NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you for or against affirmative action?
Why?

So we have affirmative action, which as I understand is giving so called "minorities" a heads up in the world. I ask, "how is this suppose to increase equality I ask?" In simple terms it does not, because how long must it be in place before we are all equal? Wouldn't a better solution be that we ignore said differences and encourage national pride as opposed to racial pride? In short I believe that affirmative action only increases the race barrier.

Emperor of Utopiatology

"I got off the plane in North Africa, and thought to myself, 'look at all the minorities'.."

Affirmative action is just as evil as anti-discrimination or mandatory discrimination laws, because it infringes upon the property and association rights of individuals.

Are you for or against affirmative action?
Why?

Affirmative action is evil because it violates property rights when forced on private associations by the state.

In public institutions, it's evil because it's racist bullshit. But what the hey? When a government policy pisses you off that much, you should just joke about it. Here's a 3-minute speech I gave on it at a Student Congress (I got the highest score possible on it AND was voted a 1st for that session):


Imagine this. One morning you’re eating breakfast when the police suddenly break into your house and arrest you. You’re then brought before a judge, who explains that somebody else with your same skin color has committed a crime. Therefore, you’re being punished for it. A jury, hearing this case from hundreds of miles away, finds you guilty. Since it’s your first offense, you are only made to issue an apology. But now you have a crime on your record, and so you are denied admission from the college of your choice.
This story may sound far-fetched, but in reality, it is the perfidious face of the modern civil rights movement, which has completely betrayed the noble ideals of yesteryear.
Today, ‘civil rights’ has become a corrupt, ugly chimera of racism and hypocrisy. Yesteryear, it fought against state-sanctioned racism. Today, it fights for it. Yesteryear, it fought against legal segregation. Today, it fights for it and calls it diversity. Today, it advocates affirmative action, which is the use of state power to enforce racial associations it deems desirable. It is just like the Jim Crow Laws or the SS Totenkopf. And it is exactly the kind of thing that has been getting our country into trouble for the last four hundred years.
A common fallacy about affirmative action is that it isn’t zero-sum. This math-defying claim is that affirmative action somehow helps some races without harming others. Former KKK leader David Duke said that the KKK wasn’t anti-black; it was pro-white. Today, we’d call such people racists. So why do we find the equally insidious opposite view acceptable?
Affirmative action means that people are not judged by personal merit, but rather by skin color. A 1993 Sowell study showed that the average SAT score for black students at Berkeley was 952. It was 1232 for whites and 1254 for Asians. Three hundred SAT points can make quite a difference. So stop studying and go inject yourself with melanin! You’re in diversity land! The FAA published a ‘diversity handbook’ in 1995, which said, “The merit promotion process is but one means of filling vacancies, which need not be utilized if it will not promote your diversity goals.” Yep. Qualified applicants need not apply. Promotions will be based on irrelevant physical characteristics that you have no control over. The US General Accounting Office has also confirmed that prestigious universities such as UCLA, Berkeley, MIT, and the University of Wisconsin had engaged in systematic discrimination in the failure to admit highly qualified Asian students based solely on their race. Now, if this happened to black students, we’d be tied up in lawsuits until we became an imperial province of Canada.
But ironically, it’s the minorities who are hurt most by affirmative action. When California ended it, the percentage of whites at UCLA and Berkeley actually fell, due to the skyrocketing percentage of Asian students. The use of affirmative action makes an excellent justification for racial profiling. And it can also be construed as labeling blacks and Hispanics as incompetent, thus affirming the vilest doctrines of racism.
So, after four centuries of trying, we’ve finally come up with a racial policy that white supremacists and multiculturalists can agree on. Now we can vote ourselves into Harvard.
I guess it’d be wrong to call that stupid. It’s sleazy too.

In agreement. And I don't know the racial background of those who have posted earlier, but I am Korean. Definately a visible minority. Why am I against affirmative action? Because of what has been said previously. Plain and simple, it's reverse discrimnation and a step towards superiority and not equality... but this time a superiority of minorities. If someone that is white is better qualified than me for a particular position, why should affirmative action then give the less competent person the job?

It simply doesn't work, and besides, visible minorities already have such an advantage that affirmative action is just wanting to eat the cake that you already have, and then pooing it out and stuffing it in everyone else's face.

Really? I'm Chinese, and I have family in Seoul.

FYA affirmative action doesn't help all minorities, just ones with political clout. Asians don't have things like the NAACP and don't make up over 1/8 of the population, therefore they are harmed by affirmative action.

Affirmative action is a policy that discrimates against ethnicities.

Those of you who support affirmative action ought to consider another idea: base it on socioeconomic status instead of race. Those minorities which need help because they're underprivileged would still get help. It gets rid of the racism inherent to the current system. The present concept would support the black doctor's son over the white janitor's son -- think carefully, are you trying to help black people or poor people?

In response to Santin: Doesn't a policy based on socioeconomic status send the message of "hey, if you don't work for it, you can still get it"?

In response to Santin: Doesn't a policy based on socioeconomic status send the message of "hey, if you don't work for it, you can still get it"?

That is a risk, yes. I feel that the greater risk here is the immense potential for an ever widening gap between the rich and poor classes of society. Capitalist society -- or the concept that people should rise and fall based on their own merits, at least -- is based on a faulty assumption that everyone has the same beginning value. When the rich kids get a superior education, they'll continue to get the superior jobs, whereas the undereducated "lazy slobs" will never be able to afford the education to get their children into good schools and the subsequent good jobs. You can probably see where I'm going with that.

EDIT: I should probably clarify that I'm not a very staunch advocate of affirmative action. I think it's a concept that should be studied in far more detail than it has before we can declare it useful or not (ie: What are the dropout rates and grades, on average, of AA admissions against the full student body?).

Affirmative action is a policy that discrimates against ethnicities.

Yes/no, in the United States under Title VII of the civil rights acts, it says that all federal facilities or facilities that receive government grants in excess of $50k must make positive steps to increase the diversity of said facility. What this essentially means (as taught in most human resource classes) is that your facilty/company/school must have a proportionate number of each race and gender (note that women are women no matter their skin color) to the surrounding area. This means that if the company exists in a 50% asian community, then 50% of your employees must be asain, or pretty damn close. The same goes for women, black, hispanics, etc. Now reducing people down to there skin color and gender seems pretty racist/sexist to me and I think that intelligent people should be able to look beyond phenotypical differences.

I'm white, Swedish white, Arian if you will, and though I have my bias, I try to work around them, and the only reason I know that people are "different" is because I was taught that people certian were "oppressed," which is important to understand, but as a result I learned that we were not all the same. So I pose a question, if we don't have our differences shoved down our throat, how long before we can look past skin color and national background.

Emporer of Utopiatology

"When was the last time you saw a woman fight to be a ditch digger?"

Affirmative action is a policy that discrimates against ethnicities.

Yes/no, in the United States under Title VII of the civil rights acts, it says that all federal facilities or facilities that receive government grants in excess of $50k must make positive steps to increase the diversity of said facility. What this essentially means (as taught in most human resource classes) is that your facilty/company/school must have a proportionate number of each race and gender (note that women are women no matter their skin color) to the surrounding area. This means that if the company exists in a 50% asian community, then 50% of your employees must be asain, or pretty damn close. The same goes for women, black, hispanics, etc. Now reducing people down to there skin color and gender seems pretty racist/sexist to me and I think that intelligent people should be able to look beyond phenotypical differences.

I'm white, Swedish white, Arian if you will, and though I have my bias, I try to work around them, and the only reason I know that people are "different" is because I was taught that people certian were "oppressed," which is important to understand, but as a result I learned that we were not all the same. So I pose a question, if we don't have our differences shoved down our throat, how long before we can look past skin color and national background.

Emporer of Utopiatology

"When was the last time you saw a woman fight to be a ditch digger?"

Title VII should be gotten rid of then. How about hire the most qualified people and screw "diversity"? Affirmative Action is the ENFORCEMENT OF RACIAL ASSOCIATIONS THAT ITS ADVOCATES DEEM DESIRABLE.

That statement also describes the Nazi concentration camp policy pretty well.

Race doesn't exist. But let's say that it did, and you justified affirmative action with it:

- Fewer minority people are getting into college. Therefore state intervention is justified to increase the number of minorities in colleges.
It follows that:
- Minorities are more likely to commit crimes. Therefore state intervention is justified to monitor ALL minorities constantly to see if they're commiting crimes.
And of course it also justifies that:
- We were attacked by Mid Eastern terrorists. Therefore, all Mid Easterners are terrorists and we should lock them all up.
And the ultimate racist delusion:
- One race is superior to the other races. We should deport or kill all the other races in the interest of racial peace.

The ONLY difference between Affirmative Action and the Jim Crow Laws is the skin color of the victims.

Oh and just for the record: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION STATISTICALLY HURTS ASIANS EVEN MORE THAN WHITES

I'm Asian and I hate it when people say that affirmative action helps me

In response to Santin: Doesn't a policy based on socioeconomic status send the message of "hey, if you don't work for it, you can still get it"?

That is a risk, yes. I feel that the greater risk here is the immense potential for an ever widening gap between the rich and poor classes of society. Capitalist society -- or the concept that people should rise and fall based on their own merits, at least -- is based on a faulty assumption that everyone has the same beginning value. When the rich kids get a superior education, they'll continue to get the superior jobs, whereas the undereducated "lazy slobs" will never be able to afford the education to get their children into good schools and the subsequent good jobs. You can probably see where I'm going with that.

EDIT: I should probably clarify that I'm not a very staunch advocate of affirmative action. I think it's a concept that should be studied in far more detail than it has before we can declare it useful or not (ie: What are the dropout rates and grades, on average, of AA admissions against the full student body?).

Affrimative action should not be used on a socioeconomic scale. Let me give you the following scenarios that makes it impossible:

An extremely poor person who's parents put a great emphasis on education WILL have an advantage over a wealthy person who's parents don't care about education. Should the poor person still get a.a. benefits?

Some families [despite what your socialist propaganda says, my own family is an example of this] may be extremely poor for most of my life then become relatively wealthy at the time I apply to college. Do I get helped or harmed by a.a.? I mean I started high school at a disadvantage compared to others thus hurting grades/rank at my school even though my high school education is probably better than most people in America.

Why should someone who's parents make $50,000 be given a leg-down against someone who's parents make $49,999? Any sort of wealth division is arbitrary.

Add to that all of the problems that already exist for race-based affirmative action such as the inherent zero-sum nature of the game, unfairness towards one arbitrarily established group, etc., etc.

There is already affirmative action for poor people -- it's called financial aid. There's no reason to give them a legs up in teh admissions process just because they are poor. PERSONAL MERIT people.

If you REALLY want to help the poor, we need to reform the school system at the grade school/high school level through privatizing teh school and offering tax credits for people to go there. That would allow poor people who, at age 5, have greater personal merit than rich people at the same age, to get into the best private schools. And money makes very little difference in intellectual development at age 5.

Socioeconomic affirmative action isn't nearly as bad as racial affirmative action, but it's still bad and I would perfer to keep meritocracy in unversities. They ARE, after all, supposed to be places of scholarship.

In my opinion, the whole reason for this entire thing, this entire problem of discrimination and imbalance of people, is that people don't want to spend the time or energy on getting to know other people. Classifying people as races instead of individuals helps to save time in making an assessment of them, whether or not that assessment is at all accurate.

There are plenty of people and not enough jobs... why don't we start hiring people to get to know other people and give accurate assessments of them to save other people time and effort and to avoid everyone being boiled down to their "race" (which I agree is a nonexistant concept anyway) and their socioeconomic status? It'd be a hell of a lot better than spending all our money on an oversized and overly-aggressive military like we've been doing.

And my boyfriend is white and college educated, and he comes from a somewhat lower-class background. He had to work his butt off to get through college, which he paid for himself. He can't get himself a decent job now, just because he's white. Because his ancestors share a skin-tone with the people who decided to enslave a bunch of people with a different skin tone, generations before he was born. That's pretty sleazy, especially since he's not rich like white people are "supposed" to be. Especially since almost all the learning he did during his middle and high school days he did on his own time because of an inadequate educational system, and regardless he is still brilliant.

Affirmative action hurts everyone except for those delusional enough to think that it does anything positive in the world.

In my opinion, the whole reason for this entire thing, this entire problem of discrimination and imbalance of people, is that people don't want to spend the time or energy on getting to know other people. Classifying people as races instead of individuals helps to save time in making an assessment of them, whether or not that assessment is at all accurate.

There are plenty of people and not enough jobs... why don't we start hiring people to get to know other people and give accurate assessments of them to save other people time and effort and to avoid everyone being boiled down to their "race" (which I agree is a nonexistant concept anyway) and their socioeconomic status? It'd be a hell of a lot better than spending all our money on an oversized and overly-aggressive military like we've been doing.

And my boyfriend is white and college educated, and he comes from a somewhat lower-class background. He had to work his butt off to get through college, which he paid for himself. He can't get himself a decent job now, just because he's white. Because his ancestors share a skin-tone with the people who decided to enslave a bunch of people with a different skin tone, generations before he was born. That's pretty sleazy, especially since he's not rich like white people are "supposed" to be. Especially since almost all the learning he did during his middle and high school days he did on his own time because of an inadequate educational system, and regardless he is still brilliant.

Affirmative action hurts everyone except for those delusional enough to think that it does anything positive in the world.

Exactly. Until we learn to see others as INDIVIDUALS, not as members of a RACE, we will NEVER have racial equality or peace or freedom.

But as I said before, it would be wrong to call affirmative action stupid. It's sleazy too.

I don't believe that there should be affirmative action, but the government should keep an eye to see whether or not the workforce is discriminating in a bad way.

I don't believe that there should be affirmative action, but the government should keep an eye to see whether or not the workforce is discriminating in a bad way.

There should be ZERO discrimination in instutitons recieving public funding, but private instutitons have the right to discriminate against whoever the hell they want. It's called property rights. If you don't want to let Hispanic people into your house, you don't have to. If you don't want to let people with moles on their faces into your house, you don't have to. Any other system is inherently oppressive and bad.

There should be ZERO discrimination in instutitons recieving public funding, but private instutitons have the right to discriminate against whoever the hell they want. It's called property rights. If you don't want to let Hispanic people into your house, you don't have to. If you don't want to let people with moles on their faces into your house, you don't have to. Any other system is inherently oppressive and bad.

I don't think you get it.

Is it "oppressive and bad" to have laws against murder? Or is it your right to shoot whoever you want?

Private enterprise needs to be heavily regulated - and anti-discrimination laws are one of the ways to do so. People have rights, but they don't have the right to violate the rights of others.

Affirmitave action is a policy that I reluctantly support. We live in a racist society, despite the efforts to make it better. Affirmitave action was created to counter that.

It doesn't "punish" anyone - all it does is forcibly give minorities the benefits that those in the majority already enjoy.

There should be ZERO discrimination in instutitons recieving public funding, but private instutitons have the right to discriminate against whoever the hell they want. It's called property rights. If you don't want to let Hispanic people into your house, you don't have to. If you don't want to let people with moles on their faces into your house, you don't have to. Any other system is inherently oppressive and bad.

I don't think you get it.

Is it "oppressive and bad" to have laws against murder? Or is it your right to shoot whoever you want?

Private enterprise needs to be heavily regulated - and anti-discrimination laws are one of the ways to do so. People have rights, but they don't have the right to violate the rights of others.

Affirmitave action is a policy that I reluctantly support. We live in a racist society, despite the efforts to make it better. Affirmitave action was created to counter that.

It doesn't "punish" anyone - all it does is forcibly give minorities the benefits that those in the majority already enjoy.

Murder violates someones rights. Refusal to associate violates no one's rights. If I refuse to be your friend, are your rights violated?

There is no right to kill someone. There is, however, a right to associate with whoever you feel like.

You need to educate yourself on teh nature of a zero-sum game. Affirmative action is a zero-sum game. This means that gains by one group are exactly matched by losses by another group.

You can't think in terms of majority or minority. Some individuals enjoy more benefits than other individuals. Society isn't divided along race lines. Racism is confined to a minority of people. Only by institing that we are a racist society will racism continue to exist.

And as I said before, affirmative action does NOT benefit minorities, only minorities with political clout. The University of Michigan's Law School has an affirmative action program that is clearly pro-black, while being anti-white, anti-Hispanic, anti-Asian, anti-Native American, and anti-everything else (There are four times as many black students as Hispanic students in the Law School, even though Hispanics outnumber blacks in the general population AND there are more Hispanics at the undergraduate level than blacks). In addition, Michigan's undergraduate school's program, before it was struck down, was pro-black and pro-Hispanic, while being anti-everything else. There isn't a National Association for the Advancement of Asian People or anything like that. This shows affirmative action for what it really is... a policy concieved by mostly racist scumbags and a few liberal idelogues and a policy that has made a mockery of civil rights.

Surely crimes have been committed against black people. Against individual black people. We don't arrest you whenever some other person of your same race commits a crime. That is the rationale behind affirmative action. And don't give me any of that BS about it not hurting whites and Asians, it's a zero-sum game. It's mathematically impossible for it not to hurt whites and Asians.

There should be ZERO discrimination in instutitons recieving public funding, but private instutitons have the right to discriminate against whoever the hell they want. It's called property rights. If you don't want to let Hispanic people into your house, you don't have to. If you don't want to let people with moles on their faces into your house, you don't have to. Any other system is inherently oppressive and bad.

I don't think you get it.

Is it "oppressive and bad" to have laws against murder? Or is it your right to shoot whoever you want?

Private enterprise needs to be heavily regulated - and anti-discrimination laws are one of the ways to do so. People have rights, but they don't have the right to violate the rights of others.

Affirmitave action is a policy that I reluctantly support. We live in a racist society, despite the efforts to make it better. Affirmitave action was created to counter that.

It doesn't "punish" anyone - all it does is forcibly give minorities the benefits that those in the majority already enjoy.

Murder violates someones rights. Refusal to associate violates no one's rights. If I refuse to be your friend, are your rights violated?

There is no right to kill someone. There is, however, a right to associate with whoever you feel like.

You need to educate yourself on teh nature of a zero-sum game. Affirmative action is a zero-sum game. This means that gains by one group are exactly matched by losses by another group.

You can't think in terms of majority or minority. Some individuals enjoy more benefits than other individuals. Society isn't divided along race lines. Racism is confined to a minority of people. Only by institing that we are a racist society will racism continue to exist.

I never said anything about violating anyone's right to choose their friends. Nor is there a law that says so - I don't see David Duke being forced to make friends with Jews.

However, discrimination in employment is another matter. You DO violate someone's rights by discriminating against them based on race. You DO NOT have the right, nor should you, to allow personal prejudices to influence your hiring practices. It isn't fair to those who are discriminated against.

Affirmative action does not solve all of society's problems; in fact, it solves very few. If it was a choice between affirmative action based on race or affirmative action based on income, I'd choose the latter every time. However, such programs need not be mutually exclusive.


By the way, if you make the case that more "racism" against whites is generated from programs such as affirmative action then is generated from our society as a whole against African-Americans, then I'm going to laugh.

Also if you OWN your place of employment you have teh right to hire whoever you want. If you own a farm, why does it violate someone's rights if you don't hire him?

That's the freedom of association.

I've throughouly refuted affirmative action based on income as ludicriously impractical and too easily abused. Affirmative action based on race is far worse, it's racist and evil.

If you really want to help the poor, improve education on the precollegiate level through privatization and tax credits. I've explained this in detail slightly earlier. Don't give poor people an excuse to slack off because they're poor.

The way I see it the only possible form of affirmative action that could be justified is affirmative action based on legacy. HOWEVER, this would of course only apply to Public Schools and none of them have huge legacy problems the way that Yale does.

Therefore, I stand AGAINST affirmative action.

Also if you OWN your place of employment you have teh right to hire whoever you want. If you own a farm, why does it violate someone's rights if you don't hire him?

That's the freedom of association.

I've throughouly refuted affirmative action based on income as ludicriously impractical and too easily abused. Affirmative action based on race is far worse, it's racist and evil.

If you really want to help the poor, improve education on the precollegiate level through privatization and tax credits. I've explained this in detail slightly earlier. Don't give poor people an excuse to slack off because they're poor.

The way I see it the only possible form of affirmative action that could be justified is affirmative action based on legacy. HOWEVER, this would of course only apply to Public Schools and none of them have huge legacy problems the way that Yale does.

Therefore, I stand AGAINST affirmative action.

If you really want to help the poor, you would privatize NOTHING. Rather, you would make education paid on a completely federal level, so poor areas have schools just as good as rich areas.

Affirmative action based on income doesn't give anyone a chance to "slack off." Rather, it addresses the fact that low-income families are unable to get their kids as good an education as higher-income families.

Oh, wait... do you think welfare is also an oppurtunity for poor families to "slack off"?

There's such a thing as worker's rights, you know. Capitalism cannot be unregulated because of "freedom." Workers have the right to form a union - even if their employers don't want them to - they have a right to fair wages, and they have a right to acceptable working conditions. They also have the right not to be discriminated against. Why should we give anyone the freedom to violate the rights of others?

I could understand a little temporary welfare to get the poor on their feet, but the current welfare system pays three times the minimum wage. In addition, TWICE as much as it would cost to take every poor American to the poverty line. It's government waste.

Large school districts tend to be run less efficiently than small ones. Average public schools recieve $10,000 per student per year and are run horribly, whereas some Catholic schools offer very good educations at $7,000 per student per year. In addition, suburban school districts with only one or two high schools almost ALWAYS outperform eight-high-school urban districts even though they recieve about the same amount of funding per student.

A privatized school system allows poor people to compete. At age 5, money doesn't make much of a difference. Smart people will get into better schools. Schools will still be funded federally, but they will be run privately to cut down on overhead costs.

As for worker's rights, workers DO have the right to form unions. That's the freedom of association.

They do NOT have the right to any wages or conditions unless their employer provides them. This is called property rights. If they don't like their current employer, they can find a new one that pays higher wages.

ALL employment is discrimination. Namely, its discriminating against people the company feels are unqualified. If its a private company, they have the right to make their decision [i.e. to associate with] anybody they want.

Workers have the same rights as anybody else. If a worker has the right to associate with whoever he wants, so does a boss.

I could understand a little temporary welfare to get the poor on their feet, but the current welfare system pays three times the minimum wage. In addition, TWICE as much as it would cost to take every poor American to the poverty line. It's government waste.

Large school districts tend to be run less efficiently than small ones. Average public schools recieve $10,000 per student per year and are run horribly, whereas some Catholic schools offer very good educations at $7,000 per student per year. In addition, suburban school districts with only one or two high schools almost ALWAYS outperform eight-high-school urban districts even though they recieve about the same amount of funding per student.

A privatized school system allows poor people to compete. At age 5, money doesn't make much of a difference. Smart people will get into better schools. Schools will still be funded federally, but they will be run privately to cut down on overhead costs.

Oh, please.

Welfare is not very much money at all. It is a worthwhile program to help the poor SURVIVE. You want them to get off their feet? Increase welfare, and increase the minimum wage greatly.

That will circulate more money throughout the economy.

And what convinces you that privately-run schools will do any better than government-run schools? The only difference is that there will be more administrative costs for the government to pay.

I could understand a little temporary welfare to get the poor on their feet, but the current welfare system pays three times the minimum wage. In addition, TWICE as much as it would cost to take every poor American to the poverty line. It's government waste.

Large school districts tend to be run less efficiently than small ones. Average public schools recieve $10,000 per student per year and are run horribly, whereas some Catholic schools offer very good educations at $7,000 per student per year. In addition, suburban school districts with only one or two high schools almost ALWAYS outperform eight-high-school urban districts even though they recieve about the same amount of funding per student.

A privatized school system allows poor people to compete. At age 5, money doesn't make much of a difference. Smart people will get into better schools. Schools will still be funded federally, but they will be run privately to cut down on overhead costs.

Oh, please.

Welfare is not very much money at all. It is a worthwhile program to help the poor SURVIVE. You want them to get off their feet? Increase welfare, and increase the minimum wage greatly.

That will circulate more money throughout the economy.

And what convinces you that privately-run schools will do any better than government-run schools? The only difference is that there will be more administrative costs for the government to pay.

1) Please look up the facts. Welfare is far more than needed to survive. Hawaii's welfare system pays the equivalent of $40,000 pretax income.

2) Private schools run better because there is less overhead and more discretion. It works this way. I've stated this before.

3) The minimum wage causes lost consumer surplus. Any first-year econ student will tell you that. It interferes with market equilibrium. By doing that, it in fact KEEPS workers poor and causes massive unemployment.

As for worker's rights, workers DO have the right to form unions. That's the freedom of association.

They do NOT have the right to any wages or conditions unless their employer provides them. This is called property rights. If they don't like their current employer, they can find a new one that pays higher wages.

ALL employment is discrimination. Namely, its discriminating against people the company feels are unqualified. If its a private company, they have the right to make their decision [i.e. to associate with] anybody they want.

Workers have the same rights as anybody else. If a worker has the right to associate with whoever he wants, so does a boss.

Labor cannot move like that. If one competes with better working conditions and wages, then his expenses go up, and so do his prices. he then loses out, because those with worse working conditions and wages have lower expenses and therefore cheaper prices. This is why unregulated capitalism has a tendency to screw the labor.

As for worker's rights, workers DO have the right to form unions. That's the freedom of association.

They do NOT have the right to any wages or conditions unless their employer provides them. This is called property rights. If they don't like their current employer, they can find a new one that pays higher wages.

ALL employment is discrimination. Namely, its discriminating against people the company feels are unqualified. If its a private company, they have the right to make their decision [i.e. to associate with] anybody they want.

Workers have the same rights as anybody else. If a worker has the right to associate with whoever he wants, so does a boss.

Labor cannot move like that. If one competes with better working conditions and wages, then his expenses go up, and so do his prices. he then loses out, because those with worse working conditions and wages have lower expenses and therefore cheaper prices. This is why unregulated capitalism has a tendency to screw the labor.

Where the hell do you live? Zambia?

Higher wages attract better workers. Eventually you reach a state of equilibrium where wrokers are paid what they deserve.

Germany has the highest minimum wage in Western Europe. It also has the highest unemployment, slowest economic growth, least chance for workers to move up the ranks, etc., etc.

I could understand a little temporary welfare to get the poor on their feet, but the current welfare system pays three times the minimum wage. In addition, TWICE as much as it would cost to take every poor American to the poverty line. It's government waste.

Large school districts tend to be run less efficiently than small ones. Average public schools recieve $10,000 per student per year and are run horribly, whereas some Catholic schools offer very good educations at $7,000 per student per year. In addition, suburban school districts with only one or two high schools almost ALWAYS outperform eight-high-school urban districts even though they recieve about the same amount of funding per student.

A privatized school system allows poor people to compete. At age 5, money doesn't make much of a difference. Smart people will get into better schools. Schools will still be funded federally, but they will be run privately to cut down on overhead costs.

Oh, please.

Welfare is not very much money at all. It is a worthwhile program to help the poor SURVIVE. You want them to get off their feet? Increase welfare, and increase the minimum wage greatly.

That will circulate more money throughout the economy.

And what convinces you that privately-run schools will do any better than government-run schools? The only difference is that there will be more administrative costs for the government to pay.

1) Please look up the facts. Welfare is far more than needed to survive. Hawaii's welfare system pays the equivalent of $40,000 pretax income.

2) Private schools run better because there is less overhead and more discretion. It works this way. I've stated this before.

3) The minimum wage causes lost consumer surplus. Any first-year econ student will tell you that. It interferes with market equilibrium. By doing that, it in fact KEEPS workers poor and causes massive unemployment.

Food and clothes aren't cheap, however much foreign slave labor might make them a little cheaper. The costs for food, clothes, shelter, and the like are rather high. And despite these "huge" welfare costs, the gap between rich and poor widens, as does the amount of money the rich possess...

Private schools care about profits, not teaching. Hence the problem. If the government pays no attention to them now, why should it later?

No private schools don't only care about profit. I go to a private school and all of its profits come from alumni donations. Most colleges are private. But they are places of learning, not profit. They charge tuition to give students a better experience. Even if they do, they provide a better education so more students will go there, hence more profit.

If you really think public schools are better than private ones, I would like to see you turn down a full scholarship at Harvard to go to your state's college.

As for worker's rights, workers DO have the right to form unions. That's the freedom of association.

They do NOT have the right to any wages or conditions unless their employer provides them. This is called property rights. If they don't like their current employer, they can find a new one that pays higher wages.

ALL employment is discrimination. Namely, its discriminating against people the company feels are unqualified. If its a private company, they have the right to make their decision [i.e. to associate with] anybody they want.

Workers have the same rights as anybody else. If a worker has the right to associate with whoever he wants, so does a boss.

Labor cannot move like that. If one competes with better working conditions and wages, then his expenses go up, and so do his prices. he then loses out, because those with worse working conditions and wages have lower expenses and therefore cheaper prices. This is why unregulated capitalism has a tendency to screw the labor.

Where the hell do you live? Zambia?

Higher wages attract better workers. Eventually you reach a state of equilibrium where wrokers are paid what they deserve.

Germany has the highest minimum wage in Western Europe. It also has the highest unemployment, slowest economic growth, least chance for workers to move up the ranks, etc., etc.

Higher wages increase expenses. Naturally, this causes prices to rise. Naturally, this allows competition to destroy the business. Naturally, that causes your entire argument to fall apart.

Since labor cannot be benefitted without severe consequences to the company, labor is not benefitted without government regulation.

Germany also has one of the highest standards of living in the world, along with the other "welfare states" of the world, namely Canada, Norway, Sweden, etc.

No private schools don't only care about profit. I go to a private school and all of its profits come from alumni donations. Most colleges are private. But they are places of learning, not profit. They charge tuition to give students a better experience. Even if they do, they provide a better education so more students will go there, hence more profit.

If you really think public schools are better than private ones, I would like to see you turn down a full scholarship at Harvard to go to your state's college.

That's not at all what I said. Of course private schools are better than public ones; however, the solution to that is improving public schools, not privatizing them.

Higher wages increase expenses. Naturally, this causes prices to rise. Naturally, this allows competition to destroy the business. Naturally, that causes your entire argument to fall apart.

Higher wages also cause better people to come work. This is why many high-demand jobs pay extremely high wages. Very few American make the minimum wage. This is because a company using the minimum wage to hire, say, computer programmers, won't get workers and won't stay in business for long. Companies and workers try to achieve a state of equilibrium that balances the profitability of the company and the worker. That is the wage that workers will be paid in a 100% capitalist economy.

Since labor cannot be benefitted without severe consequences to the company, labor is not benefitted.

Then labor will go somewhere where they are benefitted, and company will go out of business. Why do you think the average wage in capitalist countries is so much higher than socialist ones? The US is second only to Luxembourg.

Germany also has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Not exactly. And even if that's true, that won't be true in another generation when its no longer considered a high-income country.

Also about welfare-statism, have you read Brave New World? That's the ultimate welfare state. Everyone is happy! But when you read it, it's scarier than 1984 is. But in a more subtle way.

The Welfare-State is the deathknell of civilization. Rome fell when its Emperors began using the welfare-state's bread-and-circuses method of government.

No private schools don't only care about profit. I go to a private school and all of its profits come from alumni donations. Most colleges are private. But they are places of learning, not profit. They charge tuition to give students a better experience. Even if they do, they provide a better education so more students will go there, hence more profit.

If you really think public schools are better than private ones, I would like to see you turn down a full scholarship at Harvard to go to your state's college.

That's not at all what I said. Of course private schools are better than public ones; however, the solution to that is improving public schools, not privatizing them.

Why is it a bad thing that private schools are better than public ones? Oftentimes private schools take in LESS money per student than public ones and do better.

Most of the anti-black racism in the USA stems from affirmative action. Whites, Hispanics, and Asians resent being discriminated against because of their race. Robbing people because of their skin color is no way to make them disregard your own skin color. If you want to reduce racism, start by cleaning your own house.

Higher wages increase expenses. Naturally, this causes prices to rise. Naturally, this allows competition to destroy the business. Naturally, that causes your entire argument to fall apart.

Higher wages also cause better people to come work. This is why many high-demand jobs pay extremely high wages. Very few American make the minimum wage. This is because a company using the minimum wage to hire, say, computer programmers, won't get workers and won't stay in business for long. Companies and workers try to achieve a state of equilibrium that balances the profitability of the company and the worker. That is the wage that workers will be paid in a 100% capitalist economy.

Since labor cannot be benefitted without severe consequences to the company, labor is not benefitted.

Then labor will go somewhere where they are benefitted, and company will go out of business. Why do you think the average wage in capitalist countries is so much higher than socialist ones? The US is second only to Luxembourg.

Germany also has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Not exactly. And even if that's true, that won't be true in another generation when its no longer considered a high-income country.

That's because we're a high-tech economy, which makes things a little different. It still is true, however, that there are tremendous inequalities in income in the US.

AVERAGE wage is unimportant; try for MEDIAN wage next time, it means more.

For those who don't seem to comprehend the right of free association, try putting the shoe on the other foot: how about affirmative action to protect minority employers? Let's say your last two employers were white, you will now be required to work for a black employer. If the only black employer that offers you a job is a janitorial service but you have an IT degree, prepare to sweep floors! Minority employers have to be protected from your bigotry.

No private schools don't only care about profit. I go to a private school and all of its profits come from alumni donations. Most colleges are private. But they are places of learning, not profit. They charge tuition to give students a better experience. Even if they do, they provide a better education so more students will go there, hence more profit.

If you really think public schools are better than private ones, I would like to see you turn down a full scholarship at Harvard to go to your state's college.

That's not at all what I said. Of course private schools are better than public ones; however, the solution to that is improving public schools, not privatizing them.

Why is it a bad thing that private schools are better than public ones? Oftentimes private schools take in LESS money per student than public ones and do better.

Perhaps because private schools cost money, which means that the poor get a worse education, which means that they STAY poor?

Perhaps because private schools cost money, which means that the poor get a worse education, which means that they STAY poor?

Public schools cost money, too. You may think, "But it's paid for by taxes!" Well, that's what vouchers are -- tax funded private education. Many who've actually looked at the idea would call it the best of both worlds. You could consider them.

For those who don't seem to comprehend the right of free association, try putting the shoe on the other foot: how about affirmative action to protect minority employers? Let's say your last two employers were white, you will now be required to work for a black employer. If the only black employer that offers you a job is a janitorial service but you have an IT degree, prepare to sweep floors! Minority employers have to be protected from your bigotry.

That's a very good point.

Perhaps because private schools cost money, which means that the poor get a worse education, which means that they STAY poor?

Public schools cost money, too. You may think, "But it's paid for by taxes!" Well, that's what vouchers are -- tax funded private education. Many who've actually looked at the idea would call it the best of both worlds. You could consider them.

For those who don't seem to comprehend the right of free association, try putting the shoe on the other foot: how about affirmative action to protect minority employers? Let's say your last two employers were white, you will now be required to work for a black employer. If the only black employer that offers you a job is a janitorial service but you have an IT degree, prepare to sweep floors! Minority employers have to be protected from your bigotry.

That's a very good point.

In that case, the school that is benefitted by vouchers must have highly regulated services.

Perhaps because private schools cost money, which means that the poor get a worse education, which means that they STAY poor?

Public schools cost money, too. You may think, "But it's paid for by taxes!" Well, that's what vouchers are -- tax funded private education. Many who've actually looked at the idea would call it the best of both worlds. You could consider them.

For those who don't seem to comprehend the right of free association, try putting the shoe on the other foot: how about affirmative action to protect minority employers? Let's say your last two employers were white, you will now be required to work for a black employer. If the only black employer that offers you a job is a janitorial service but you have an IT degree, prepare to sweep floors! Minority employers have to be protected from your bigotry.

That's a very good point.

In that case, the school that is benefitted by vouchers must have highly regulated services.

What's next, a Ministry of Truth? I dislike vouchers because vouchers allow the State to overly control private schools. I support TAX CREDITS for all families with school age children to be used on education. People who don't pay taxes can recieve some handouts, but the handouts should go to the people and not directly to the schools.

So we have affirmative action, which as I understand is giving so called "minorities" a heads up in the world. I ask, "how is this suppose to increase equality I ask?" In simple terms it does not, because how long must it be in place before we are all equal? Wouldn't a better solution be that we ignore said differences and encourage national pride as opposed to racial pride? In short I believe that affirmative action only increases the race barrier.

Actually affermative action does the exact opposite. It would not increase the race barrier but be the first step to annihilating that barrier all together.
Even if this policy has to be in place for a certain amount of time before all people become equal isn't it worth the wait? To see the dream that so many have died for become reality, isn't that worth fighting for? Or are we to just give up because it'll take time and effort? Is that the kind of people we are? Or is that the kind of person you are? Because i think that freedom, in all respects should come without thinking who is worthy of it. It should come without needing to be in the 'upper class'. It should be given to everyone alike.
If you say no to giving people freedom, giving people equality all you have left to do is go around killing those you think is under you and then you'll become a regular Adolf Hitler.
Freedom isnt 'owned' by anyone. It is a gift given to all humans by god. Those that take it from others are as evil, self-centered, and malevolent as any who take the life of children.

Actually affermative action does the exact opposite. It would not increase the race barrier but be the first step to annihilating that barrier all together.

You see, that would be true if the government had white supremacist policies. But seeing as it doesn't...

Even if this policy has to be in place for a certain amount of time before all people become equal isn't it worth the wait?

I'm an Asian junior in high school, so no.

Besides races don't exist. Why don't we give brunettes advantage over blondes because brunettes on average make less money?

To see the dream that so many have died for become reality, isn't that worth fighting for? Or are we to just give up because it'll take time and effort? Is that the kind of people we are? Or is that the kind of person you are? Because i think that freedom, in all respects should come without thinking who is worthy of it. It should come without needing to be in the 'upper class'. It should be given to everyone alike.

Oh you must mean Martin Luther King's dream. Isn't that the one where people are judged NOT by the color of their skin?

Affirmative action differs from teh Jim Crow Laws only in its choice of victims. It is the kind of thing that the Civil Rights Movement fought AGAINST. Affirmative action BETRAYS those dreams you mention.

If you say no to giving people freedom, giving people equality all you have left to do is go around killing those you think is under you and then you'll become a regular Adolf Hitler.

I'm all for giving people freedom and legal equality. Affirmative action goes against freedom (namely the freedom of association) and equality (by giving some races preference over others).

Freedom isnt 'owned' by anyone. It is a gift given to all humans by god.

As long as you are using "God" in a secularized sense, I'm okay with this.

Those that take it from others are as evil, self-centered, and malevolent as any who take the life of children.

Isn't that exactly what affirmative action does? Take away my freedom? :roll:

Exclusive colleges by definition exclude. THE ONLY FAIR WAY TO DO SO IS ON THE BASIS OF PERSONAL MERIT. Melanin is irrelevant. Period.

Even if this policy has to be in place for a certain amount of time before all people become equal isn't it worth the wait?

I'm an Asian junior in high school, so no.

Besides races don't exist. Why don't we give brunettes advantage over blondes because brunettes on average make less money?

I'm a greek senior highschool student, I live in Bankstown, Sydney and i assure you they do exist. :roll:

To see the dream that so many have died for become reality, isn't that worth fighting for? Or are we to just give up because it'll take time and effort? Is that the kind of people we are? Or is that the kind of person you are? Because i think that freedom, in all respects should come without thinking who is worthy of it. It should come without needing to be in the 'upper class'. It should be given to everyone alike.

Oh you must mean Martin Luther King's dream. Isn't that the one where people are judged NOT by the color of their skin?

Affirmative action differs from teh Jim Crow Laws only in its choice of victims. It is the kind of thing that the Civil Rights Movement fought AGAINST. Affirmative action BETRAYS those dreams you mention.

What about (excuse the spelling) Aung Sung su yi? She was imprisoned in her home because she fought for the freedoms that MLK died for.

If you say no to giving people freedom, giving people equality all you have left to do is go around killing those you think is under you and then you'll become a regular Adolf Hitler.

I'm all for giving people freedom and legal equality. Affirmative action goes against freedom (namely the freedom of association) and equality (by giving some races preference over others).

I don't think it would. It would help the lower classes and those less fortunate then people living in million dollar houses cope with their everyday live. Help single parents cope with haveing to have a job and take care of a child on their own. It would gve the working class a chance to have a say.


Those that take it from others are as evil, self-centered, and malevolent as any who take the life of children.

Isn't that what affirmative action does? :roll:

No it does the opposite. :roll:

I'm a greek senior highschool student, I live in Bankstown, Sydney and i assure you they [races] do exist. :roll:

So you admit to being racist?

Race is an arbitrary division. Basing policies on skin color is biologically LESS sensible than basing policies on hair color as fewer genes determine skin than hair color.

What about (excuse the spelling) Aung Sung su yi? She was imprisoned in her home because she fought for the freedoms that MLK died for.

Who the hell is that?

The name sounds Korean to me. Affirmative action HURTS Asians. So I guess she was fighting against Affirmative action.

I don't think it would. It would help the lower classes and those less fortunate then people living in million dollar houses cope with their everyday live. Help single parents cope with haveing to have a job and take care of a child on their own. It would gve the working class a chance to have a say.

So... all poor people are black and all rich people are white? You're more racist than I thought.


No it does the opposite. :roll:

Look at the statistics. It forces whites and Asians to score between 300 points (California before it ended affirmative action) higher on the SATs and have a GPA 1.0 higher. Or in some states (Michigan) having the right skin color was more important than a perfect SAT.

If you worked for straight-As, lots of activities, and a 1550 SAT, wouldn't you think it's unfair to have a black person with straight-Bs, no activities, and a 1250 SAT be considered a better candidate than you?

This isn't the ideal that the civil rights movement fought for. This is the betrayal of the civil rights movement, just as Robespierre was the betrayal of the French Revolution.

According to this poll, over 80% of the people support abolishing affirmative action. This isn't too far off from mainstream society, where gallup polls have consistently reporetd a 66% to 75% opposition to affirmative action. A lipset poll in 1992 showed 70% opposition to affirmative action by whites, 66% by blacks, 65% by Asians (which is pretty low actually). It's reasonable that these numbers are even higher today. Equal opportunity laws protect the rights of minorities. Affirmative action violates everyone's rights. It's no longer welcome in free societies.

Also, Kardeenos, when the University of Michigan's Law School was sued over its affirmative action programs, it didn't even TRY to defend the postition that affirmative action benefits minorities. Because they realized that that position is incredibly racist and easily defeated.

Their only argument, in effect, was that a diverse student body improves education. This won them a very narrow victory, but it's going to cause so much controversy that their policy is going to be overturned sooner or later. A diverse student body might help education for kids that do get in, but that's not very much consolation to a qualified person who was rejected so that the school body could be 'diverse'.

Whatever that means.

First of all global Market, I am NOT racist. And all poor people aren't black and all rich people aren't white. Saying so is racist in itself.
I'm telling you that there are racists everywhere. People might not even realize that they're saying racist remarks but they do.
And i do agree that basing things on peoples skin colour is stupid which is why I'm against it.
But i can see your point, and where your comming from. Although i don't agree with some of what you said i agree with most of it.

First of all global Market, I am NOT racist. And all poor people aren't black and all rich people aren't white. Saying so is racist in itself.

I was accusing you of saying that. Please master English syntax :).


And i do agree that basing things on peoples skin colour is stupid which is why I'm against it.

So you are AGAINST affirmative action? Make up your mind.

But i can see your point, and where your comming from. Although i don't agree with some of what you said i agree with most of it.

You are seeing monsters where none exist. Sure some people are racist. But most college admissions officers aren't.

If you REALLY want to take race out of colleges, let's do the sensible thing and take race off of applications. That would get rid of racism, no?

The average SAT scores of enrolled students is a good way to measure whether racism exists. If one race has substantially higher SATs than another at the same college, that race is discriminated against.

Before ending affirmative action, Berkeley had teh following average SAT scores:

Asians - 1254
Whites - 1232
Blacks - 954

In other words, their admissions policy was strongly pro-black, such that a black student only had to score 300 points lower.

After California ended affirmative action, the SAT scores between whites and blacks at the college were about the same. Hence, there was no racism or just very very little racism that didn't matter anyways.

"When you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back. He who goes out of his way to fight monsters will become a monster himself."
--Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

I know he was delusional, but that's a good point.

"Diversity" has become a euphemism for Racism. We need less diversity and more decency.

"Diversity" has become a euphemism for Racism. We need less diversity and more decency.

Forcing less diversity is just as racist as forcing more diversity. We need to have a diversity-blind admissions process. We need to have more MERITOCRACY. I have no complaint with giving up my spot at a college to a more qualified black person. The trouble arises when I have to give up my spot to a less qualified black person as per affirmative action.

Ok, by the posts I see this is all mostly OOC which is ok. :D

Seems you guys forgot something..the vile spawn of affirmitive action..

..Political Correctness.

Now how is this bad? Easy..It's a new form of racism. It's skewed with mis-information as well as not applying to all. Here's some IRL examples..

my father's secretary is a legalized citizen. She became an American about 2 years ago. Before that, she lived in Zaire and could trace her family roots to the same town where she was born since the early days of Euro-exploration in the 1800s. On any form that inquires "race" she has been told she HAS to check "caucasion/white" even though she was born in Africa, lived and raised in Africa and recently became a citizen. On paper, she's an African-American if you never saw her picture, after you saw it,s he becomes "white".

Speaking of which..why is it there are in polls, census forms, questionaires the races of (for example, but not limited to) Asian-American. African-American, Hispanic-American but no German-American or Irish-American?

Also..what if a black man (oops..not PC..sue me) is here on a student exchange program from England. Would he be refered to as an African-American?? If anyone called him or refered to him as such, could he sue as an African-Brit (if there is such a thing)?

See the interesting point about PC-dom? Like holidays and "National {race} Heretage Week!" Granted, some Hispanics and Blacks did some interesting things in history, but what about a Asians? What about Arabs? What about Irish (besides St. Patrick's Day which is a slap in the face for Christianity by the Old School Irish btw..)

I say we get rid of the Political Correctness crap (which btw, stomps all over the First Amendment..since when does the governement control what and how you say things? Oh yea..forgot...this is America as George Orwell's nightmare about to be born..oh and NOTE : I love my country, it's core ideals, what people used to think it was about [in a good sense]..but I have problems with the way it's run...from both sides) and get back to saying what we mean and not what some twit with a degree in Political Science that has never stepped foor out of Nantucket thinks America should talk.

Karadeenos confuses me... what ARE you saying.

How the heck did this post grow so big so fast???

Nehow, is in support of everything Global Market has said thus far (and not because I am a lemming, just that all Asians think alike, smartly... oops was that racist of me... my apologies ;))

Oh and Karadeenos, the fact that affirmative action gets rid of racial barriers exactly oxymoronic to the principle OF affirmative aciton, for affirmative action privileges people based on their race. How is that destroying the barrier? It just accentuates it and causes more tension and discord between the races.

I do not deny that races exist... but it is equality that we are all striving for. Affirmative action is the perfect example of superiority.

First of all i'd like to say that i personally am against Affirmitive Action...

But i'd also like to step in and make a point...

Allot of people are talking about how affirmitive action is "evil" and it's only point is to punish modern majorities (in this case whites) for their past injustices against minorities...

THis is absolutely and catogorically untrue, and is one of the fundamental misrepresentations of affirmitive action.

Affirmitive action is based on the concept that, without role models and example within the community, minorities will never develope the confidence, nor set the goals, needed to becom prominent and productive members of the community. It dictates that out of two EQUAL cantidates, a minority is the ideal choice... it does not, however, claim that a less qualified minority should be chosen over a more qualified majority.

This being said, at it's inception, affirmitive action was a very good idea, and has made a very major, and a very positive impact on equality within society, the problem comes, in how people have, since that time, mis enterpreted the idea.

Even in it's ideal form, affirmitive action is no longer necessary. There are minorities achieving their goals and becoming role models in communities across North Amrica and Europe. Thus, logically, it is now an anachronism and should be removed. Only it's not that easy, as anyone who tries to remove affirmitive action is often declared a 'racist' or 'opressive' and is branded as trying to infringe on minorities...
this leads to resentment of minorities, and the belief that they are inferior, because they 'need' affirmitive action, which is horribly untrue, and hurts the very people it the practice was designed to protect.

However, the REAL danger of affirmitive action comes in the legal precedent which it sets. Much of the modern legal process revolves around case-law, so any one ruling can be used as evidence for another. If you declare affirmitive action to be legal, it is the same as declaring state promoted racism as being acceptable, at least if it has 'just' or 'acceptable' motives... the problem then lies in what is 'acceptable'?

Setting this legal president gives racism a free hand in court, and a very real basis for any other racist policy that a legislative body might choose to put into effect.
While affirmitive action, on the short term, has admirable goals, and is a good ideal, the legal and constitutional repercussions of allowing this type of laws are more than a littler distrubing...

It is impossible for a government, as a matter of principle, to denounce negative discrimination, without also denouncing positive discrimination, simply because they are exactly the same thing... We need to strive for equality and acceptance, not try to find some balance of injustices...

Affirmitive action, while a good idea, is simply impossible to implement in a practical and effective way...

I'm an Asian junior in high school, so no.

Besides races don't exist. Why don't we give brunettes advantage over blondes because brunettes on average make less money?

I'm a greek senior highschool student, I live in Bankstown, Sydney and i assure you they do exist. :roll:



Actually, lookinga t it from a technically genetic perspective, TGM is right... race is simply a connection of distinctive traits such as hair or eye colour... it's jsut that there are certain combinations of those traits are found more commonly from people who's ancestry come from different areas, a dark skinned, black haired Spaniard is negligibly closer, from a genetic point of view, to a pale and blond Norwegian, than to a Native American or an Australian Aboriginee... it's all arbitrary classifications that people have made after the fact...

sorry if im not making sense...