Archive for February, 2010

The Madness of Apartheid

February 25, 2010

In South Africa, East Asians are both white and black at the same time. Here is how this happened:

For many years South Africa’s white minority governed the country through a policy of apartheid – racial segregation and discrimination intended to favor whites and continue white rule. Under the 1950 Population Registration Act, South Africa’s government classified individuals into three racial categories. These constituted Blacks, Whites and Coloureds. It was upon the basis of these classifications that apartheid functioned. It was also upon these classifications that parts of apartheid quickly began to approach the ludicrous.

The world, you see, is not just composed of black people and white people. South Africa’s apartheid system, however, found it hard to deal with those outside its black-and-white classification scheme.

Indians posed one challenge. Numbering more than one million, their presence derived from the trade links of the British Empire, which included colonial India. For white South Africans, Indians constituted a racial puzzle. Obviously they were not white. Yet it was also fairly obvious that they were not black or mixed. Eventually the government added a new category to its system – Indians (which was also termed Asians), who were deemed as having “no historical right to the country.”

The way South Africa dealt with East Asians was even more curious. Compared to Indians, very few resided in the country; practically all of those few were Chinese. Today pre-apartheid Chinese South Africans (and their descendants) number only about 10,000 to 12,000 – although many more have immigrated there since. For most Chinese South Africans (who were classified as the Chinese group of Coloureds), life was fairly similar to that of an Indian South African: they were discriminated against, but not as badly as black Africans.

South Africa, however, instituted several confounding exceptions to this rule. During the apartheid years, the internationally isolated country was quite hungry for foreign investment. As time passed on, a number of rich East Asian countries – Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan – did invest money into the country. In 1962, for instance, Japanese company “Yawata Iron & Steel Co. offered to purchase 5,000,000 tons of South African pig iron over a ten-year period.”

Remember that at this very moment East Asians were still being treated as Coloured, second-class citizens – forced to live in segregated facilities, prevented from going into white-only swimming pools, etc. South African officials realized, of course, that this would not do. To encourage continued Japanese investment, they carved out the “honorary white” rule. Japanese were to be treated, for all purposes and intents, as white. When South Korea and Taiwan began investing in South Africa, this rule was extended to Koreans and Taiwanese. It was not, however, ever applied to Chinese South Africans.

This created quite the strange dynamic. Some East Asian South Africans were white; some were not. Korean South Africans were white; Chinese South Africans were Coloured. If you were Taiwanese, you could presumably marry a white person – but marrying a Chinese person was against the law, which forbid interracial marriage. A Japanese individual could swim in the white-only swimming pools; a Chinese individual could not. When asked how this regulation would be enforced, one official admitted, “It would be extremely difficult for our gatekeepers to distinguish between Chinese and Japanese.”

Eventually, under a combination of international pressure and the leadership of Nelson Mandela, apartheid was brought to an end; it was a proud moment of the century. Under the new system, East Asians were initially classified as white due to the “honorary white” policy. In modern South Africa this is generally a bad thing – the government has instituted a far-reaching affirmative action program intended to reverse apartheid’s legacy. Apartheid-era Chinese South Africans thus waged a long fight to be recategorized as “blacks” – victims too of apartheid.

In the summer of 2008 South Africa’s courts agreed; today apartheid-era Chinese South Africans (and their descendants) are officially black. Chinese South Africans who came after apartheid’s end, however, still are “lumped together with whites.” Finally, most South Africans would probably regard East Asian South Africans as either Coloured or Asian (which generally means Indian in the country).

In other words, an East Asian person can be either white, black, or Indian Asian in South Africa.

Perhaps a better idea would be to stop differentiating people by skin color altogether.

Interesting Voting Patterns

February 23, 2010

It’s widely known that the Democratic Party rests upon a voting base of minorities – those who don’t completely fit within the American mainstream. After the Civil War, the states in the former Confederacy voted Democratic. When Catholics were discriminated against, they voted Democratic.

Today the most well-known Democratic minorities constitute blacks and Latinos. President Barack Obama’s coalition rested firmly upon these votes – a problem in mid-term elections, when these voters tend not to turn out.

There are, however, a lot of very Democratic minorities out there other than just blacks and Hispanics. Asians and Native Americans, for instance, vote Democratic. Immigrants have always tended to vote Democratic. Women also lean Democratic.

This can lead to quite interesting voting patterns.

For more than a generation (1932 to 1964), for instance, both blacks and segregationists voted Democratic. The Democratic Party’s tent was so wide it covered both Martin Luther King Jr. and George Wallace. At one time, Democratic politicians included both Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. – the first black congressman from New York – and Mississippi Senator James Eastland, who once said:

In every stage of the [Montgomery] bus boycott we have been oppressed and degraded because of black, slimy, juicy, unbearably stinking niggers…African flesh-eaters. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to abolish the Negro race, proper methods should be used. Among these are guns, bows and arrows, slingshots and knives…All whites are created equal with certain rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of dead niggers.

And to think both men called themselves Democrats!

Today the Democratic Party still creates strange alliances. It brings together groups which absolutely despise each other.

Take Jews. They have always voted extremely Democratic based upon social issues and discrimination from the main-stream. 77% of Jews voted for Obama.

So do Arabs. They have been alienated by former President Bush’s policies regarding the Middle East. In 2008 Zogby projected Democrats to win 68% of the Arab vote (I suspect that estimate low-balls the actual results).

When Jews and Arabs are both overwhelmingly voting the same way, that’s ironic. That’s the Democratic Party today.

Why Do Conservatives Push Climategate?

February 21, 2010

On any given day, if one is browsing through the current discussion on global warming, the topic of “Climategate” will often come up. Climategate alleges that climate scientists exaggerated the data to support global warming as part of their hidden agenda to push the theory.

Climategate will almost invariably be mentioned by a conservative commentator, seeking to attack the scientific consensus behind global warming. Conservative backing of Climategate is just another part of a long-standing pattern; for years, some conservatives have sought to deny the existence of global warming.

The point of this post is not to discuss the validity of Climategate. Scientists are not the all-seeing Gods society often labels them; they are humans too and prone to human errors. That does not mean that their conclusions are incorrect (notice how the controversial data always seems to be “exaggerated” but still actually backs global warming).

The puzzle, rather, is why some conservatives do this. There doesn’t seem to be a point to it, simply put. Conservative philosophy is not inherently anti-global warming; being a Republican does not necessarily mean one must believe global warming doesn’t exist.

This is different from other, more understandable stands a conservative might take. If a scientific study came out whose conclusions supported the pro-choice movement (e.g. fetuses don’t actually feel pain until they’re born, or something like that), it would make sense for conservatives to question the study. Being pro-life constitutes a fundamental part of conservative ideology; it goes with “traditional values” and “family.” Similarly, if a hypothetical study found that tax cuts are ineffective, one would also expect conservatives to attack it. This is because cutting taxes constitutes part of the conservative philosophy, which emphasizes smaller government and individualism.

In contrast, denying global warming does not have anything to do with what conservatives stand for. Unlike abortion or taxes, global warming is not an issue to be fought over but a coming challenge to be faced.

Moreover, there exists a conservative solution to the challenge. This is called cap-and-trade, which uses the power of the market to solve a fundamental problem. Conservatives are supposed to like this stuff; free markets constitute the bread-and-butter of their philosophy. Conservative President George H.W. Bush implemented a cap-and-trade program which essentially solved the problem of acid rain. In contrast, a liberal solution to global warming (one which many liberal institutions theoretically favor) would be a carbon tax, which uses government to solve the problem.

The problem, of course, is that that radical socialist Barack HUSSEIN Obama also supports cap-and-trade. As with so many issues facing the nation today, the stances of conservatives seem purely based upon being against what liberals favor (even if they favor conservative ideas such as cap-and-trade).

Now, to be fair, liberals also have a job to do. Too often their arguments have been made with the wrong tone: the type of arrogant, “I-am-better-than-you” style which does nothing more than harden stances on both sides. The scientific community is not exempt from this critique (if anything, it is even more guilty of claiming intellectual superiority over the rest of us mortals). When liberals label those who disbelieve global warming “idiots,” that does not convince conservatives that global warming is real.

Indeed, both sides must mature their stances with respect to the problem of global warming. Liberals ought to address conservative grievances with respect, not arrogant high-handedness. Conservatives ought to realize that questioning the existence of global warming has nothing to do with being a conservative and stop pushing nonsensical theories like “Climategate”.

Polarization: Past and Present

February 19, 2010

A number of commentators have lamented increasing polarization in Washington. Conventional wisdom has it that America is as divided and partisan as it ever has been. Sectional divisions are tearing this country apart and preventing problems such as the deficit from being addressed; the differences between blue America and red America, in this view, are rapidly approaching crisis point.

There is some justice to this view. Polarization has probably increased, by a number of metrics, over the past few elections. Indeed, I previously noted something to this exact effect.

Let’s take another look, however, at the hypothesis, using a different type of measurement. We will consider the composition of the House of Representatives, specifically examining partisan divisions by state. Do blue states elect Republican representatives, and vice versa? In a polarized nation, this would probably not be the case.

Here is a map of a House with a Republican majority:

This House was the result of 2002 congressional elections. Republicans had done well in the wake of 9/11, and they had a 232-201 majority.

In the map there are relatively few states with 80-100% of representatives from one party. Blue states elect Republicans; red states elect Democrats. Moreover; for some states (e.g. Delaware, the Dakotas) it is mathematically impossible to be less than 100% Democratic or Republican.

Here is the House today:

This is a fascinating map in that it almost perfectly matches the 2008 electoral college. One sees the Republican corridor of strength in the South and Mountain West. Most of the map is blue since Democrats have a 255-178 majority, the result of two previous Democratic landslides.

Let’s move back several decades:

The date is 1960; President John Kennedy has just been elected. Democrats hold a 258-177 majority, almost identical to that today.

There are a lot more “one-party states” compared to the current map. Sectional division is far more pronounced; there is a line between North and South that simply does not exist in today’s House. In 1960 – especially in the still-standing Solid South – blue states generally did not elect Republicans, and vice versa.

Polarization grows even worse if one goes back further. Here is 2002, once again:

Here is 1894:

Republicans have just won 130(!) seats. They hold a 254 to 93 majority.

In this incredible map, there are only six states with congressional delegations less than 80-100% from one party. In it one can literally trace the battlefields of the Civil War.

This is real polarization, the results of a nation so divided it had literally torn itself in two. This is the type of polarization that results from scars so deep that they took more than a century to heal.

Perhaps today America is indeed growing more polarized, more divided into red states and blue states. But when one compares the present situation to past ones, there is literally no comparison. The United States has a long way to go before it gets as polarized as it did during the latter half of the 19th century.

Terrible News for Democrats

February 17, 2010

Democrats ought to be quite worried about recent events, which will greatly help Republican efforts to retake the Senate. They forebode something quite ominous for the November 2010 mid-term elections.

I am talking, of course, of the February 5th unemployment report, in which unemployment declined from 10.0% to 9.7% (sorry politics buffs, this post is not about Senator Evan Bayh).

On the surface this sounds like good news; any decline in unemployment is good for the economy as a whole. Good economic news correlates directly to Democratic performance in November. If unemployment continued to decline substantially until November, then Democrats would be in pretty good shape.

Unfortunately for both the country and Democrats, the White House forecast is nowhere near as optimistic. It predicts unemployment to remain in the double-digits throughout 2010. By 2012, when President Barack Obama faces re-election, the unemployment rate is still projected to be around 8% (see page seven of the report for specific numbers).

Figures like these almost guarantee massive Democratic losses in 2010. No amount of political posturing or campaign rhetoric can change this reality. Moreover, if the White House forecast holds true for 2012, Mr. Obama will face a very tough re-election campaign.

Unless a sudden unanticipated economic boom begins tomorrow, the short-term future for Democrats remains bleak. The medium term looks stormy too. Time for a new jobs bill, and quick.