Sep. 14th, 2023

In the face of mounting evidence that Soviet politics was becoming increasingly unstable, Hough persisted in presenting Mikhail Gorbachev as entirely in control until the Soviet leader was stripped of all power in the fall of 1991. Gorbachev, he argued, had a strategy and "acted as if he needed to create conditions of controlled chaos." Even when the failed putsch of August 1991 appeared to have greatly diminished his authority vis-à-vis Russian President Boris Yeltsin, Hough claimed that Gorbachev "[came] out strengthened” and that real power had shifted to a "council of republics" that he controlled. The Gorbachev fixation was at its peak at the plenary session of the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies (AAASS), in Miami in November, when Hough stated, to the puzzlement of the audience that had filled a banquet hall, that Gorbachev was still "in firm charge," and that Yeltsin was "little more than [his] puppet." Sixteen days later, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus dissolved the Soviet Union in the Belovezh Accords.

Dominique Arel "Jerry Hough, Scholar and Entrepreneur"
"Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History"
Volume 22, Number 3, Summer 2021
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/801247
These were some of the opinions I took with me, as background to my training in anthropology, when I began my study of the modem political and social systems of Zululand in 1936. I had behoved that chiefs were oppressive and unrepresentative of their people. I soon collected data that corrected this opinion for the Zulu chiefs, whom in my first analysis, written in the field for African Political Systems (edited by Fortes and Evans-Pritchard, 1940), I saw as contraposed absolutely as representatives of their people against South African government officials. I saw this situation of chief versus native commissioner as set in the hostility of the color groups, with Africans subordinate, for the discussions I heard among Zulu confirmed the early impressions I had formed in Johannesburg. I did not send this first analysis, written in terms of a series of hatreds and oppositions, to Fortes and Evans-Pritchard, for after reading it through, I asked myself: "How is it that people. Black and White, go about their business so easily, relatively peacefully, and accommodatingly, despite these hatreds and hostilities?" And I remembered that they had done so in Johannesburg, despite clashes and oppression. Therefore I sought for, and found, bases of "cohesion." The South African social system was then, and has become increasingly, a horrible one, morally. But it worked and works, in total and in its parts.

Max Gluckman "Tribal Area in South and Central Africa"
("Pluralism in Africa" (Edited by Leo Kuper and M. G. Smith) University of Caiifornia Press. 1971, p.p. 374-375)

https://archive.org/details/isbn_520018729
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Gluckman
Оказывается, в Англии с середины апреля прошлого года стали публиковать ежедневную статистику по числу нелегальных иммигрантов, переплывающих Ла-Манш на разного рода надувных моторках, шлюпках и чем-то в этом роде.

Так как слово "нелегальные иммигранты" сейчас считается нехорошим, то их какое-то время именовали (а где-то и продолжают именовать) "irregular migrants" (не знаю, как это лучше перевести) или даже просто "мигрантами". В справке 2021 года, где приводятся интересные сравнительные данные по Италии, Испании и Греции за период 2016-2020 годы, их называют "migrants arriving without authorisation" - https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-migrants-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats

Как ни странно, тех, кого сейчас судят по делу о вторжении в здание конгресса 6 января 2021 года, "irregular visitors" или "visitors without authorization" почему-то не называют. Лингвистика - штука сложная. Впрочем, это офф-топик.

Сейчас, правда, в официальных заявлениях английских властей выражение "нелегальные иммигранты" снова активно используется.

Английская статистика сначала публиковалась в виде ежемесячных сводок, потом еженедельными сводками, сейчас ежедневными.

Ежемесячные сводки - https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-monthly-data
Еженедельные сводки - https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-weekly-data
Ежедневные сводки (за последние семь дней) - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-last-7-days
Ежедневные сводки за 2023 год - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats
(по последнему линку выкладывается постоянно обновляемый .ods файл с постоянно меняющимся называнием).

Судя по всему, практически все эти моторки приплывают вполне организованным образом, колонистов встречают или на берегу, или еще в море (это видно из крайне незначительного числа т.н. "uncontrolled landings", которые в 2022 году случались где-то раз в месяц, а в 2023 году вообще прекратились).

Как рассказал премьер-министр 13 декабря 2022 года, правительство расселяло прибывающих колонистов по гостиницам и платило за их проживание по пять с половиной миллионов фунтов в день - https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-illegal-migration-13-december-2022

Интересно, что поток новых колонистов не равномерен, а сильно скачет по дням. Судя по цифрам, они чаще всего плывут не случайным образом, а флотилиями. Видимо, эти походы заранее готовятся где-то на французском берегу.

Максимальное число лодок было 22 августа 2022 года - в этот день на 27 лодках прибыло без малого 1300 человек. 3, 4 и 22 сентября, 9 и 29 октября, 12 и 13 ноября 2022 года число лодок снова превысило два десятка. При этом по целым неделям нет ни одной лодки вообще. В 2023 году максимальное число "посетителей без разрешения" было буквально на днях, 2 сентября - приплыло 872 человека на 15 лодках (несмотря на всякие новые законы и все такое прочее)

Я не уловил, что происходит с моторками после того, как колонисты высадятся на берегу. Вряд ли они отправляются обратно во Францию. Так что, надо полагать, существует отдельный бизнес по приобретению этих лодок во Франции, доставке их к месту отправления, установке моторов и т.д. Бизнес, судя по всему, вполне процветающий.

Не очень уловил, как этот вопрос решается во Франции, но, как мне показалось, последняя совместная англо-французская бумага по этому поводу была в 2021 году (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-france-joint-statement-next-phase-of-tackling-illegal-migration), после чего англичане, похоже, решили действовать самостоятельно.

В итоге в июле нынешнего 2023 года был принят специальный закон - "Illegal Migration Act 2023":
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/illegal-migration-bill
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/illegal-migration-bill-overarching-factsheet
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/tackling-myths-factsheet-illegal-migration-bill
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-relating-to-the-illegal-migration-bill
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3429
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/37/enacted

Закон длинный-предлинный, я его, признаюсь, не читал.

Более того - оказывается, в Англии есть специальная должность под названием "министр нелегальной иммиграции" (Minister for Illegal Migration) - https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/parliamentary-under-secretary-of-state--157

5 сентября министр внутренних дел Роберт Дженрик выступил с заявлением - "Minister Jenrick's statement on illegal migration":
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/minister-jenricks-statement-on-illegal-migration

В заявлении перемешаны в кучу вещи здравые и глупые.

К числу здравых относятся рассказы о том, как удалось урегулировать ситуацию с Албанией, после чего число албанских иммигрантов упало почти до нуля.

К числу бесконечно глупых относится его гордое хвастовство тем, что иммигрантов, уже добравшихся до Англии и находящихся в стране, целенаправленно лишают возможности работать, иметь крышу над головой и счет в банке.

Тут я могу только повторить то, что написал в далеком 2015 году:

Из всех газетно-бюрократических штампов, вошедших в современный язык, первое место по идиотизму и гнусности должны занимать выражения "разрешение на работу" и "незаконно работающий".

Это вообще позор нашего времени, что такие словосочетания используются как нечто естественное и не вызывают немедленный рвотный рефлекс.


https://bbb.livejournal.com/2867736.html


Обнаружилась еще и такая неожиданная вещь, как придумывание особого научного подхода к выявлению возраста колонистов, претендующих на особые привилегии, положенные несовершеннолетним - "New Illegal Migration Act measures and age dispute assessment tests" (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-illegal-migration-act-measures-and-age-dispute-assessment-tests)

Утверждается, что эта система уже применяется в Дании, Норвегии и Швеции.
Очень наглядная иллюстрация того, как надо относиться к социологическим опросам. Если в двух словах (точнее, одним словом) - скептически. То есть сначала вчитываться в формулировки вопросов, а только потом - в цифры ответов.

******************************************************************

Frank Newport
The Harvard Affirmative Action Case and Public Opinion
October 22, 2018
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/243965/harvard-affirmative-action-case-public-opinion.aspx

Gallup polls have shown that a majority - although not a super majority - of Americans favor the broad, conceptual idea of "affirmative action for racial minorities." Responses to this question are to some degree affected by the context in which it is asked, but our most recent updates show that 54% to 58% of the public favors affirmative action for racial minorities.

A question asked by the Pew Research Center focuses more specifically on college, asking about "affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses." Pew found 71% of Americans said that this was a good thing.

Neither of these questions explains what specific actions these affirmative action programs would involve. The Gallup question does not define "affirmative action" at all, leaving that to the understanding of the respondent. The Pew question doesn't define the specifics of the affirmative action programs beyond saying that the result would be to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses.

When specifics are outlined for respondents, support drops. In 2016, Gallup, in conjunction with Inside Higher Ed, asked a question about the then-recent Supreme Court decision in "Fisher v. University of Texas", worded as follows: "The Supreme Court recently ruled on a case that confirms that colleges can consider the race or ethnicity of students when making decisions on who to admit to the college. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the Supreme Court's decision?"

The results: 31% approval and 65% disapproval, a sharp reversal from what the broad affirmative action results show.

This result is underscored by answers to another question in the Gallup-Inside Higher Ed study. This interrogation gave Americans a list of nine different factors that colleges and universities may consider in making admissions decisions and asked the respondents to say if each should be a major factor, a minor factor or not a factor at all in college admissions.

The list was designed to encompass most of the types of things that selective college admissions officers say are potentially taken into account in the effort to produce a holistically diverse student body. These include grades, standardized test scores, the types of courses a student takes in high school, family economic circumstances, whether the student would be the first in the family to attend college, athletic ability, parental alumni status, race and ethnicity, and gender.

The public's opinion was clear. Majorities said that high school grades (73%) and scores on standardized tests (55%) should be major factors in college admissions, while 50% said that the types of courses the student took should be a major factor. Well less than half said any of the other six factors should be major considerations. This includes in particular race or ethnicity, which 9% of Americans believe should be a major factor, 27% a minor factor and 63% not a factor at all in college admissions.

The public, at least without further explanation or rationale, simply doesn't like the idea of colleges taking race or ethnicity into account in admissions decisions. Admissions decisions, the public is in essence saying, should be blind to the race and ethnicity of the applicant.

(The survey also included a measure of how well the respondents indicated that they understood the college admissions process. Those who said that they were most familiar with the college admissions process did not differ significantly from those who did not.)

The previous questions didn't attempt to explain the reasons why Harvard and other colleges might argue that it is now a good (or affirmative) thing to take race and ethnicity into account. These reasons include the idea that doing so helps compensate for historical discrimination and other cultural and social factors that affect grades and standardized test scores for certain groups, and also helps create a diverse student body.

A separate question Gallup has asked four times between 2003 and 2016 does provide an explanation for the two sides of this argument:

"Which comes closer to your view about evaluating students for admission into a college or university - [ROTATED: applicants should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results in few minority students being admitted (or) an applicant's racial and ethnic background should be considered to help promote diversity on college campuses, even if that means admitting some minority students who otherwise would not be admitted]?"


The wording of this question can be debated, and some may argue that the two sides of the argument are not adequately represented. But the key is to consider how Americans react when they hear these specific arguments. And the answer to that is clear. Each of the four times Gallup has asked this question over a 13-year time period, between 67% and 70% of Americans chose the "solely on merit" option.

(We recently asked a variant of this question in terms of hiring for jobs and found the same pattern of results. Americans tilt strongly toward the idea of merit as the criteria for hiring, not race and ethnicity.)

The most important conclusion from all of these data is that Americans do not like the idea of colleges using race and ethnicity as a factor in decisions on college admissions. This is true even when it is explained that this would help increase the diversity of the student body while admitting students who otherwise might not be admitted.

It's possible that Americans, in answering these questions about college admissions, are thinking of the historically negative discrimination practices based on individuals' racial and ethnic characteristics, practices that were made illegal by historic civil rights rulings and legislation in the 1950s and 1960s.

At the same time, the broader concept of affirmative action receives more positive reaction from Americans. The key then is what Americans are thinking of when they hear the words "affirmative action." Apparently it is not setting differential standards for admissions based on an applicant's race or ethnicity. It could be that affirmative action connotes to Americans an outreach that encourages more individuals with certain racial and ethnic characteristics to apply (something Harvard does). It could be that affirmative action connotes efforts to increase the high school preparation for individuals with certain racial and ethnic characteristics to put them in a more competitive position for admissions decisions. Or respondents could favor the idea simply because they applaud the result - more diversity in a student body - without thinking much about how that result is brought about.

Profile

borislvin

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718 19 2021
22232425262728
2930     

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 12th, 2025 03:25 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios