From: muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: Forced Integration
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:09:58 GMT

In article <5561@arccs1.fed.FRB.GOV> m1pkd00@fed.frb.gov () writes:
>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.

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.  But in practice if you were a 
black slave in the years preceding the civil war, there was nothing you could 
appeal to other than the good conscience of your owner.  The "forced 
integration" part came about the time of signing of the affirmative action 
agreement between Johnson and Dr (Rev). King (I think I'm right about this).  
Anyway, the point of all this digression into US history is that those in 
government knew that unless an affirmative action plan was signed there would 
have been endless upheavels.  I think the same strategy was used very 
effectively by Gandhi as well when dealing with the English; it was better 
for them to deal with him (and give independence) rather than be saddled 
with open conflict.

>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.

Yes, but that depends on which half of the voting half is in suspense ...
if you get my drift :-).  For a democracy to work everyone
must feel equally involved.  Just as an example.  Many patriachal societies
had free elections but only have the only ones to vote were the men, and they
were making all kinds of decisions about what was right for a woman to do!

>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)

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:-).  If everyone
feels equally welcome to participate in society, it doesn't become
an issue.  Sure, there were attempts at getting the Tamils to learn
Sinhalese and vice versa for the Sinhalese.  But here's the problem;
and this too is brought out by our discussion here.  We in Sri Lanka
are NOT taught in school history books about how Sri Lanka fits in the
subcontinental context i.e., we taught more about alien places than
anything about our neighbours north, south, west, and east of the borders
(to say nothing about the history within).  No wonder there is so much
of "indo-phobia" there; there's only been invasions from outside and
nothing else.  What a crock !

>> 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.

It would indeed be interesting to speculate about when say a group
of people should have the "right" to stand up and fight.  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 :-).

>> 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?

It depends on how society as a whole is flexible to the needs of the
few (or in this the minority).  I think there needs to be flexibility
(or people need to be taught this).  If there's no flexibility, then
society is doomed.  Too bad; we don't live by hunting or by merely
growing vegetables anymore.  Everyone is getting more urbanized.

>prasad
Newsgroups: soc.culture.sri-lanka,soc.culture.tamil