Indians broke just as many treaties as the other side did and fought a brutal conflict against American citizens, people who scalp men alive and then get slaughtered for it I have no sympathy for. Few tribes even had a concept of landownership beyond however could control it by force. They lost as there own game and got killed by westerns rather then other tribes. Horrors.
Scalping was a tradition of British officers who in “savage” overseas territories would offer compensation for proof of a dead enemy – i.e. his scalp. The practice originated in fact with British bounties. It is reasonably certain that the French and Spanish both followed similar routines.
This does not address the issue of overwhelming state interest. The argument that we are paying reparations for what was done long ago doesn't fly in a court of law, particualrly when imfringing on someone's rights. You have to show a compelling state interest for an action to infringe on someone's rights.
Affirmative Action is not some form of pseudo-reparation. It is instead an effort to “balance the scales” between what should be two near-equal applicants, one of them being a minority. Despite its abuse at Michigan, there are several merits. (1) This country was in fact established by white, Christian males for white, Christian males. (2) Members of any majority are hired more readily than those of a minority. White males have statistically greater professional and vocational opportunities overall. Studies by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in fact discovered that résumés by men with popular or stereotypically “black” names were significantly less likely than those with stereotypical “white” names to receive a response. (3) Affirmative Action takes into account that of the above-mentioned equal applicants, the minority was most likely to have overcome the inferior social status and very probably economic hardship as well. Think of the whole system not so much as offering minorities superiority as equality.
In the case of AA the compelling state interest is promoting diversity. As Anton Scalia asked in the deliberations of the case decided thsi week WHY is it a compelling state interest? Is it OK to deny a white kid an education, especailly a poor white kid a shot at a university degree to a lesser qualified student of a minority group. Are we really dealing with diversity when all anyone is looking at is a chart and not at the student itself. Quoutas are just as racist as someone denying a kid an education based on skin color.
It is indeed a compelling state interest to promote diversity. The greater the number of minorities with access to higher education, the fewer the number statistically likely to remain or fall into poverty. Again, minorities have fewer professional or educational opportunities overall. And despite the supposed “evils” of Affirmative Action, I remind you that the up-and-coming trend of colleges and universities to function as businesses favors the wealthier majority. A white man is more likely to have the money necessary to turn down a large scholarship. That matters more, in fact, than an equal applicant’s minority status.
And keep in mind that this isn’t: “White kid with an ‘A’ loses admission to black kid with a ‘D’.” No, sir. This is – at
worst: “White kid with an ‘A’ loses admission to black kid with a ‘B-’.” Most usually it’s, “White kid with an ‘A’ loses admission to black kid with a ‘B’.” Many people also seem to forget that colleges will forgive poorer grades for extra-circular activities or demonstrated aptitude in creative writing. Many of the AA “horror stories” are those about the white kid who feels cheated when his A+ doesn’t carry him into Harvard but he’s heard that the black kid in the other class got a ‘B+’ and yet still made it.
When AA was abolished in a school in Califonia, Asians quickly shot up as the majority students there because of their grades. I think that AA fails miserbaly to actually rectify the sitaution which is TEACH these kids so that they are just as qualified as the white kids. Every other minority group and new wave of immgrant goes on to do well, their scores going up and soon they no longer need AA. But blacks have progressively conitnued to fill the welfare rolls and do poorly academically. AA does not answer the question WHY.
I challenge the notion that AA creates a “hand-me” undercurrent among minorities. Both African-Americans and Latinos often have difficulty achieving parity with Caucasians.
And remember this of Asian students:
(1) A majority are “new immigrants” from countries usually more stable than those of Latin America. It means that many come over with greater quantities of money in hand, under less social or political duress, and with various traditions still in-hand.
(2) Many Asian immigrants originate on Taiwan, in India, Japan, or China, all of which are fairly stable. Of those, two countries (India and China) tend to discharge primarily middle-class emigrants to the United States. This means they’re coming with a bit of wealth in hand (in most cases).
(3) There is less a structure of opposition to Asians than to African-Americans. While both are discriminated against, the “root anger” at blacks remains most heavily-entrenched.
Point-blank: we need a program to redress racial disparities in the professional community and increasingly place minorities into the business world. Financial programs might help, but they’re less focused as they also deal with the majority Caucasian population – which is already assisted (as are minorities) by “blind admission” policies.
