others
in your same boat.  Now you have a louder voice.  What if the government
(or the people who uphold the law) still don't listen?  Well, overthrow
the government.  Overthrow, with ballot or bullet?  Well, being a government
worker (as "someone" pointed out) you didn't hear me advocating any violent
opposition to a legitimate government.

> Well if enough people feel the same way, then that 
> would mean that the "law" has to be changed.

You mean "take a chance and hope that more than half of the people
are right more than half the time?"  Yeah, but just because you are
on the side of the minority (*not enough* people feel like you do)
doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong.  What then?


prasad

--
Prasad Dharmasena      Internet: <pkd@fed.FRB.GOV>     UUCP: <uunet!fed!pkd>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna