From: muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: Forced Integration
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:21:43 GMT


Just to recap here a little here.  I previously made the point that unless
those in power are convinced to see that demented policies not agreed
upon by all those (mainly the affected parties) they wish to govern
can lead to violent convulsions, they'd do almost nothing save their own
wellbeing.  I made the point that Gandhi did this very thing with the English.
Although he preached non-violence, if you look carefully at his actions, you 
would see that they bore the potential to be very violent events: accepting 
beatings without flinching (hoping that the oppressors good conscience would 
win out etc).  It was predicated on the fact that things would be "much worse" 
unless the needs demanded by mass action were met.  So I'd say there's a bit
of irony involved here.

But for the moment let's digress a little further into American history
(and since his newsgroup is read only by three or four people anyway, I guess
they'd patient enough to see that there's more to theatrics than having
masala in Mississippi :).

In article <5644@arccs1.fed.FRB.GOV> m1pkd00@fed.frb.gov () 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

I doubt there were many living in the North at that time and also think that
the south had drafted a constitution of its own.  I haven't been
able to read anything about the status of the blacks in the north prior to the
civil war years so I cannot comment.  Suffice to say that compared to the
number of blacks in the south, the ones in the north were very small.

>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.]

Lincoln pretty much made the emancipation act official to give the northern
soldiers something to fight for!! For the first two or three years the
federates were getting pretty badly beaten by the confederates.  True, that
Lincoln was more interested in preserving the union than anything as "liberal"
as freeing slaves :-(. [He *was* a republican wasn't he :-)].  But I'd say
the cause of the civil was more due to different life styles of the northerners
and southerners: one was an industrial and the other an agrarian society.

>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.)

I believe most of the constitution framers were free masons. Their relgious
beliefs are quite at odds with tradional christian dogma.  Probably that 
explains their desire to keep church and state seperate.  As for not legislating
slavery...well, if axiom #1 says that all men are created equal, then it would
be very contradictory to say somewhere else, "some more than others." :).

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

I'm afraid we have gone too far to have any relevance what so ever.  That
is *the* problem.  We need to realize that Sri Lanka falls within the
subcontinental framework through and through.  Can we learn from American
history ?  Sure.  But does it have much relevance (as per the causes) to the 
Sri Lankan civil war ?  Probably not.

>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.  

This is indeed a very controversial issue right now in the US.  The businesses
complain that they have to hire minorities (just not have the fed. govt.
not breathing down their throat) even though they might be hiring unqualified
people.  I tend to think of the concept of affirmative action as being more
a system based on merit, though I think the line seperating the two (if there
is one) is a little fuzzy.  I'd say it is pretty much a function of the
aspiration of society;  things like what people consider to be important in
their lives etc.

I concur with your last point that it is important to go beyond mere 
interpretation of statistics.

>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.

Again, to get to back to my earlier point.  If we have no problem learning
English, what is so insurmountable about learning each others language ?
I submit that this is because we taught that our cultures are alien to
each other when in fact it *isn't!*.   We have both evolved out of the
Indian subcontinental milieu.  There's much to be learnt from each other
but this can only happen if this is given context.  The diversity of
the two communities should be a strengthening factor, and not a sign of
weakness.

>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?"

When no tangible results about oppression are visible, then that would
seem to qualify as "so oppressed."  If I kick the manager with all my
heart and he still persists on not stopping the noise, then I might call
the cops (sounds like one of the places I used to live in :).

>And when do you stop talking and start kicking?

There has to be visible results each step of the way. But before that
the general principles of dismantling the oppressive elements has to be
agreed upon by all the parties concerned.

>> 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?"  :-)

Uh no.  I'm just a low paying grunt grad. student who has suppressed nothing
but his own research work :).