As we are constantly reminded, America is becoming an ever-more diverse nation. Whites will be a minority by mid-century. Some perceive this to be an unalloyed good. But it appears that few proponents of affirmative action are prepared to consider the dangers of quotas in a multiethnic society. A survey of other nations’ experiences with this policy reveals sobering consequences. At best: social strife, inefficiency, endemic public corruption, and nepotism. At worst: tribalized violence and warfare.

In Malaysia, after the British colonial administration departed, the fledgling nation faced simmering ethnic tensions among native Malays (bumiputeras/“sons of the soil”) and overseas Chinese and Indians. After race riots and the balkanization of political parties along ethnic lines, the Malaysian government promulgated a vast quota system to boost the Malay majority. This system ranged from the customary university sinecures and public contract set-asides to reserved storefront spots in public spaces. The term “Ali Baba” there describes an arrangement wherein “Ali,” the native Malay, acts as a frontman for the actual Chinese/Indian business owner “Baba.” Despite state discrimination, the overseas Chinese and Indians remain far wealthier and better educated than native Malays.


India’s reticular caste system poses unique problems. Legions of ethnic groups seek categorization as “backwards classes.” Each locality has its own hierarchy of quotas. Despite its intricacy, government discrimination still produces tension and violence. In Maharashtra, the paramilitary Shiv Sena jealously guards ethnic spoils systems. Successful Bengalis in the state of Assam have encountered violence from aggrieved natives. Scions of the upper-castes have self-immolated protesting quotas that limit their opportunities. Many reserved spots for Dalits (“untouchables”) and other backwards classes either go unfilled—especially in high-skill occupations like engineering—or go to the “creamy layer” (i.e., the most advantaged members of putatively marginalized groups).

In Brazil, applicants for university and government jobs are boosted by Afro-Brazillian or pardo (brown) status. Inspection boards use detailed guidelines—including fine gradations of skin-tone and measurements of lip size, hair texture, skull shape, and nose width—to ferret out Europeans from those of genuine Indigenous and African descent (given the high rate of intermixing, this is a fraught endeavor). Desperate strivers blacken their skin or otherwise modify their appearance to gain an edge.

The Policy of Standardization in Sri Lanka contributed to a bloody civil war between Tamil and Sinhalese. Similarly in Nigeria, state-backed ethnic privileges propelled civil war and the short-lived state of Biafra. Now, the national constitution requires the composition of government to “reflect the federal character of Nigeria” in order to stave off future friction and ensure proportional representation. But, as one scholar puts it:

The postwar desire to prevent another secession generated a near obsessive ethnic micromanaging of national life—and created a nation that exists almost simply to share money and jobs. “Federal character” became the most controversial two words in Nigeria’s Constitution. An ethnic quota regulates almost every facet of public life: Admission to the government and the Civil Service, schools and universities, the military and the police is decided by regional origin.

And:

Rather than working as a glue for unity, the fixation on ethnic sharing of national opportunities and resources made Nigerians more aware of their ethnic differences. Resentment rose in parts of the country badly served by the quota system. The irony is plain: To prevent the recurrence of a war fought at least partly on ethnic lines… Nigeria’s rulers solidified ethnic identities.
https://quillette.com/2020/07/03/affirmative-action-in-a-multiethnic-nation/

so when are you farkln off back to that sh1thole you came from?

Frank wrote on Jul 25^th, 2020 at 5:22pm:



What part of my comment was  difficult for you to understand?

It goes without saying, that 'progression' and reward in any field of endeavour, absolutely needs to be based solely upon a persons merit and competence.


Dictionary;
merit = = excellence; worth.   an examination grade denoting above-average performance.



We should never allow important and 'demanding' tasks to given to incompetent, or corrupt persons.




Q.
If your child were taken into hospital, for emergency brain surgery....
....would you want your child's surgeon to have been employed/selected, based upon his/her competence in that specialist field ?

Or would it be OK for the surgeon [who would operate upon your child], to have been selected based upon some quota based system ?

A system which gave advancement in a hospitals surgical team, to a person [largely] because of the surgeon's minority ethnic status ?



IMO, the same principle must apply to all situations [for advancement] in our society.

Frank wrote on Jul 30^th, 2020 at 7:40pm:


And you know that Rome was one of the most diverse empires in classical antiquity - they granted citizenship to foreign nationalities and even had emperors and generals who weren't 'roman'.

The Achaemenid Empire was also very diverse and practised freedom of religion.

Setanta wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2020 at 8:13pm:


Absolutely they were. There were a myriad of cultures within the empire and they were quite tolerant of that diversity.

Setanta wrote on Aug 6^th, 2020 at 1:04pm:


It was more like - accept Roman rule or die. Those who were of a different culture but accepted Roman rule were tolerated, but if they rose up against the state, then they were put down.

Multiculturalism - Fawlty Towers.