= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Stranger Than History - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (329)
Ignoring for the moment the question of genetic differences in intelligence, the fundamental problem here is that the blacks are less educated (and less a lot of other things related to education) than whites. These problems are not getting resolved quickly and until they are it makes sense for the white minority to be in an economically superior position. Otherwise, you'll wind up with an advanced economic system manged by people who aren't qualified to manage it. Look at what happened to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) to see where that leads.
Note, however, if your only goal is to redress the power balance between whites and blacks, Zimbabwe did in fact solve that problem, i.e., blacks are now being oppressed by fellow blacks rather than whites. Also the economy has been destroyed, so the conditions for everyone involved are much worse.
That is a large part of the fundamental problem, yes. A lot of blacks were also:
And the education problem is made worse by the fact that there were not enough properly qualified teachers in the country to deliver that education to everyone.
And you are right, these problems are not going to get resolved quickly. (It's twenty years later now, and a lot of the problems still haven't been resolved). It's probably going to take two, maybe three generations minimum to get the country back on an even keel again.
But, in short, Apartheid was an incredibly unbalanced system. The inequalities caused and perpetuated during the Apartheid years were massive, dwarfing any possible genetic differences in intelligence. And, in the face of those inequalities, it seems to me that a temporary program of affirmative action (defined as, if there are muliple qualified applicants for a position, bias the selection process in the direction of the black applicants if present) is a reasonable measure to try to counteract those inequalities without sabotaging the country's economy.
Compare apartheid with feudalism. And notice that a lot of countries transitioned away from the latter didn't require AA in favor of commoners.
The transition away from feudalism took literally hundreds of years. On the same time scales it took countries to transition out of feudalism, I'd assume any difference that affirmative action would have on South Africa would be absolutely dwarfed by hundreds of years of technological progress.
In any particular country, no, not really. The important switches (e.g. the ability of commoners to obtain education beyond primary school) happen much more quickly. However we have a current example: China. Over the last thirty years or so there has been a massive influx of former peasants (without "proper education") out of the countryside into the industrial workforce and into the cities. Funny how no one suggests there should be an affirmative action program for them.
EHeller's got the main point, here; we kindof want the transition to go a little faster than 'centuries'. If we're careful, we can hopefully make the transition happen in merely a two or three generations, instead.
(Then, of course, Affirmative Action will need to be stopped - which is probably going to be quite a political battle, involving lots of shouting an arguments in Parliament. And hopefully no more than that.)
Or we can screw up and cause the country to collapse into chaos, i.e., what's happening now in Zimbabwe.
Yes, that's also a possibility. There's the very visible example of Zimbabwe to show what not to do, of course; I'm not saying that there won't be a mess-up, but if there is a mess-up I'm pretty sure it'll at least be a different mess-up.
I'm not an expert on Zimbabwean history by any means, but this doesn't quite seem to add up. According to World Bank data, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe has lagged sub-Saharan Africa (never mind the rest of the world) in per-capita GDP (measured in constant 2000 dollars) since at least 1960. As you can see from the graph, there's no dramatic discontinuity coinciding with the end of the Bush War; there is a decline over the war years themselves, but I'd attribute that more to the damage done by a markedly nasty civil conflict. It later stops tracking Africa's broader economic performance around 2001, but that timeframe seems to coincide with Robert Mugabe's land redistribution programs and involvement in the Congo War: a specific case of mismanagement by a notorious dictator, twenty years after the changes you're alluding to.
I'd consider this more conclusive if I'd been able to find data going back further. Still, if Rhodesia had qualified as an advanced economy, I'd have expected better than $500 GDP/capita in 1960 -- and if it was the removal of Zimbabwe's white minority's political influence that had screwed everything up, I'd have expected a decline starting around 1978, not the minor increase and quick plateau that we observe.