Naturally, I thought of that this weekend.
The thing is, Tucker Carlson is wrong. So is she, though, and just where she apparently doesn't see it.
The United Nations this weekend was talking about how the USA needs to give some land back to the Native Americans. It's easy to mock the UN here, but let's look at the substance of the complaint.
Close to a million people live on the US's 310 Native American reservations. Some tribes have done well from a boom in casinos on reservations but most have not.
Anaya visited an Oglala Sioux reservation where the per capita income is around $7,000 a year, less than one-sixth of the national average, and life expectancy is about 50 years.
The two Sioux reservations in South Dakota – Rosebud and Pine Ridge – have some of the country's poorest living conditions, including mass unemployment and the highest suicide rate in the western hemisphere with an epidemic of teenagers killing themselves.This is the reason why Native Americans are granted affirmative action benefits. If someone fights out of Pine Ridge and makes it to college, they've already overcome a massive burden. The whole point of the practice is to correctly judge just how much harder it was for them to get there than it was for those who had an easier road. We ought to want this. That's where Tucker is wrong: the system isn't unjust by nature. For them, we ought to want it.
"I should in that case hold you," replied the yeoman, "a friend to the weaker party."
"Such is the duty of a true knight at least," replied the Black Champion; "and I would not willingly that there were reason to think otherwise of me."The problem with what Warren did was that she made a mockery out of the system. This is where Greene was wrong. The question isn't whether she was qualified -- even well-qualified professors, when they are looking for a job at Harvard, are looking for any advantage that may come to hand. That she is already a strong candidate is just the point. This is not a system for the strong to use to tilt things even further in their favor. It is a system that is meant to uphold the weak against the strong.
I'm just as Cherokee as Elizabeth Warren -- to judge by "blood quanta," which is apparently the standard that we're now supposed to apply. Apparently the currently serving Cherokee Nation Chief is no more than that. In my case it comes even further back in the family history, when this was frontier country and white women were very rare (a constant in the story of the American frontier is that women move to the frontier, wherever it is in any generation, rather more slowly). A couple of my frontiersman ancestors took Cherokee brides. It works out to the same percentage. It also means my family is American since the mid-1700s, which counts for... exactly nothing, in determining who is a "real American," according to what I'm given to understand is the acceptable standard.
Never once in my life did I think of marking myself as "Native American" for some advantage. It would be a positive insult to those people on Pine Ridge if I did. I've suffered nothing for it; everyone whose family has been in the South for two generations, black or white or otherwise, has that much Native American "blood quanta" if they care to track it down. For the people of Pine Ridge, it's everything; for us, it's a very minor part of the story of what it means to be American.
Most of us would be called "white boys" by our FOX News commentator; and why not? I have no reason to buck the term if Lewis Grizzard wouldn't. Nevertheless I'll bet if you looked, he was at least 1/32nd Native American. All of us are, and that means nothing at all. It's wrong to help yourself by taking from the weak and the poor. If law or custom make it easy to do so, we are wrong if we take advantage -- and if the law backs us in our wrongness, then the law is just as wrong as we are. Everyone knows that.
Grim, last winter.
28 comments:
"It's wrong to help yourself by taking from the weak and the poor. If law or custom make it easy to do so, we are wrong if we take advantage -- and if the law backs us in our wrongness, then the law is just as wrong as we are."
Preach on brother Grim...
Just sign me, bib overhaul wearing white boy who is mostly Euromutt, but undoubtedly has a few grafts of other between trunk and crown of ye old family tree.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert on American Indians, do not work for the BIA or for any tribal government, and the one Indian ancestor in the family was so long ago that he doesn't count (although he is documented).
That said, what I've gathered from studying the history of UN government - American Indian relations and about current American Indian events is that the groups that cannot or will not adapt at least part of their cultural systems to the modern economic and political system end up in terrible trouble. Those who have been the most successful at finding working compromises seem to be the Florida Seminole, the Comanche, Jicarilla Apache, Oklahoma Cherokee, Navajo, and Hopi. Those who thus far have not found a successful balance tend to have major social and economic woes, no matter their location or land holdings.
So I'm not sure that giving/ leasing/ renting additional territory to those groups most in need will do much good. Among other things, until successful individuals are no longer disparaged as "apples" (red only on the outside), additional revenue probably won't help the majority of those in need.
LittleRed1
Yeah, I don't think the land give-back would solve anything either. The point of affirmative action appointments to places like Harvard (as student or faculty) is that they help tie people from places like Pine Ridge into the elite. It's about integrating with what you are calling "the modern economic and political system."
It's also mostly an escape hatch for a few talented individuals -- but I think the hope is that many of these may then go back and use their new education and connections to try to improve things.
In any case, 'blood quanta' is probably a poor way of achieving the goal we're after -- what we're really after is trying to help the poor and the disadvantaged find their way to strength and prosperity. Heritage is just a proxy for that, and it may not even be the best proxy.
Grim - you are looking pretty fierce these days :)
I am going to have to be more careful when teasing you! Though it is so much fun that I doubt I will be too careful...
/hobbling off into the sunset
Why thank you, Cass. I think every man probably likes to be told that he looks fierce.
In any case, it's one of my method for dealing with the introvert/extrovert problem set T99 was just talking about. It really does cut down on the number of times I get engaged in pointless conversation. :)
"I think every man probably likes to be told that he looks fierce."
Heh. I was once told I had that quality in my eyes. Then I hit 50, and one day realized I needed glasses. Shortly afterwards people began to tell me how much like Lewis Grizzard I looked. =8^{
Mr. Grizzard was a fine man. I can think of many worse to be compared to.
My old boss reported to me once that his counterpart at another law firm that had been doing us wrong had complained that he was afraid to sit with me across a large, well-populated conference table. Apparently my expression was too stony, and he must have had a more guilty conscience that I'd given him credit for, the little weasel. He had more than six inches and 100 pounds on me, but he claimed to be afraid I was going to pull out a gun and shoot him.
I made an effort to appear more neutral, and our negotiations got back on track.
You know, I just finished saying that I was successful at putting people off from pointless conversations, but at the feed store a guy walked up to me and talked about himself for 45 minutes. It was inescapable, too, because he was elderly -- I'm going to guess 85 -- and therefore covered by the duty to respect one's elders.
I'm sure he was of great benefit to him to have someone to talk to, though, so I'm glad to have put up with it even though the stories were quite dull. (They all turned upon his cleverness as a businessman fifty or so years ago, when he was in the pulpwood business.) Clearly, for some people, a stranger's ferocity just can't overcome the powerful desire to talk.
"Mr. Grizzard was a fine man. I can think of many worse to be compared to."
No argument from me on that point Mike.
..."he was afraid to sit with me across a large, well-populated conference table. Apparently my expression was too stony"
That's too funny, Tex.
When WB and I first met, sometime in the previous century, she up and told me one day to ease off on the hard looks. I asked her what hard looks? It was my normal freakin' face. Which, BTW, did not look anything like good old Lewis when I was a young man. =8^}
All I can say is, you'd better have a sense of humor if you intend to grow old.
...putting people off from pointless conversations, but at the feed store a guy walked up to me and talked about himself for 45 minutes.....
I ran a dry cleaning shop in an earlier life, and I had one customer who was an irascible old coot. Complaining about anything in the world he could think of the first couple of times I dealt with him. It came out in one of those b*tch sessions that he'd had colon surgery a while ago, and it not only still hurt, it had left him incontinent back there. His complaining was nothing more than pain and embarrassment.
I told him no sweat, s*t happens, the cleaning fluids were TOXIC and his clothing would be clean and sterile. After that, he was quite pleasant to deal with. He just needed someone to listen to him.
On the other hand, right after the Chinese started minting their Panda gold coins, I had a broker call me--long distance it was, back shortly after Ma Bell was broken up, in the early '80s. He made the mistake of cold calling me right at the start of my supper.
We talked for 45 minutes on his nickel, while I explained to him all there was to know about gold, gold bullion, the price of gold, the gold content in gold coins--mostly American and Chinese--the status of the gold mines, likelihood of new finds, proven and suspected reserves. Every time he tried to hang up, I changed the subject to a new aspect of gold metal.
That's not to say I know anything about gold, or coins, or collecting. But my success at stringing him along said a lot about his knowledge and his sales skills.
I never did buy any Pandas, and I've never been cold called by a broker since--commodities or stocks.
Oh, and a propos another thread, I'm an introvert. And proud of it.
Eric Hines
I'm a native American -- I was born here.
I wonder if there's a pattern here- I think I look serious much of the time, though my wife says I look angry(!?) all the time (though she's got a tendency to exaggerate). I too, like that it creates a little space around me, but not so much I can't close it down when desired.
Now, back on point- Grim, I agree with much of the post, but where exactly is Tucker Carlson wrong?
" The whole point of the practice is to correctly judge just how much harder it was for them to get there than it was for those who had an easier road. We ought to want this."
We ought to want affirmative action? A system that attempts to fix the problem by an examination of DNA? Isn't Elizabeth Warren an excellent example of the shortcomings of such a system- even if she merely was proud of her 1/32 Cherokee heritage and checked the box merely because it was factual?
A.A. addresses 'how difficult a path' someone may have had by looking merely at genetics. Ridiculous on it's face. I'm all for there being the leeway for colleges to have a certain number of slots, or even all the slots, which they can fill as they see fit, and preferably to actually use judgement and discernment to pick rewards for those deserving of such. But the idea that we should look at some vague group affiliation (if you can even call it that) to figure out if you had a hard time is crazy. I'm not even sure we can do that honestly looking at everything in someone's background. Everyone in life has their struggles, and for some it's obvious, but for others it may be nearly invisible because they don't let on, or they fight an internal battle which they don't wish to make public. I'm not sure I like privileging the martyr over the happy sufferer who doesn't ask for help (isn't forbearance a virtue?), which is sure to happen in any of these systems.
You also admit that most (maybe a vast majority) of those who get out of Pine Ridge (for example) and go to Harvard and become successful will not go back, they'll have migrated into a different place and culture. How does that help Pine Ridge? What is it about Pine Ridge that we should want to keep? I know people like where they are and what's comfortable to them, and they're welcome to it, I suppose, but why do we need to 'save' it, and how would that happen anyway? We have, by and large, a successful just culture, and we welcome them to it. Isn't that more than anyone could ask for already? To have an opportunity denied 99.999% of humanity?
"I'm a native American -- I was born here."
But, Mr. DeBille, I thought you were a Pangean?
0>;~}
I agree with Douglas. Identifying a cluster of kids who are having to fight hard to overcome their circumstances is a good argument for funding remedial programs for those kids. Admission to difficult institutions of higher learning still ought to be done on the merits, not on the basis of DNA-typing.
College admissions boards will always be free to award extra points for anything in an individual applicant's background that shows unusual grit, assuming he arrives at the admissions process with the usual qualifications showing he can handle the work. This was the argument that my late friend and colleague Greg Coleman, who died a year or two ago in a small plane crash, made in arguing against UT's affirmative action program: that you can implement race-neutral standards that consider any socio-economic disadvantages that a prospective student may have overcome. It takes a good deal of the "reparations" or identity-politics quality out of the process. Watching this dispute come before the Supreme Court at last makes me miss Greg all the more.
Douglas:
My objection is to Tucker Carlson's categorical rejection, thus: "...a system that is fundamentally corrupt. It rewards people for their DNA, which is inherently unfair."
That's the wrong way to conceive of what affirmative action is about. Everyone gets a certain amount of accidental capital out of the circumstances of their birth. Some get born into rich, well-connected families; others get born into poor families. Still others get born into poor families who live in bad areas, with limited education, and historical/cultural disadvantages they have to overcome.
That's where the fundamental injustice is coming from -- not from the program, but from nature. Life is unfair. This is just an attempt to make it a little more fair, for those kids who prove to be able to work hard enough and be smart enough to overcome a really bad hand.
We ought to want affirmative action?
We ought to want a system that recognizes how hard it is for the kids on Pine Ridge and elsewhere. This is the one we've got although, as noted in the reply to LR1 above, it's certainly not the best-imaginable one. Belonging to a group that is historically disadvantaged is a proxy, and it may not be the best proxy. Certainly this case shows that it can be abused by the wealthy and well-connected, which is a mockery of what it was for.
The system isn't inherently unjust, though: it's life that is inherently unjust. The system attempts to create something more like balance out of the natural imbalances. We ought to want to try to do that.
I've no objections to finding better ways of doing it.
But, Mr. DeBille, I thought you were a Pangean?
See the bottom of the ell in "Central Pangaean Mountains"? Rat thar...
I don't see a rat there....
0>;~}
No, he's right. See?
Oh, I see now.
Thx!
0>;~}
"This significantly pulls several major branches of the mammalian phylogenetic tree even farther back into the Age of Dinosaurs..."
Just for that, I'm not going to tell you what color they really were.
"Just for that, I'm not going to tell you what color they really were."
Well, could you at least tell us what you used for protection from the fallout?
"That's the wrong way to conceive of what affirmative action is about."
But that's essentially a de facto analysis of what Affirmative Action is. You're just saying that we should consider some sort of hardship exception to rules- I don't think ANYONE is against such a thing. I'm all for Universities having admissions officers who actually earn their pay by analyzing applicants to see who should be accepted, who shouldn't and who ought to be considered even though they don't meet the normal parameters for acceptance because of mitigating circumstances. That's fine, largely because it isn't a formulaic application of an irrelevant aspect of a persons makeup.
"Everyone gets a certain amount of accidental capital out of the circumstances of their birth. Some get born into rich, well-connected families; others get born into poor families."
I don't know. It's an oversimplification if you ask me. I've seen more than my share of 'rich' kids who had more problems than you could shake a stick at, they just weren't the kind that get you consideration at University admissions under the current system. I've also seen my fair share of folks who came from underprivileged backgrounds, but grew up mostly happy and healthy and who made something of themselves without too much undue trouble. Today especially, growing up poor in America isn't automatically that bad. Most poor folks today make even those of our parents who grew up upper working class look destitute by comparison. Money and values hardly go hand in hand.
So yes, we need to be charitable (in the best sense of the word), but blanket mandates sure to ill fit too many situations are not the answer- personal judgement is, but we're rapidly developing a society that eschews that for cold, poorly conceived formulas.
But that's essentially a de facto analysis of what Affirmative Action is.
It's not an analysis of the concept, as Carlson presents it; affirmative action is not a "reward," but more like a compensation. It's also not a correct description of the method: as the Warren case demonstrates, there's no study of DNA required.
As I said, I'm not opposed to a better methodology. I do agree that charity is important, in the good sense.
I also believe in something T99 says from time to time: it's important that we inculcate the virtue of not relying on charity you don't require. We can help the truly poor and unfortunate far more if we aren't slipping a little extra to the strong and wealthy out of the same pool.
Sure, but most people who are Black, or Hispanic, or Native American just check the boxes because they're asked to. In this action, there is nothing wrong, no one said check the box if you're (approved minority group here) and had a tough road and we'll give you consideration for that- they were told to check the box and did. The university then makes the decision to act on that basis alone (a checked box), or at least that's what they were doing until states starting passing laws disallowing solely race based preferences, but the new standards are the same just masked in socio-economic clothing that's still of very limited use.
I'd suggest it's better to have the wealthy create programs to help those who have had a hard time take steps to improve their academic standing and provide scholarships that help these students, rather than adjust the admissions themselves. Help people, not 'groups'. In the end, I think that the problem with A.A. is that it's rather like the proverbial giving a hungry man a fish, whereas a private charity that helps kids be better prepared for academic success is more like teaching that proverbial man to fish. I think we agree which model works better.
A fellow I know uses a tagline:
"Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Light him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Ha! good one.
Well, could you at least tell us what you used for protection from the fallout?
Unicorn hide hazmat suits.
Post a Comment