[Amish]

I noticed that Colleges only apply the "Affirmative Action" policy to Blacks, Hispanics, and Indians. Asians are more of a minority group in the US, but given the same treatment as Caucasians during the admission process. Why is that?

[Weimadog]

Because if they did preferential treament to Asians, places like U Cal Berkley would be all Asian.

It's almost that way now.

It's amazing what hard work and discipline can do.

Weimadog

[SteyrAUG]

Asians are generally educated people.

Affirmative action is designed to offset education.

[Rangerover]

Asians don't need for the government to inflate their test scores.

They know how to read.

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

Asians aren't generally weak or pathetic enough to need preferential treatment.

[Amish]

I wonder if Affirmative Action could be applied to the metally retarded and unmotivated. Maybe then I could get into Harvard.

[Greg L]

As others have mentioned, most Asians don't need or want the artificially inflated scores that AA provides. Thus they are ignored by the poverty pimps because they actually look to inward to better themselves.

Greg

[DeltaElite]

The Asians function within society and don't need a crutch like others do. :D

[Carlos]

Very well said, DE. :)

[Bruz]

Asians are too pround to take handouts. They do not feel opressed or held down, so they are not...heard on the news today that mexicans just passed blacks in the population.

[J Miller]

A. A. isn't applied to Asians because they arn't loosers and whiners like some other people I won't specify.

When I lived in Phoenix I worked for an auto parts store. One of the shops we sold parts to was owned and run by Vietnamese. I never saw them slack off at all. They were always busy. And every year the owner would take a vacation and go back to Vietnam to see his family. Altho they sometimes had trouble making themselfs understood, they lacked nothing in effort and work ethic.

[cheygriz]

Amish,

Never try to apply logic to anything that government does.

[Amish]

One of my Korean friend didn't get into University of Washington even if his grades were decent and his SAT scores average. He was denied several times. He swears that if Affirmative Action action was applied to him he could have gotten in so he is kind of irked. I told him since UW is located on the west coast, there probably is too many asians there already, so that's actually working to his disadvantage.

[answerguy]

A notable african-american (don't recall who) was addressing a group of the same minority saying (and I paraphrase) "Why is it the Vietnamese, who have only been here for 20 years, have acheived a higher standard of living than us?". He went on to say "because they were trying harder".

[Frohickey]

Must be Ward Connelly.

[Betty]

Remember the color in the circle with your No. 2 pencil tests in high school? In the ethnic origin category I used to shade in "Asian", sometimes "white" and sometimes "other". Finally one of the ladies in the office noticed the inconsistency and I got called in.

"You've got to pick one or the other," she said.

"But I'm both."

"No, you've got to pick just one....If you pick Asian you'll have a better chance of getting a scholarship."

:scrutiny:

I didn't make top ten in my class by being any particular race.

"White," I said. And she crinkled her nose "at my stupidity".

[Skunkabilly]

Don't get me started.

Lots of Asian whiners in Southern California.

After Shaq made his cute joke on that Chinese baller (don't know his name) the damn media kept interviewing crybaby "members in the Chinese-American community" who kept whining about racism. Come on. 5000 years of proud heritage and we're becoming a bunch of whiners?!?!?! Gimme a :cuss: break!

When my grandfather came here, someone pointed out that he would be eligible for welfare or some other form of handout, but gramps thought the idea preposterous since there were folks out there who REALLY needed the help.

Gramps, I should add, according to his tombstone, introduced microwave cooking to the Hong Kong, had the first steel guitar in China (reehaw!) and was probably the first (unlicensed) ham operator to talk between San Francisco and Shanghai.

A band of local youths vandalized his car at our $30,000 house in Palo Alto, and when he found out, he just shook his head and said, "stupid kids" and never got worked up over it. Today, it would have been on TV as a hate crime. Wouldn't buy anything other than American cars, either (unlike me with my Japanese car and German pistols).

Affirmative action is about feeling good, not about diversity. Affirmative action is in place for Asians, just not in school, because Asians in school go against liberal theroies about how you can't get into a decent school because your folks worked the railroads 100 years ago. Liberals think we're oppressed here--ok, so the railroad thing wasn't very nice, but we get over it.

My dad's friend's dream was to get the hell out of Chinatown, he worked his Chinese butt off until he became dean of the UCLA film (or some other) department.

I know piles of Vietnamese people who came here (illegally, methinks) on boats, and set up shop here in Socal, and besides gun stores, up until 9/11, they were the only folks who flew US flags at their stores.

There are more and more underachieving Asians out there than ever in America, with liberalism invading Asian-American homes.

OK I'm started. I could go on but won't....Shouldn't this be under legal/political?

[Skunkabilly]

Rant continued. Even my urban banjo fingers get tired now and then.

Dad (who still doesn't know that Chinaman and Oriental are supposed to be offensive) thinks you'll get there if you work hard enough. Mom thinks Asians will only be #2, but #1 will always be white in a company. Luckily, they're divorced and she's a bum in Hong Kong.

I applied to live in the Asian-American house at an on-campus apartment community, saying I bring diversity to the all-Asian dormitory by playing banjo :D I didn't get in. Come on...an Asian guy that speaks Ebonics and plays the banjo? I AM cultural diversity!!!!

Some government places will give you preference if you mention you're Asian, it just doesn't work in academia. Intellectuals operate under different 'rules'.

[yy]

My advisor mentioned that asians don't count as minorities because we don't always vote for Demoncrats to get government handouts.

Affirmative Action in theory hides a I-am-better-than-you mentality. How liberal.

Affirmative Action in action just brings out the worst in the system.

[incursion]

I still don't see how the term "oriental" is offensive. Asian American is a stupid PC term invented by some guy at Berkeley. People always say that oriental refers to objects such as rugs or food. Well *** do you call a rug from Africa... hmmm an African rug. Don't blacks want to be called African American?

[CWL]

"Oriental" is deemed offensive because it originated as a word of separation and derision by British colonialists.

Anything "oriental" was by definition, less than "European". It was therefor inferior.

[incursion]

I've never seen the word used in a derogatory sense. I have never been subjected to the use of the word in a negative manner either. From what I've read, "oriental" means east as opposed to "occidental" which means west.

[Skunkabilly]

Oriental's offensive because Asian-American community leaders and scholars...well...don't get me started on them! They sure as heck don't represent me.

I haven't figured out what the 'Oriental flavor' cup noodles are though. Taste like Oriental people? :D

My ex-roommate, Vietnamese, his family was on welfare, for I'm not sure how long. He's a teacher now, sister graduated in biology or some hideous major and is a drug dealer (well...pharmacist, same thing), and two other girls are going to graduate nursing school soon. Dad and mom had three and two jobs, respectively. They sent money back home to Vietnam when the commie tax collectors would steal what their family earned.

He told me, the nice thing about Communism, is if Vietnam wasn't communist, he wouldn't be American.

Another computer tech at a PD where I interned, was a lieutenant in the South Vietnamese army. Spent eight years in a POW camp before he was released and ran away to the US. Still grateful after 20 years to be an American.

The Vietnamese boat people had it pretty rough, but a lot of them turned out pretty successful nevertheless. They didn't get their academic handouts though.

[ZekeLuvs1911]

When I was graduating from High School, my parents wanted me to go to college. I knew that they didn't have the money to send me. However, my parents would have probably put a second mortage on the house rather then take a handout. I chose to go into the Air Force and boom! I got the GI Bill to send me and I served 5 years in. Good years. Anyway, most Asians are pretty proud people and culturally, we feel that by taking something from others is a hinderance to the other. Therefore, most work very hard to get ahead and cry less often. (Not that they aren't out there also.)

[Croyance]

Because I'd spit in the face of a person who gave me something merely because of the color of my skin.
And I intend to force my way through the glass ceiling because I am too good to ignore, not through a lawsuit.

[Zander]

...is there any greater demonstration of the ultimate hypocrisy of "affirmative action" than the discrimination against Americans of Asian heritage? Is there any reason for punishing a population for its hard work and success other than its success?

The inevitable result of illegal and legal Mexican [and other "Hispanic"] immigration is now admitted as "fact":

Our "Hispanic" [nothing more than a PC fed.gov definition] population exceeds that of the "African-American" population.

What shall we expect, given this revelation, other than an extension of virulent class-warfare designed to seperate population segments and reward those in the "true minority"? After all, we're talking about the redistribution of billions of taxpayer dollars every single year.

Do you think the sociofascists of the Democrat Party are going to let this go unchallenged? Not until the "Hispanic" population is by and large convicted and confirmed as likely voters for America's most prominent demagogues.

Unfortunately, for the Democrat [Demagogue] Party, that is becoming increasingly unlikely. Fortunately, for those who have the guts to support the principles and ideals of our representative republic, we still have constitutional remedies.

My prediction is that this is going to get really ugly...even more ugly than the discrimination that is practiced every day against those whose skin color is "white".

Give the ultimate race-baiters in the personae of Jesse "Extortion" Jackson and Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton a few days and you'll see the results.

Trust me...

[Bahadur]

I noticed that Colleges only apply the "Affirmative Action" policy to Blacks, Hispanics, and Indians. Asians are more of a minority group in the US, but given the same treatment as Caucasians during the admission process. Why is that?Let me attempt an explanation (as I worked at the admissions office of an Ivy League university while I attended it as an undergraduate student).

The so-called affirmative action is essentially a quota system at the university level. That means each "racial group" is assigned a percentage according to a pre-determined "diversity" number.

A prevalent benchmark for such a "diversity" is the national census numbers. For example, according to the 2000 census, about 72% of Americans are classified as "white," 12% "black" and 3-4% "Asian-Pacific Islander." This means, theoretically, 72% of the seats are reserved for "whites," 12% for "blacks" and 4% for "Asians."

So, essentially, a candidate competes against his own "racial" group rather than the general candidate pool that encompasses all "races."

However, here we run into "the problem." "Asians" actually have the highest average SAT and ACT scores as well as generally higher high school GPAs than any other fed-categorized "racial" group including "whites."

At this particular university, the average SAT score for an "Asian" candidate who was accepted was around 1400 or so. That for a "white" about 1350 or so and that for a "black" about 1150 or so. This means that if you are an "Asian," you have to outscore a "black" by about 250 points to compete on an equal level where SAT score is concerned.

Now, because this particular university was unwilling to sacrifice "certain" minimum standards to exactly meet the nationally representative numbers, it actually did not get 72% "whites," 12% "blacks" and 4% "Asians" per the national census (or whatever the numbers were back then). That particular year I worked there, the numbers were about 70% "whites," 5% "blacks," and 10% "Asians" with the apologistic statement that "the university will continue to strive to meet the diversity reflective of the entire nation in the future" (or something to that effect). Interestingly enough, this proportion was fairly similar to those of other Ivy League universities that year.

At the university level, the reason why the so-called affirmative action does not benefit (in fact works against) "Asian-Pacific Islanders" is simple. They are over-represented compared to the national proportion (as a side note, some administrators justify this on the grounds that the "Asian-Pacific Islanders" group has the highest average income among the groups including "whites" and therefore "experience relatively less hardship").

BTW, I felt bad for the Pacific Islanders. As a sub-group, they had substantially lower numbers than, say, "whites," but because they were grouped together with students of East Asian background (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) who generally had much higher numbers than everyone else, they became categorized in the "over-represented" "Asian-Pacific Islander" cateogry and suffered appropriately.

One way or another it was and is a strange and illogical system that congealed into the current weirdness, in which a very light-skinned daughter (self-identified as "black") of a celebrity father (of mixed African-European descent) and a super wealthy mother (of Persian descent) benefits while a dark-skinned Pacific Islander boy (self-identified as "Asian-Pacific Islander") from a poverty-stricken family suffers (due to "Asian-Pacific Islander over-representation"). :confused:

Lastly, the term "Oriental" has a specific connotation from earlier history. The word literally means "eastern." The antonym is "Occidental," meaning "western." However, from classical writers all the way to those of early 20th Century associated the word "Oriental" with despotism, oppression, slovenliness, decadence, submissiveness, slyness and even disease-prone. Romans, for example, while oppressing and even annihilating others and looking down on their own plebians, wrote condescendingly of "Oriental despotism" of Greeks, Anatolians, Syrians and Egyptians (East Asia was not even a concept to the Romans). 19th Century Europeans wrote of "Oriental decadence," meaning useless, opulent luxury, contrasting "European industriousness and invention." Even early 20th Century Americans wrote of "Oriental slyness" and so forth.

Basically the word has been used to denote certain negative traits thought to be associated with "eastern" peoples (be they Greeks, Middle Easterners, Central Asians or East Asians as European knowledge of geography improved).

That is why the word is considered offensive. Lastly, the word is rather vague. Though one does often hear the word "West" (often to denote Western Europe and North America), one rarely hears of Occidental or even Western people. "Oriental people" used to mean Chinese (or anyone who "looks Chinese" - there was a Hindu kid in my youth who complained upon being termed an "Oriental" by another kid, proudly stating that his eyes were not "slanty" and thus not "Oriental").

Even taking it literally without the historical connotation is like stating that "Eastern people" are Chinese or Chinese-looking. What does "Eastern" mean anyway (where as the "West" had some semblance of a commonality under Christianity, particularly Protestant Christianity, "Eastern" could mean Greek, Russian, Turkish, Hindu, Chinese, Japanese and ad infinitum - in fact anything east of Central Europe)?

That is why *I* prefer to use geographic-specific terms like North American, West European, East European, South Asian, South East Asian, East Asian and so forth (if necessary resorting to more specific regional designations). This isn't about being politically correct for me - it's about being more accurate and precise.

[Zander]

The so-called affirmative action is essentially a quota system at the university level. That means each "racial group" is assigned a percentage according to a pre-determined "diversity" number.IOW, so-called affirmative action policies are based on skin color...despite the fact that such discrimination is specifically and expressly prohibited by our Constitution.

But the current interpretation of "affirmative action" amongst the "leaders" of most universities is that, for the "good" of society, blatant discrimination is not only acceptable but desired so that university populations can be manipulated to be more "diverse".

Ergo, some skin colors require more "help" than others.

What a tremendous insult to Americans of "color"...and what a tremendous insult to any American who has the most basic understanding of logic.

My conclusion:

The insistence that there should be equality of outcome is not only unfair and illogical but inimical to the principles of our republic.

[BamBam-31]

Affirmative action sucks. Silly, misguided paradigm. Natural evolution of welfare mentality. Double standard, Asians lose out.

Same goes for Shaq's racially derisive comments re: Yao Ming. Can't be upset about one and not the other. Again, double standard, Asians lose out.

Imagine:

Interviewer: "Mr. Gretzky, what will you say to Anson Carter (African American hockey player) when you meet him?"

Wayne Gretzky: "Yessum, Massuh!!" Starts dancing a jig.

or

Interviewer: "Mr. McGwire, what will you say to Fernando Valenzuela when you meet him?"

Mark McGwire: "Yo quiero Taco Bell."

Shaq got off light because 1) he's Black, and 2) he only made fun of Asians. :rolleyes:

[twoblink]

When my brother entered UC Irvine about 8 years ago, the asian population was a little under 20%.

Now, it's called the "University of Civics and Integras" for a reason.

If asians were included, then their whole "we need affirmative because the minorities are being oppressed" wouldn't work.

[Smoke]

Skunk,

When you applied to the dorm; why didn't you tell them you played banjo and had GUNS! I'm sure they would have rushed to get you in. Maybe even kicked out some higher scoring kid ot make room.:neener:

[Camel]

Remember the color in the circle with your No. 2 pencil tests in high school? In the ethnic origin category I used to shade in "Asian", sometimes "white" and sometimes "other". Finally one of the ladies in the office noticed the inconsistency and I got called in.

That reminds me of an interesting fight some family of mine had at school. They had an hour long "discussion" about whether or not their kids were hispanic. It had to be explained more than once that being born in Spain does not make you hispanic.

[Mute]

I won't say that I speak for all Asians but...maybe it's because we're not a bunch of namby-pamby, "I'm so oppressed", whiny, hand-wringing, lazy, retribution-seeking, let's have a group hug, do something for the oppressed, we are the world , feel gooder morons that need big brother to look after us, idiots that support this kind of crap.

Here's a little secret. There are mean people in the world. Deal with it. Man, please don't even get me started about "offensive" words or epitaths.

[anchored]

Government-sponsored discrimination programs like affirmative action are only legal if they are an attempt to correct a history of past wrongs, according to the courts. Therefore, Asians would need to prove that in the US there has been a longhistory of discrimination against them that has prevented them from having accesss to the particular program they want affirmatively actioned. My guess is, Blacks and Hispanics have been able to come up with that proof, but Asians haven't. It's not all about being a minority.

[longeyes]

It's always amazed me that "intellectuals" would cite demographic statistics as proof to enforce patently discriminatory social policies. Talk about shallow. This only proves that too many intellectuals are intellectually bankrupt and that a lot of academics, when it comes to common sense, are dumber than a bag of hammers.

[Blackhawk]

To respond to all the messages lauding the intelligence, resourcefulness, diligence, and industriousness of Asians, let me add my "you got that right, chicken neck!" :D

Let me know when and where the group hug is going to be held. :D

[Frohickey]

I think that we need to start watching what we write and stop generalizing and stereotyping.

Sure, Skunky and others might have known some hard-working 'Americans of Asian Descent'. But not all are hard-working. Some are downright lazy. Just like there are 'Americans of African Descent that are hard-working, and some that are lazy.

Laziness and hard-working are attributes not unique to a particular race of peoples. Its usually a secondary trait that is passed down from life experience, and parental guidance. Its just that there has been a decline in parental guidance in recent history. Couple this with a (modern) liberal mindset of governmental assistance and entitlement, and you get what is happening now.

The 'asian community leaders' that you have cropping up in the big cities to go and endorse some politicians surely do not speak for me. Even the ones that come out of the woodwork when some politician or celebrity misspoke during a press conference do not speak for me. These are the first ones that would prostate themselves to the candidate/politician come election time.

Sorry... this 'American with slanty eyes and yellow skin' don't play that! :D

[Shalako]

In light of Bahadur's evidence of Universities trying to achieve correlation with a diversity number, I would suppose they are doing this to avoid lawsuits. If they match the precise demographic ratios reflected in the society as a whole, they can prove that they are not racist or discriminatory in their admissions practices.

I love it when the PC system hamstrings the Merit system. That's gonna do us a lot of good.

-Shalako

[T.Stahl]

Thank you, Bahadur, for your explanation.

Hmm, so AA is about lowering standards for some groups, so that more candidates from those groups are admitted to college or university.
Are there also different grades in test? Say, to pass a test during their studies a member of group A has to score 50%, while a member of group B needs only 45%?
Are there fixed quotas regarding the graduates?

[4v50 Gary]

Was told that the Chinese parents in SF sued the SF School district because of the racial quotas. You see, a Chinese kid with a 3.95 GPA couldn't get into the best public high school in the city but a kid of any other race with 3.5 could. "Too many Chinese already in the school," said one school official (note: rough quote and not an actual quote). The school district feared that dropping the quota would result in a 99% Chinese student body at that school. They said, "NYET!"So the parents got pissed and sued to end the racial quota system.

Pretty progressive, isn't it? :D

[BamBam-31]

Honest question:

Does AA have it's evil tendrils in our military as well? As in, too many qualified Whites, doesn't accurately reflect demographics from last census. Give some the boot, and replace them with less qualified Hispanics and Blacks.

Confidence booster, eh?

[Frohickey]

Probably.

General of the Army Eric Shinseki... the one that took the black beret away from the Rangers.
Not sure if Secy Colin Powell was AA-material...supposedly, Reagan picked him out specifically.

Get rid of AA, and there would be less doubt about how certain people got the positions they are in.

[Bahadur]

anchored:
Government-sponsored discrimination programs like affirmative action are only legal if they are an attempt to correct a history of past wrongs, according to the courts. Therefore, Asians would need to prove that in the US there has been a longhistory of discrimination against them that has prevented them from having accesss to the particular program they want affirmatively actioned [emphasis mine].So, is your argument that there has NOT been a history of discrimination against Americans of Asian descent in the United States? If so, you are either very young or have very short memory. This love fest of Asians as "the model minority" is a relatively new phenomenon that came about since 1960s and did not begin in earnest until the 1980s when Asian academic and economic achievements destroyed much of the earlier held prejudices.

Before that, the discrimination against Americans of Asian-descent were rampant. They could not bring their wives to accompany them in their immigration (so that "the yellow coolies wouldn't spread their seed"), could not own land and could not gain admission to many universities, not to mention a myriad of other indignities both large and small. For much of American history up to the late 20th Century, Asians were largely seen as cheap, expendable coolies to work the railroad system or sugarcane plantations.

An interesting tidbit about the railroad building, BTW. There is, in the city hall of one major urban area in the US, a painting of the "oppressed minorities" who built the railroad system in that particular state. The painting has rugged faces of the Irish, the Italians, the Germans and so forth... and, yes, Americans of African descent. The curious thing is that the Chinese are completely missing in the painting DESPITE the fact that they accounted for most of the railroad workers!
My guess is, Blacks and Hispanics have been able to come up with that proof, but Asians haven't. It's not all about being a minority.Not quite. "It" is about two things, namely:

1. Political power. "Blacks" usually vote as a bloc - usually for the Democratic Party. They also have much greater political organization and power, not to mention votes (at 12% of the population). "Yellows," being fairly assimilated often vote like "whites" do - that is, they split their votes. Furthermore, they have, whether collectively or individually, pursued economic, academic and professional achievements to overcome any prejudice in the classical immigrant pattern, rather than organizing politically and demanding rights.

2. Current demographics, not past wrongs. The so-called affirmative action is most certainly NOT about rectifying past wrongs. If that were so, the so-called Native Americans deserve as much political attention and numerical manipulation as "blacks and Hispanics" do (if not more). Yet, the political dialogue about affirmative action, at least at the university level, is almost always about "whites" versus "blacks" and "Hispanics." In view of the political situation in item 1, it is invariably about attempting to fudge the numbers to meet the CURRENT national demographics.

[Bahadur]

Frohickey:
I think that we need to start watching what we write and stop generalizing and stereotyping.

Sure, Skunky and others might have known some hard-working 'Americans of Asian Descent'. But not all are hard-working. Some are downright lazy. Just like there are 'Americans of African Descent that are hard-working, and some that are lazy.Outstanding!

Before all this "Asians are the best" lovefest boils over, let's remember a couple of sociological factors. First, immigrants, Asians or otherwise, are a self-selecting lot! It takes a lot of determination and host of other "entrepreneurial" factors to leave one's home, language, support system behind to start a new life in a strange country.

That is not to say that East Asian immigrant have not been extraordinarily successful in economic and academic terms even among other immigrants - they have. But I suspect that it has much to do with educational, cultural and sociological pathos of their home countries than any inherent, genetic or biological factors.

Second, slavery tends to impart certain responses to those who are enslaved. The enslaved responds either by outright revolt (and usually killed in response) or passive-resistance including work sabotage, distrust of, and resistance to, authority, development of exclusive and secretive sub-group structures, including unique language patterns, resistance to assimilation (even if eventually allowed) and so forth.

I want to make it clear, BTW, that I am categorically opposed to the so-called affirmative action. I oppose it at the philosophical level (meritocracy) and practical level (sufficient development of equality of opportunity for all). Yet, I'd be intellectually dishonest if I were not to acknowledge the profound effects the various historical, sociological and cultural, not to mention political factors, have had on the "progress" of various hyphenated communities in the US.

[Bahadur]

T. Stahl:
Thank you, Bahadur, for your explanation.You are welcome! As with a lot of topics, there are lots of emotionally-charged arguments about it based on rather vague understandings of how it works. This often leads to strange results. For example, the political mobilization against the so-called affirmative action is usually said to be from "white male rage against 'reverse-discrimination.'" There is some truth to the extent that conservative Republicans have been in the vanguard of that movement (though there is no such thing as 'reverse-discrimination' as it is simply discrimination).

Yet, the biggest beneficiaries of the abolition of that system, at least at the academic level, will be Americans of Asian-descent rather than those of European-descent.
Hmm, so AA is about lowering standards for some groups, so that more candidates from those groups are admitted to college or university.
Are there also different grades in test? Say, to pass a test during their studies a member of group A has to score 50%, while a member of group B needs only 45%?
Are there fixed quotas regarding the graduates?As far as I know, at the Ivy League level, no. Perhaps one indication that the so-called affirmative action has not worked and that it, in fact, admits below-part students from certain ethnic groups for "diversity sake" can be demonstrated by the substantially lower graduation rates (even at the Ivy League level) such ethnic groups have. Unfortunately, this has convinced even "liberal" (!) administrators that, "yes, indeed," the students from these ethnic groups "really do need more help" in both admission and graduation.

Opponents of the system argue that even after "assisted admission," the beneficiaries cannot compete once on a "level playing ground" as can be seen in differing graduation rates.

Some ardent proponents argue instead that this is merely a demonstration of racism prevalent at our institutions of higher learning against such groups and that it merely reinforces the need to rectify such.

It is difficult to argue against such a circular logic, other than pointing it out as such. The argument is that, "if talent is distributed equally" then the numbers should be an exact match to the national democraphics "unless racism conspires to lower" the numbers for certain ethnic groups. In such a view, any instance of lower-than-national-demographic numbers call for some sort of "rectification" to defeat "discrimination."

Of course, talent may be distributed equally, but effort may not, for a variet of historical, social, cultural, and a host of other, factors.

[sw442642]

Groups that have suffered past documented discrimination and some currently active discrimination, like Asians and Jews, don't get affirmative action benefits. In fact, Joe Lieberman was asked on Meet the Press, if the U. Mich. rules discriminated against Jews and he waffled as he had to follow the party line.

I recall once meeting a gentleman in the airport who for some reason started to complain about how a VietNamese child was the valedictorian of the his kid's school and how that wasn't right.
He thought the klan should do something. I offered to brightened his nose a bit and he went away.

[vulcan]

Bahadur,

The railroads was where the term "a chinaman's chance" comes from. The chinese coolies was assigned the job of setting off the tunneling charges & clearing the resulting tunnel debris when its the most dangerous:eek:

[T.Stahl]

Now that I got some understanding of what this American phenomenon called "Affirmative Action" is about, I have to ask why is it easier for Asians to meet the standards universities require? Or why, on the other end of the spectrum, is it more difficult for Hispanics and Blacks?

Is it a problem inherent in their ethnic group, is it related to their social situation and the schools they can afford?

[Mute]

Bottom line. Those that have the highest academic achievement (no matter what race or ethnicity) are those who've worked hardest. Easy answer huh?

[Shalako]

T.Stahl, I have heard that the high success rate boils down to parental involvement. The parents insuring the homework is done and taking interest in their kids' activities is the deciding factor. Some groups place a higher priority on their childrens' studies than others.

-Shalako

[4v50 Gary]

When they were lowered in baskets to plant and light the dynamite, the fuses were faulty and often times, it was buh-bye. While the railroad received the benefit of the sacrificed worker's life, they didn't bother paying the family the earned wages.

That onerous task of very poor survival thus gave rise to the saying, "Chinaman's chance."

BTW, I think it's almost like "Luck of the Irish" meaning no luck at all (correct me guys if I'm wrong on this).

Like Frohicky, I've also met some lazy Chinese who'd make the "on the job welfare" mindset proud. My proposed solution? Like any other employee of any other race, gender (blah, blah, blah) is buh-bye.

[Blackhawk]

Frohickey wrote:I think that we need to start watching what we write and stop generalizing and stereotyping.

Sure, Skunky and others might have known some hard-working 'Americans of Asian Descent'. But not all are hard-working. Some are downright lazy. Just like there are 'Americans of African Descent that are hard-working, and some that are lazy. I wasn't referring only to "Asian-Americans" in lauding them. I was referring to Asians in general and Asian based cultures in particular. I've known thousands, and hundreds of them have been Americans of Asian descent.

Every culture has features that are laudable and those that are despicable. When Asian families come to America, it seems that they've been able to hold on to the laudable features of their culture without being enslaved by the old pernicious ways. "America" fosters that, and Asian immigrants have been particularly adept of thriving in "America" as a land of opportunity, and THAT is exceedingly laudable! :D

[incursion]

Every culture has features that are laudable and those that are despicable. When Asian families come to America, it seems that they've been able to hold on to the laudable features of their culture without being enslaved by the old pernicious ways. "America" fosters that, and Asian immigrants have been particularly adept of thriving in "America" as a land of opportunity, and THAT is exceedingly laudable!

That is exactly the way I was raised. I was taught to discard the worst aspects of my parents' culture and to embrace the positive aspects of American culture. My goal is to incorporate the best of both worlds.

[jimpeel]

Affirmative Action presupposes that the participants thereof are too stupid or incompetent to make it on their own.

Asians, however, have been distorting the grading curve for years and have disproven themselves to be labeled as such.

Therefore they are discriminated against -- but only in a good way, and with the best of intentions, you see.

[Frohickey]

Yet, the biggest beneficiaries of the abolition of that system, at least at the academic level, will be Americans of Asian-descent rather than those of European-descent.

Actually, its society that benefits from the abolition of the Affirmative Action system. If Americans of Asian-descent stop doing homework and start slouching off, then they rightfully do not belong to the high-speed low-drag college programs. And its not really ALL Americans of a-particular-descent-or-country-of-origin that would benefit. Its really Americans of dogged-effort-applying-their-abilities that benefit.

[Ed Brunner]

"Is it a problem inherent in their ethnic group, is it related to their social situation and the schools they can afford?"

"I have heard that the high success rate boils down to parental involvement. The parents insuring the homework is done and taking interest in their kids' activities is the deciding factor. Some groups place a higher priority on their childrens' studies than others."

I have to agree that parental involvement is a large positive factor. Cultures which stigmatize educational achievement provide the greatest negative factor. Unfortunately, government do-gooders usually overlook cause and effect and seek to redistribute education the same way they redistribute resources.

This is a good discussion.

[Skunkabilly]

Is it just me or is like half of THR Asian? :D

The chinese coolies was assigned the job of setting off the tunneling charges & clearing the resulting tunnel debris when its the most dangerous

Didn't we invent gunpowder?

T.Stahl, I have heard that the high success rate boils down to parental involvement. The parents insuring the homework is done and taking interest in their kids' activities is the deciding factor. Some groups place a higher priority on their childrens' studies than others.


When I was in 3rd grade, the teacher mistakenly assigned us about a page's worth of 4-digit multiplication. My step mom made my step-sister and I stay up until about 1 or 2 AM and finish the assignment. We just started learning 2-digit multipication and tried reasoning with my step-mom but she made us finish it anyway and we had to get EVERY answer right. Sheesh.

Next morning, the teacher said, 'hope no one did last night's homework'....no one did, except for my step-sister and I :eek:

Not to mention the 45 minutes a night of piana practice. Ugh! I used to hate that piano, but am taking a liking to it because it's two-tone.

Somehow by the time I started applying for colleges, I got more interested in Cessnas and web design and didn't concentrate hard enough on my schoolwork.

Like Frohicky, I've also met some lazy Chinese who'd make the "on the job welfare" mindset proud. My proposed solution? Like any other employee of any other race, gender (blah, blah, blah) is buh-bye.

Don't get me started. One time in Chinatown some lady used food stamps to get groceries she loaded into her Lexus. Pissed my dad off to no end. As he used to say, "Now THAT'S a Chinaman!" Although I keep reminding him how offensive 'Chinaman' can be, and the preferred nomenclature is 'Chinaperson'

IMO The only AR that needs to be banned in California is Affirmative Racism.

[chaim]

I find it funny that legacy admissions to schools that formerly had racial and ethnic quotas is often a primary justification for affirmative action in college admissions and scholarships. For about a century there were extremely strict quotas against Jews for admissions to most universities. In some northern schools (esp. the Ivy League) you were more likely to get in if you were black than if you were a Jew. Yet, there is no affirmative action program or "diversity" scholarship that gives points to Jews. That tells me that the real motivation is not justice or making up for past discrimination, it is protecting an unfair advantage.

A related pet peeve of mine. In education there are far more women than men and it is one of the few fields where minorities are overrepresented. Yet every school I looked at and several private organizations have scholarships devoted to "promoting diversity" in the field that are only open to women and blacks (the two groups that are most overrepresented in the field). If they truely wanted to promote diversity in education they would offer scholarships to men, with a special focus on white men. :rolleyes:

Whatever happened to the idea of people competing based on their own merits and selecting the most able person?:confused:

[another okie]

African-Americans tend to see all racial questions, including affirmative action, as black / white. This is the result of the experience of the American south, where there are few other ethnic groups or races. Thus they tend to lump Asians and white Hispanics in with other whites. Most other American groups see race as a rainbow. This perception of the world as bi-polar is what drives much of the affirmative action debate, and creates misunderstandings, since the two sides have different conceptions of what race is.

By the way, affirmative action has only been solidly approved by the courts as remedy for past discrimination by the institution. The reason these cases, such as Michigan, are coming up now is that proponents of affirmative action are trying out a new justification, namely diversity. This would allow affirmative action in places where there is no history of discrimination.

I have to say in terms of schools we are talking about very small numbers of elite students who are going to succeed anyway. Most public universities will admit anyone who meets their minimum qualifications, some, like the one I teach at, will admit anyone with a high school diploma or a GED. That doesn't mean it's not an important issue, because the principle is big, but the impact is pretty small. The standard will undoubtedly turn out to be different for private universities and private businesses.

[JoeSF]

Asians have proven the fact that affirimitve action is unecessary.
How many proponents of affirimitive action seek out minority doctors for health care? Excluding asian doctors. I went to a an African American doctor for many years. Most of his patients were black. I live in a liberal city. How come with so many liberals here so few whites chose this fine doctor?

[Frohickey]

That's it! I'm tired of this overt racism that is rampant in the United States.

:cuss: From now on, I will be out protesting that men, and especially men weighting more than 200lbs and bodyfat index less than 10% are overrepresented in Professional Football. I demand that people less than 100lbs be allowed to play professional football. :cuss

Why are Americans-with-less-body-mass be discriminated against? It is no fault of their own that they can't build muscle mass. Why do only Americans-with-extra-body-mass be allowed to play in tax-payer funded/built sports stadiums and colloseums?

(end-sarcasm) :neener:

[Amish]

Too bad Affirmative Action isn't applied to other stuff like bank loans to start small businesses. If they gave more loans to poor folks imagine the benefit the society would reap.

If they gave discounts to only fat people to purchase healthy food and to sign up to fitness clubs man that would benefit society as well.

[Fish Springs]

So lets try this in a round of I want to be a victimized minority too:

My family goes back 12 generations to Germany. ~1650.

They migrated to the New World in 1747 and went to work for the English. This makes me a minority and one of 28% of Americans who are of German origin.

In the 1840's my Great Great Grandfather anglicized his children's names to keep them from being discrimintated against and every one stopped speaking German. Assimilation.

By 1850 he joined a new church and was driven from the state of Illinois by the State Milita and a Republican governer who wanted all Mormons killed or driven from the United States. Our family left the U.S and went what would become the Utah Territory.

Add religious persecution and forced migration.

I grew up and was educated in Idaho and Utah...my friends on the East Coast know that Idaho is as a third world country and Utah?

So where is my reparation check?

By current thinking, somebody owes me for the discrimination that led to changing the family name. Somebody owes me something for the property left behind in Nauvoo, Ill.

And then there is Gov Boggs and his Extermination order, that ought to be worth a million or two.

Wow! Somebody ought to owe me something.....NUTS!

I am happy being an American and having been able to work since I was 10 or 12, buy guns,travel, read what I want to and knowing that I do not have to live in places like China or Sudan or Iran.

I worked in China for long enough to understand the urge to migrate to the U.S.A. and happily hire people from from Vietnam or Pakistan or Alabama any other place where parents and environment taught that hard work and discipline are the foundation of success.

BTW my Grandfather left school at the end of 2nd Grade. I have a Masters Degree and an engineering management job.

The sooner we all get over being fat, dumb and happy wanna be victims the better.

Fish Springs: An American in Texas

[JPM70535]

Asians don't generally benefit from Affirmative Action because they don't need it. They generally come from stable, moral families who stress education and hard work as being the keys to success. They do not view Social handouts as being their due in perpetuity, consequently their success manifests itself in every facet of life.

IMHO Affirmative action has done nothing but increase hostility between the races. How is a Causasion applicant for a position (employment related) or a college admission, supposed to feel when he sees his hard work, and educational background (college test scores) go for nought in favor of a less qualified applicant whose only claim to fame is his race. Affirmative action needs to be scrapped. Compete on a level playing field, sink or swim.

[ravinraven]

I haven't read every post in this thread so someone may have covered this already. I think that the worst racist attitude in the world is the attitude that brings liberals to the "AA", or QUOTA mentality. To actually believe that somebody, because of race, is too poorly equipted to enter college is, in my way of thinking, very racist. They are saying: "He's a member of group XXX so he's unqualified unless we give him prefered treatment. How in the hell much crueler can anyone be to any race?

In my fairly short college teaching career teaching electrical technology in a two-year school, I found that those QUOTA people that we let in and shoved along and graduated would either not get jobs or not hold them for very long once the employers found out what was going on. In the technical world of wires and gears, etc. things have to work exactly correctly or they don't work at all. Anyone who can't hack it is gone fast. A tech school gets a bad rep in a hurry shoving the unqualified along the pipeline.

There are a lot of fields of study in which getting into school is the essential thing. The nature of the career these fields aim at will allow someone to hide out forever and their incompetence will never show up. Being a teacher of XXX Studies in college comes to mind. I've talked with some of these folks. EGADS!

How much better it would be for Jesse and Al an the boys to promote what really WILL lift Blacks out of the swamp: work ethic, pride, respect for self and others and responsibility to name a few items. The longer these jerks promote the type of behavior that is keeping Blacks in the swamp, the longer they will have a good paying job providing shoulders for the swamp dwellers to whine on. Those birds give me the creeps. They are bleeding their own race for their fat paychecks! Now Al wants to be president. I say GO AL!

Another interesting thing about the drift into PC and anti-work ethic that new age liberalism is spreading happened during my college teaching days. Stan Lundine, the Lt. governor of the state [NY] came up to speak at the first faculty meeting one fall. He was such a ball of energy and "work-ethic" that I wondered how Cuomo could possibly have picked him as a running mate back in '82. He hit the "conventional wisdom" about how well-off people are said to be lucky. [He sounded like RUSH or Neal Boortz] In his speech, about work ethic, pride, etc, he said, "My father used to say that the harder he worked, the luckier he got."

I don't know how many of you follow the doings of the politicos in NY, but it wasn't long before Mr. Lundine resigned from the Lt. Gov. office and I believe he moved to New Hampshire. Anyway, he wasn't compatible with Mario or any of the other hate mongers of NY.

enuf droppings from the ravinraven

[NotQuiteSane]

Another computer tech at a PD where I interned, was a lieutenant in the South Vietnamese army. Spent eight years in a POW camp before he was released and ran away to the US. Still grateful after 20 years to be an American.

Back in the 60's, there was A law that if a forigner served a military term, he could become a citizen (I understand many early special forces members came from this program)

In school, I had a vietnamese classmate who's father had enrolled in such a program, then attended OCS.

when siagon fell, he was a newly appointed captain, and for some reason left behind.

He got shot for his "crime". I understand w/o the promotion, a jail term would have been more likely.

Another freind lost both her legs when her family decided to walk out of cambodia when she was a little girl.

NQS

[Bahadur]

Frohickey:
Actually, its society that benefits from the abolition of the Affirmative Action system. If Americans of Asian-descent stop doing homework and start slouching off, then they rightfully do not belong to the high-speed low-drag college programs. And its not really ALL Americans of a-particular-descent-or-country-of-origin that would benefit. Its really Americans of dogged-effort-applying-their-abilities that benefit.Touche!

chaim:
For about a century there were extremely strict quotas against Jews for admissions to most universities.Correct. During that time, Jews were thought to be "over-represented" as Asian are today. In addition, there was a pervasive prejudice of Jews as "clever, but scheming" Shylock types. I personally read an evaluation of a Jewish student from decades back (from the archives of this university), which was something like "He is a clever student and has excellent grades, particularly in the study of mathematics, but he frequently displays the tendencies of a Jew" (emphasis mine). :eek:

The funny thing is, many earlier Protestant nativist racists had used the initially lower average IQ test scores among the early Jewish immigrant children as an example that "the Jewry is a retarded race." When one reads this kind of a thing, one does not know to laugh or cry. Thankfully, we've come a LONG way as a society since that time!

In any case, there are many interesting parallels between the Jewish and the East Asian immigration patterns and experiences.

By the way, from my earlier example at an Ivy League university (70% "white" admissions that particular year), about 25% of those "whites" were probably Jewish (I state "probably" because religious affiliations are a bit more nebulous to tabulate than "racial" ones), well in excess of their overall national proportion (as with Asians).

another okie:
This perception of the world as bi-polar is what drives much of the affirmative action debate, and creates misunderstandings, since the two sides have different conceptions of what race is.Excellent, excellent point. Many Americans see the issue of "race" as a bi-polar issue as if Americans of other ethnic origin do not really matter or count. This is one of my pet peeves because it really distorts the reality surrounding the debate.

If you want real fun, study the educational and economic achievement differentials (which are substantial) between native-born Americans of African-descent and immigrants of African-descent (particularly Caribbean-Africans). It opens up a world of understanding about educational and economic successes - that it has nothing to do with "race" or genetics and everything to do with social ethos.

[Ed Brunner]

The ADL resolved many of the misconceptions associated with Jews in America. It is probably not a coincidence their history is included in this discussion. As a group who has placed a high priority on education, they exemplify the obvious alternative to affirmative action.

[NewShooter78]

Well just to add to the debate, I too do not think that we can just romanticize Asian culture or peoples. I work around 3 or 4 Asian (mostly Vietnamese) gangs here in the city at one of the nightclubs I do security for (armed security I should add). While I've had many friends who were either Vietnamese or Chinese, that have worked hard, had outstanding grades, and now my best friend from elementary school is a very successful IT professional. But the gangs that I am constantly working around totally blow any of these romantic ideas out the door. Point being, there are many undesirable traits in all cultures and ethnic groups, but some are just more determined to make it in our society.

Jews are still, IMO, a very persecuted group. There are always very negative mindset about Jew bankers, Jew jewelers, Jew this and that. All it takes is a short history lesson to show why there are so many Jews in certain positions in this country: because its all they were allowed to do. They weren't allowed into the factories or mines, so they became tailors, bankers, entertainers, etc. I'm guessing because these were less desirable jobs a century and a half ago (accet for being an entertainer I'm sure). I don't think a lot of people's mindset changed until the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed to the American public, and still anti-semetism persisted to this very day if not just a more subdued version of it.

Now onto the real topic, AA might have served a purpose intelectually, but in reality has done nothing more than positively reinforced the welfare mindset that a lot of minorities have developed in this country. My grandfather, a Danish immigrant, would not have, and never did accept welfare. He and his family worked hard and still had basically nothing, but survived and were happy. I know plenty of families like this from all cultural and ethnic groups. But our gov't sees fit to perpetually keep people down. If you take away the insentive and instinct to survive on one's own, then that affects all other aspects of achieving anything. And it works both ways. If you hamper someone from further achievement, after they have worked hard to get to a certain place because they happen to be a "majority" race, then you stymie further growth. Its time to end this practice at all levels in society. It only works to further divide our American culture.

[ravinraven]

For a wonderful, though sick, story of how the New Jersey Education Association is racist and thinks blacks are inferior to others, go to this site. www.boortz.com Boortz has some other very interesting topics up there today. He has a "morgue" of past pages also.

rbird

[Russ]

Why do "Hispanics" get preferencial treatment should be a question. Hispanics are caucaisions as are East Indians. There are 3 races of Man. Caucaision, Negroid and Asian. That's it. I want to know why Hispanics are a seperate race. Why aren't Irish a seperate race than Germans for example?

PC has inundated the world and education is becoming extinct.:scrutiny:

[Sean Smith]

Actually those "three races" are spectacularly inaccurate. They have no meaning in the physical (read: genetic) reality. In fact, all the racial categories that have been made up over the years are, from the point of view of DNA, pure hogwash.

[Frohickey]

How much better it would be for Jesse and Al an the boys to promote what really WILL lift Blacks out of the swamp: work ethic, pride, respect for self and others and responsibility to name a few items.

That is exactly the point that you are missing.

If Jesse/Al promoted what really WILL lift Blacks out of the swamp: work ethic, pride, responsibility, Blacks will NOT need Jesse/Al and they would lose stature and power. Their power comes from pointing the racism finger, and having Blacks contribute to their power base, and white corporations being afraid and pay protection-money to their organizations.

The liberals are doing pretty good too, copying from Jesse/Al's playbook. They have the 'poor' folks in a tizzy everytime they speak about fighting against tax cuts for the rich. If the 'rich' are the only ones paying taxes, then they are the only ones that can have their taxes cut.

[Shalako]

Is anyone willing to make the case that the initial intentions of Affirmative Action were good, but that just the actual application of it has been perverted by the do-gooders? I am willing to aknowledge that rampant discrimination has existed up until the very recent past and white males were disproportionately handed the valuable opportunitites. This has led to many minorities feeling disenfranchised. Some wanted to drop out of the 'white-man's-world' because they felt rejected, and then regrouped to create their own. Affirmative Action was instigated to jump start the minority elements back into the mainstream. It was to get them out and amongst the rest of our working society to show them and their cohorts that success is attainable and that they are a valuable component of our society. Well, all that backfired. The perpetuation of the handouts decreased the minority element's drive to succeed, self esteem and confidence. Now they feel like they deserve the hand up just - because. As a result, they do not get the reward of a feeling of personal accomplishment and achievement that drives the rest of us to keep coming back to work or to keep trying. The do-gooders had the best intentions with AA, but since they dwell in fantasy land they have no real grasp of how to apply those good intentions.

Where do I come up with this stuff? :rolleyes:

-Shalako

[NewShooter78]

Well I'm sure that AA probably was thought of by some group of honest people wanting to do something to help disenfranchised minorities, but once it became a political mainstay, that's when it was perverted. Look at the NAACP, it was started by a couple of white guys if I remember correctly, but it seems to be nothing more than a perpetuation of the perversions of the AA crowd. These things might have been needed at one point, but I think they only divide us more. And if you really want to see some incredible things, you should live in New Orleans for a while. Good lord!, what a mess this place is. I can't wait to get out of here.

[jimpeel]

Actually, Russ is quite correct in his remarks. I addressed this at some length at: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3191 which I reprint here.

Might I remind Mr. Grijalva that there are only three -- count 'em -- THREE races:

Negroid

Mongoloid

Caucasoid

Every person on the face of the Earth must belong to one of these three subsets of humanity.

Mexicans are not Negroid;

Mexicans are not Mongoloid;

Mexicans are Caucasoid.

This means, for all intents and purposes, they are White.

There is no Mexican "race". There is only a Mexican culture and geographical Ethnicity just like there is only an American culture and geographic Ethnicity.

American Blacks, Whites, and Asians all make up a geographical American Ethnicity as a whole. We can hyphenate ourselves until we all turn a lovely shade of Blue but we will still be nothing more than a Blue American geographical Ethnicity.

There is no such thing as "La Raza" (The Race). This is a fabrication; but it does sound great when chanted in unison.

[jimpeel]

Now that women make up 51% of the American population, I am patiently awaiting my upgraded status of "minority". Will I then be eligible for Affirmative Action?

[Frohickey]

Yes, jimpeel. Now that you are part of the minority, you will be allowed to bear children. By what name do you want to be called... 'Loretta' is already taken. :D

[Bahadur]

Ed Brunner:
The ADL resolved many of the misconceptions associated with Jews in America. It is probably not a coincidence their history is included in this discussion. As a group who has placed a high priority on education, they exemplify the obvious alternative to affirmative action.That, too, is a stereotype of sorts. The Jewry (if there is such thing) is not a monolithic race. Many Jewish immigrants to the US were Ashkenajic Jews from Central and Eastern Europe. As such, they brought the social ethos of such idiosyncratic cultural traditions as respect for learning. Sephardic Jews of the same period, for example, were cuturally different (less like Europeans and more like their Arab or Turkish neighbors). Even that's a broadbrush treatment as various sub-groups among Jews differed genetically, linguistically, culturally and religiously.

What I mean to say is that when we speak of "Jewish immigrants" to the US in this connection, we are speaking of Jews of a very particular regional, social and cultural backgrounds rather than Jews as a single "racial" entity.

Russ:
Hispanics are caucaisions as are East Indians.That is incorrect. See below.
There are 3 races of Man. Caucaision, Negroid and Asian. That's it.The idea of humanity being divided into three neat "races" is scientifically flawed. It is a remnant of the 19th Century racial theories of human origin that attempted to reconcile different branches of humanity neatly into a biblcal (the Old Testament or TNK) vision.

The reality is that humanity does not neatly divide into distinct "pure" and "racial" categories. For one thing, there probably never was a "pure race" human. For another, humans have mingled for a very, very long time through various migrations.

People CAN be categorized along genetic (biological) and linguistic (cultural), but these are very subtle and only gradually change. For example, as one travels from East Asia (say, Beijing) to Western Europe (Paris), one sees the gradually shifting nature of human differences.

A Han Chinese fits the stereotype of a "Chinese" person. As one travels west to Sinjiang, one sees people who seem mixed Turkic-Mongol-Chinese, still with strong East Asian features. As one progresses farther west, one sees Central Asians, say Tajiks or Kazakhs, who variously show mixed Turkic-Mongol-Persian features with progressively Persian and Arabic ("Caucasian" if you will) features as one nears the Middle East. As one nears Eastern Europe, one still sees Central and East Asian features, but Germanic-Slavic features become progressively more prominent. As one nears Paris, Western European (Germanic-Celtic) features become much stronger.

Mind you, what I describe here is a VERY superficial GENERAL outlook that unfolds very gradually - even then among individuals, the differences often very significant even within the same region. Then there are isolated pockets of past migrations (like Magyars, for example) that defy the "graduated shift."

Now, what adds to the confusion is the emergence of long-distance travelling during the modern times. Up to a certain point in history, long distance travel was difficult and migrations were generally gradual (except for, of course, the "eruptions" of chariot-driving and later horse-riding nomads, who though conquering empires and imparting significant impact, were rather few in number in absolute terms).

However, with long-range ships (and later airplanes), people from extreme corners of the earth were suddenly brought together to one narrow geographical spot (Chinese coolies, African slaves and European colonialists, for example), leading the primitive "scientists" of the times to declare them to be three "distinct" "races."

The modern studies of genetics and linguistics have invalidated these concepts, but VERY UNFORTUNATELY, this practice of "racial" categorization continues, in part aided by those in the authorities.
I want to know why Hispanics are a seperate race. Why aren't Irish a seperate race than Germans for example?To some extent the "government folks" understand this. So "Hispanics" is not a "racial" category. It is an ethnic category. A person who self-declares as a "Hispanic" can also put himself in a "racial" category such as "black," "white," and so forth.

Now, why would the government knowingly tabulate "race" (a nebulous and flawed concept by now) together with "ethnicity"? To fit the politically and socially-conscious mold of "black, white, yellow, brown" and etc. Meaning, such a categorization is politically-driven, rather than scientifically-driven.

jimpeel:
Mexicans are not Negroid;

Mexicans are not Mongoloid;

Mexicans are Caucasoid.

This means, for all intents and purposes, they are White.That is not correct. See my response to Russ. Mexicans (a nationality, based on nation-state boundary and citizenship) are BROADLY-SPEAKING a mixture of "native Americans" (from earlier migrations from Asia), "blacks" (African slaves) and "whites" (European colonialists), and as such, show varying degrees of such a "mixture."

[Ed Brunner]

Ed Brunner
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ADL resolved many of the misconceptions associated with Jews in America. It is probably not a coincidence their history is included in this discussion. As a group who has placed a high priority on education, they exemplify the obvious alternative to affirmative action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That, too, is a stereotype of sorts.

Of course it is a generalization, but a stereotype? NEVER!!:rolleyes:

[Bahadur]

Ed Brunner:
Of course it is a generalization, but a stereotype? NEVER!!What I meant was that the stereotype (or generalization) of the "bookish Jew" has been, to a great extent, the product of a particular kind of Jews, i.e. Ashkenajic immigrants to the US from Central and Eastern Europe, and that there were (and are) all kinds of "other" Jews with different historical and cultural backgrounds where the stereotype does not apply at all.

I guess what I am stating is that the "Jewish academic success" in the US has been a function of the idiosyncracies of a particular kind of people with certain historical, cultural and social background, rather than simply being "Jews" as defined by belonging to the Judaic religion.

Looking at it another way, let me use the example of "the Jew as the banker." There is (still today) persistent stereotype of Jews as being "financially clever." Some people with prejudices tend to cite the prominence of Jews in the financial industry as a "proof" (some of them even going further and declaring "Jewish dominance over money-making" and other nonsense).

What these sad, misguided people do not realize is that there is a historical-social idiosyncracy about that particular "trend." Namely, in Central and Eastern Europe, Jews were, for a long time, not allowed to own and work the land. Since they were also banned from the military, the government and other "traditional" avenues of livelihood, many Ashkenajim were FORCED to engage in trade and artisanship, which were decidedly "second-class" professions during the Middle Ages.

In the early modern period, as European financial system became more advanced, it became an integral tool of the ruling regime as a means to fund wars, explorations and trade. Thus many Jews became prominent as bankers and Hofjude (meaning, "court Jew"). Even though Jews were, in effect, forced into "banking" by the Gentiles earlier, now they had to bear a further prejudice as the "sinister" Shylock types who dominated money-making.

A little shade of this historical vestige ("prominence in the financial industry") remains to this day, but the historical forces have changed long ago (beginning with the Jewish Emancipation and defintely after WWII). Further aided by rapid assimilation and inter-marriages, one is as likely to find a Jewish person who is a banker as one who is a fireman or a cop or a soldier or a professor or a carpenter (and so on ad infinitum). Or even the administrator of a highly successful "gun" Web site. :)

However, these historical-social factors did not similarly apply to Sephardic Jews, for example, who were able to engage in "normal" professions in the somewhat more tolerant medieval Middle East (and particularly under the Ottoman Turks later on). I do not suggest that the medieval Middle East was free of prejudices or pogroms. Instead, there, Jews were, in many ways, simply one of many "peoples" of various ethnic-religious backgrounds such as Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Sunni, Shia, Zoroastrian, Christian, Animist and so on (whereas in Europe, they were largely seen in the context as an "anti-Christan" people). Thus, there never developed the notion of the Sephardic Jews as the "banker Jew" (certainly not to the extent the prejudice in Europe developed).

[anchored]

So, is your argument that there has NOT been a history of discrimination against Americans of Asian descent in the United States?

I wasn't arguing, I was stating fact. And your statement is not a conclusion that can be logically drawn from what I said, becuase it ignores all buit two or three words in the sentence that are important for context.

[Bahadur]

anchored:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, is your argument that there has NOT been a history of discrimination against Americans of Asian descent in the United States?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I wasn't arguing, I was stating fact.So are you now claiming that it is a "fact" that there has not been a history of discrimination against Asians in the US?

[jimpeel]

That is not correct. See my response to Russ. Mexicans (a nationality, based on nation-state boundary and citizenship) are BROADLY-SPEAKING a mixture of "native Americans" (from earlier migrations from Asia), "blacks" (African slaves) and "whites" (European colonialists), and as such, show varying degrees of such a "mixture."Did you miss this part of the post?There is no Mexican "race". There is only a Mexican culture and geographical Ethnicity just like there is only an American culture and geographic Ethnicity.

American Blacks, Whites, and Asians all make up a geographical American Ethnicity as a whole. We can hyphenate ourselves until we all turn a lovely shade of Blue but we will still be nothing more than a Blue American geographical Ethnicity.

[Bahadur]

jimpeel:
Mexicans are not Negroid;

Mexicans are not Mongoloid;

Mexicans are Caucasoid.

This means, for all intents and purposes, they are White.I was responding to the above, which is factually incorrect.

[jimpeel]

Then what are they from the three races shown which are the only three true races that exist? Are they Negroid, Caucasoid, or Mongoloid; or are you willing to make up a fourth catagory?

Perhaps a call to your nearest university anthropology department would afford an answer for you.

[Bahadur]

jimpeel:
Then what are they from the three races shown which are the only three true races that exist? Are they Negroid, Caucasoid, or Mongoloid; or are you willing to make up a fourth catagory?I urge you to read my first post on this page. The concept of "race" along the lines you describe is a scientifically flawed one left over from the racialist theories of the 19th Century. There is certainly no such thing as a "true race" or "pure race" human being. Since the 1940's or so, the study of genetics has conclusively invalidated the notion of "race" along biological lines (meaning "race" is a social - not biological or scientific - construct based on genetically superficial and imprecise visual appearances).
Perhaps a call to your nearest university anthropology department would afford an answer for you.For you, a quick look at any half-way decent encylopedia entry under "race" would do.

But if you insist, most anthropologists will be able to confirm that the notion of "race" along so-called "Caucasoid-Negroid-Mongoloid" lines is a scientifically flawed concept (I say "most" because there ARE fringe types who still hold on to this ghastly unscientific notion including, apparently, those who work for the US Census Bureau).

BTW, even the origin of the term "Caucasian" is highly unscientific today. The term was popularized by Johann Blumenbach, a German "physician" of the late 18th Century. He was an avid collector and "student" of human skulls (like the Nazi "race scientists" later on) and attempted to base his classification of "races" along such lines.

He claimed that there were five "race," namely Caucasian, Mongolian, Malayan, Ethiopian, and American. After witnessing the skull of a Georgian (of Caucasus mountains, not the American South) woman and proclaiming it as the "most beautiful" among mankind, he came to decribe the "European race" as "Caucasians" - people who were the most direct descendants of the "original pure people." He viewed the rest of the "races" in his category as those who "degenerated" from this ideal in varying degrees.

Clearly, today we know that Blumenbach's notion was utterly unscientific and flawed in the extreme. Yet many Americans continue to use this incorrect term "Caucasian" to describe people of European ancestry.

[SodaPop]

Why doesn't it apply to Virgins?

Maybe we need a few more Virgins in College.:p :neener:

[Bahadur]

SodaPop:
Why doesn't it apply to Virgins?

Maybe we need a few more Virgins in College.Maybe because sluts are in greater demand, particularly at fraternities.

I kid, I kid...

[Russ]

I don't think Asians are any smarter or dumber than people from other races. What seems to set them apart, at least many of those that came to the US, is that they work hard. Hard work is generally rewarded 9999.999999 percent of the time.

I know some Asian guys that were potheads and they didn't fair any better than caucaision or black potheads.

You really can't generalize this stuff. I judge each person one at a time.

[jimpeel]

Try this:

http://www.theoryofuniverse.com/man/races/races-skulls.htm

and this:

http://www.anatomy.uq.edu.au/Staff/scool/skull/an105skull.htm#Assessment of Racial Affinity

or this:

http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/races.html

or this:

http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/

and especially this:

http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/existence.html

McGraw-Hill seems to be having a problem with your contention, also; or are they simply "racialist theories of the 19th Century"?

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072500506/student_view0/chapter5/multiple_choice_quiz.html

and then there's this from http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/race_attemptsatclassification.asp

Related: Anthropology

To classify humans on the basis of physiological traits is difficult, for the coexistence of races through conquests, invasions, migrations, and mass deportations (NOT: Which supports your contention) has produced a heterogeneous world population. Nevertheless, by limiting the criteria to such traits as skin pigmentation, color and form of hair, shape of head, stature, and form of nose, most anthropologists agree on the existence of three relatively distinct groups: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid.

The Caucasoid, found in Europe, N Africa, and the Middle East to N India, is characterized as pale reddish white to olive brown in color, of medium to tall stature, with a long or broad head form. The hair is light blond to dark brown in color, of a fine texture, and straight or wavy. The color of the eyes is light blue to dark brown and the nose bridge is usually high.

The Mongoloid race, including most peoples of E Asia and the indigenous peoples of the Americas, has been described as saffron to yellow or reddish brown in color, of medium stature, with a broad head form. The hair is dark, straight, and coarse; body hair is sparse. The eyes are black to dark brown. The epicanthic fold, imparting an almond shape to the eye, is common, and the nose bridge is usually low or medium.

The Negroid race is characterized by brown to brown-black skin, usually a long head form, varying stature, and thick, everted lips. The hair is dark and coarse, usually kinky. The eyes are dark, the nose bridge low, and the nostrils broad. To the Negroid race belong the peoples of Africa south of the Sahara, the Pygmy groups of Indonesia, and the inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia.

Each of these broad groups can be divided into subgroups. General agreement is lacking as to the classification of such people as the aborigines of Australia, the Dravidian people of S India, the Polynesians, and the Ainu of N Japan.

You stated: For you, a quick look at any half-way decent encylopedia entry under "race" would do. and that produced the following from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/r1/race.asp

race

Related: Anthropology

One of the group of populations constituting humanity. The differences among races are essentially biological and are marked by the hereditary transmission of physical characteristics. Genetically a race may be defined as a group with gene frequencies differing from those of the other groups in the human species (see heredity ; genetics ; gene ). However, the genes responsible for the hereditary differences between humans are extremely few when compared with the vast number of genes common to all human beings regardless of the race to which they belong. Many physical anthropologists believe that, because there is as much genetic variation among the members of any given race as there is between different racial groups, the concept of race is ultimately unscientific and racial categories are arbitrary designations. The term race is inappropriate when applied to national, religious, geographic, linguistic, or ethnic groups, nor can the biological criteria of race be equated with mental characteristics, such as intelligence, personality, or character. All human groups belong to the same species ( Homo sapiens ) and are mutually fertile. Races arose as a result of mutation , selection, and adaptational changes in human populations. The nature of genetic variation in human beings indicates there has been a common evolution for all races and that racial differentiation occurred relatively late in the history of Homo sapiens. Theories postulating the very early emergence of racial differentiation have been advanced (e.g., C. S. Coon , The Origin of Races, 1962), but they are now scientifically discredited.

However, the sites that I have given you heretofore are far more conclusive and informative than a mere encyclopedic definition.

For a theological dissertation on this subject, see: http://www.osterholm.info/man/

[PATH]

What a life I lead. I know poor Jews, sober Irishmen, ambitious blacks, hispanics who don't speak spanish, Italians who are not in organized crime, Chinese who are not rocket scientists, and so on.

Affirmative action only discriminates against another group. Equality of oppurtunity and not outcome is what we must as a nation strive for.

As for race, my people were from the British Isles. As I saw no box on the census for Atlantic Islander I simply marked Pacific Islander. My wife being of Lebanese/Syrian extraction is of course Asian. (Ancestors from Asia Minor, the other side of the Bosphorous). Children would of course be others as there is no neat category. Since I was born here I could have put down Native American but I like being an Islander. (I am not the color of a piece of loose leaf paper so I am not white).

Race is a meaningless concept to most modern anthropologists.
Australian aboriginals would fit into which of the 3 races? Skin color and features are adaptations to environmental factors. They have little other signifigance.

Affirmative action is a bogus thing for any group!

[Bahadur]

jimpeel:
However, the sites that I have given you heretofore are far more conclusive and informative than a mere encyclopedic definition.The web sites you provided are, quite frankly, fringe and do not reflect the scientific analyses of the vast majority of the anthropologists in the era of genetic studies. Some of those pages even cite people like Blumenbach as "evidence" when they have been discredited a long, long time ago. Quite frankly, I question the motivation behind those who attack scientists relying on genetic studies as "race-deniers" (as in some of those web sites).

"Mere encylopedic definition," eh? Okay, let's try yet another encyclopedia, shall we (and a pretty cheap one at that)?

From the entry "Race" in Microsoft Encarta (2001 edition):

Race, term historically used to describe a human population distinguishable from others based on shared biological traits. All living human beings belong to one species, Homo sapiens. The concept of race stems from the idea that the human species can be naturally subdivided into biologically distinct groups. In practice, however, scientists have found it impossible to separate humans into clearly defined races. Most scientists today reject the concept of biological race and instead see human biological variation as falling along a continuum. Nevertheless, race persists as a powerful social and cultural concept used to categorize people based on perceived differences in physical appearance and behavior.

Interest in defining races came from the recognition of easily visible differences among human groups. Around the world, human populations differ in their skin color, eye color and shape, hair color and texture, body shape, stature, limb proportions, and other physical characteristics. However, most anthropologists and biologists regard these differences between populations as largely superficial, resulting from adaptations to local climatic conditions during the most recent period of human evolution. Genetic analysis, which provides a deeper and more reliable measure of biological differences between people, reveals that overall, people are remarkably similar in their genetic makeup. Of the genetic differences that do exist, more variation occurs within so-called racial groups than between them. That is, two people from the same "race" are, on average, almost as biologically different from each other as any two people in the world chosen at random. This high degree of genetic diversity exists within populations because individuals from different populations have always intermingled and mated with each other. Given that populations have interbred for most of human history, most anthropologists reject the idea that "pure" races existed at some time in the distant past. Today, genetic analysis has replaced earlier methods of comparing color, shape, and size to establish degrees of relationship or common ancestry among human populations.

The term race is often misunderstood and misused. It is often confused with ethnicity, an ambiguous term that refers mostly, though not exclusively, to cultural (non-biological) differences between groups. An ethnic group derives its identity from its distinctive customs, language, ancestry, place of origin, or style of dress. For example, the Hispanic ethnic group comprises people who trace their ancestry to Spanish-speaking countries in the Western Hemisphere. Although some people assume Hispanics have a common genetic heritage, in reality they share only a language. Members of an ethnic group with a common geographic origin often do share similar physical features. But people of the same ethnic group may also have very different physical appearances, and conversely, people of different ethnic groups may look quite similar. People may also mistakenly use the term race to refer to a religion, culture, or nationality-as in the "Jewish race" or the "Italian race"-whose members may or may not share a common ancestry. The term race is also sometimes used to refer to the entire human species, as in the "human race." In everyday language, the distinction between race and ethnicity has become blurred, and many people use the terms to mean the same thing.

Continued...

[Bahadur]

Race, continued:

II. PROBLEMS IN DEFINING RACES

Around the world, human populations differ in their skin color, eye color and shape, hair color and texture, body shape, height, limb proportions, nose and lip size and shape, and other physical characteristics. For example, peoples of the Arctic, such as the Inuit, differ significantly in body form and skin color from Australian Aborigines. Likewise, Norwegians appear quite different from Nigerians in their skin color and hair color and texture. These easily visible differences between peoples led early scientists to attempt to define races based on outward physical appearance. Such observable traits make up a person's phenotype. In more recent times, scientists have tried to define races based on genotype, the genetic makeup of individuals. Both methods have shortcomings that illustrate the fundamental problems of racial classification.

A. Based on Physical Appearance:

Interest in classifying races flourished in the 19th century and continued in the 20th century. But every anthropologist proposed a different list of races, with numbers varying from as few as 2 to as many as 60 or more. Racial taxonomists usually divided into two opposing camps: "lumpers," who minimized the number of races; and "splitters," who divided humans into many small, local races. Early racial classification schemes were based primarily on skin color. For example, many scholars once believed all people could be classified into one of three main races: (1) Caucasoid, or "white"; (2) Negroid, or "black"; and (3) Mongoloid, or "yellow." These races corresponded roughly to the geographic areas of Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia, respectively.

However, some people did not fit neatly into any of these races. For example, the original inhabitants of Australia, the Aborigines, have dark skin similar to tropical Africans. But some Aborigines have blond hair, unlike most Africans. Were they Negroid or Caucasoid? Some scholars added a new race, Australian, to avoid the problem. The peoples of southern India and Sri Lanka, who have dark skin like tropical Africans but facial features and hair like Europeans, posed a similar classification problem. Again, some scientists added an Indian race. One trait thought to be unique to Mongoloids was the epicanthic fold, a fold of skin across the inner part of the eye. But anthropologists soon discovered that certain African and Native American groups also have epicanthic folds. Should they also be classified as Mongoloid?

These examples show the difficulty in classifying races based primarily on a single physical trait: Populations that share the trait are subjectively lumped into the same race, without any scientific evidence that they are more closely related to each other than to other groups. In addition, the choice of trait is completely arbitrary. One could just as logically choose to classify races by nose shape as by skin color.

An alternative approach might classify races on the basis of particular combinations or clusters of external traits, rather than a single trait. But this approach reveals other problems. Traits that may seem uniform within a population actually vary widely between individuals, making it difficult to classify individuals into racial groups. Furthermore, physical traits are inherited independently of one another. For example, stature in a population may vary from very small to very tall and shows no relation to skin color. Each trait has a unique pattern of geographic distribution that may be unrelated to those of other traits.

Perhaps the greatest problem in racial classification involves determining the boundaries of the races. Populations from different continents or climates may differ profoundly in physical appearance, suggesting that the differences between peoples are sharp and discrete. But scientists now recognize that most human physical characteristics vary gradually and smoothly over large geographic areas. Anthropologists refer to this gradient of variation as a cline. For example, skin color is distributed as a cline, generally varying along a north-south line. Skin color is lightest in northern Europeans, especially in those who live around the Baltic Sea, and becomes gradually darker as one moves toward southern Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and into northern Africa and northern subtropical Africa. Skin is darkest in people who live in the tropical regions of Africa. The lack of clear-cut discontinuities makes any racial boundary based on skin color totally arbitrary. Similar continuity exists for most other physical traits. (For more information about skin color as an environmental adaptation, see the Variation and Environmental Adaptation section of this article.)

Racial classification has generally relied on the premise that each race can be defined by a certain set of physical features that are inherited and unchangeable. But scientists now know that a population's phenotype (visible physical characteristics) can change without genetic change. For example, the average height of adult males in Japan increased an estimated 10 cm (4 in) in the span of only a few decades after 1950. This time span is too short to permit major genetic changes; changes in the Japanese diet account for the height increase. Given how rapidly some phenotypic traits can change in response to environmental conditions, they form a poor basis for defining fixed, biological races.

Race mixing highlights another problem in defining races. In the United States, the child of a white parent and a black parent is usually defined as black, because American society traditionally has not recognized intermediate racial categories. In biological terms, however, the child shares in each parent's genetic heritage equally. Until the mid-20th century, many states defined a person as black if he or she had even a small fraction of black ancestry. Most state laws specified the fraction of black ancestry that made someone black as one-fourth or one-eighth. Thus, having one black great-grandparent was sufficient to define a person as black, but having seven white great-grandparents was insufficient to define the person as white. A Virginia law (overturned in 1967) went even further, defining as black "every person in whom there is ascertainable any Negro blood"-the so-called one-drop rule. These definitions were created as part of laws against miscegenation, which were designed to prohibit interracial marriage. Anthropologists today recognize that race is also culturally relative. A light-skinned African American considered black in the United States would be considered white by many dark-skinned populations of Africa. These examples show that race is socially and culturally constructed, not determined by biology.

A final argument against basing races on phenotype is that relatively few genes determine surface characteristics, such as skin color, hair color, and facial features. For example, fewer than ten genes determine skin color. Considered against the nearly 100,000 genes that make up the entire human genome (the total of all human genes), skin color and other external features represent a trivial source of biological variation. There are many other sources of human biological variation that we cannot see, such as variations in blood type and susceptibility to certain diseases. It is of course inevitable to be influenced by what we see, and this helps to explain why people attribute so much more importance to visible physical traits.

Continued...

[Bahadur]

Race, continued:

B. Based on Genetic Makeup:

As scientists in the 20th century became aware of the many problems in defining races based on physical appearance, some turned to the field of genetics in an effort to define races more scientifically. Genetic analysis allows scientists to learn about differences between people at the level of the genotype-the structure of the molecular genetic material, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Genes are segments of DNA that determine the inheritance of certain traits, or groups of traits. Genetic research provides much more consistent and verifiable information about human variation than do phenotypic studies, primarily because genes are much less susceptible to rapid changes produced by the environment. In addition, genetic studies can examine a much wider range of variable traits-including those not visible to the naked eye.

Scientists first learned about the human genotype through research on proteins-substances fundamental to the function and structure of the body. Proteins indirectly provide information about gene structure because they are the main product of genes. The human body contains tens of thousands of different proteins, most of which vary in form from person to person. Protein research has focused on variation in blood groups, hemoglobin (the protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells), red blood cell enzymes, blood-serum proteins, and human lymphocyte antigens (HLA) that affect individuals' resistance to organ transplants.

The first attempts to classify races by genetic traits used the ABO system of blood groups. Blood groups determine whether any two people can successfully exchange blood through medical transfusion. All people belong to one of four blood groups (A, B, AB, or O), depending on which alleles (forms) of the ABO gene they inherited. The three major alleles of this gene, A, B, and O, are present in almost all populations of the world, but in different proportions. For example, the O allele reaches its maximum frequency among Native Americans, so much so that in South America almost all individuals have type O blood. In central Canada, type A blood is unusually frequent, type O somewhat less frequent, and types B and AB are rare or absent. On other continents one finds all blood groups, with some local variation. But the ABO blood group system lends itself very poorly as a way to distinguish races. Two populations that are remote both geographically and biologically (based on almost all other criteria), such as Germans and New Guineans, often show very similar ABO allele frequencies.

When scientists examine a large number of different genes, some distinctions between groups begin to appear more clearly. For example, one can usually find some degree of genetic differentiation between populations separated by geographic barriers, such as seas, mountains, and rivers. This occurs because geographic barriers tend to isolate populations from each other, although no barrier seems to completely prevent interbreeding of populations. The genetic differentiation observed between such populations is always extremely modest and not discernible without a thorough analysis. In most areas of the world, genetic traits, like phenotypic (external) traits, are distributed clinally-that is, they vary in a smooth, gradual pattern across geographic areas. For example, in Central Asia the transition from a European type to an East Asian type (as defined by gene frequencies) is almost continuous, making the task of drawing a boundary between "European" and "Asian" races impossible. Around the world, abrupt changes in gene frequencies are unusual between neighboring populations. The reason is that human groups, throughout history, have generally mixed and mated with one other, guaranteeing a constant flow of genes between populations.

By analyzing the data from a sufficiently large number of genes, one could identify hundreds of thousands of local populations at a minimum, each with a slightly different profile of gene frequencies. But this analysis would not answer the question of how many basic races there are. No reasonable multiplication of the list of races could cope with the observed continuity and complexity of genetic variation. Thus, most scientists have given up racial classification as a futile exercise.

The direct analysis of DNA, which became possible in the 1980s, has revolutionized the study of human variation. DNA research has shown that similarities among all people far outweigh any differences. On average, two randomly chosen individuals have 99.9 percent of their genetic material in common. Of the 0.1 percent variation that does exist, 85 percent exists within populations; only 15 percent exists between populations. In other words, almost all the genetic differences between any two people are due simply to the fact that they are different individuals. In comparison with the genetic variation observed among individuals, that between human groups, however defined, is almost negligible.

The human species has less genetic variability than many other animal species, including chimpanzees, the closest living relatives of humans. The reason is that the differentiation among humans living today probably began in the recent evolutionary past. Genetic studies suggest that all people alive today are descended from a relatively small group of humans in eastern Africa who began migrating out of Africa as recently as 50,000 years ago...

Pretty comprehensive, isn't it? Shall I go on and start citing anthropological literature in even greater depths?

[PATH]

I think that answer puts the race question to bed!

[az_ccw]

The AA stuff is not about race, ethnicity, or culture. It is pure and simply derived from racism . . . prejudice and hate.

We as humans classify other humans into "color" categories. Then we place those categories on a vertical scale . . . notoriosly with "white" on top. We can then say "who" may vote, "who" may own guns, "who" may ____________ . . . based on the color of your skin.

This is a gun forum . . . how many gun laws are on the books strictly because "whites" did not want "blacks" to have guns? This method of categorizing people lead to the slaughter of millions of Jewish people in WWII. This method of categorizing is still alive and well in the country yet today! If you don't believe that, go back and read a few of the earlier posts to this very thread.

Our Government created a bunch of crazy laws to help the minorities they oppressed. Remember when women could not vote? Well, the Small Business Administration still has on its books special loans available only to Women and . . . you quessed it . . . minorities.

We, as a nation, need to be rid of all Affirmative Action laws. It is nothing more than discrimination. But beyond that . . . we need to finally accept "All men are created equal", with no conditions of the color of their skin.

Will that day ever happen . . . Yes . . . when Jesus sets foot back on this corrupt world to finally bring us peace. Notice the Bible NEVER once refers to the color of a person's skin.

May God Bless America!

[Bahadur]

az_ccw:

Not only do we need to rid ourselves of the so-called affirmative action, we also need to rid ourselves of the notion of "race."

If we must, we can use ethnicity to denote regional background (i.e. Western European, Sub-Saharan African, East Asian, Latin American and so forth).

[jimpeel]

The web sites you provided are, quite frankly, fringeFringe?? Did you miss the following?

The first site stated quite clearly" the above pictures were taken at the museum of man - san diego, ca (2/2001)

The second http://www.anatomy.uq.edu.au/ was from the University of Queensland.

The third gave links to PBS' Nova http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

The sixth was McGraw-Hill which was based upon Cultural Anthropology, 9/e Conrad P. Kottak, University of Michigan

Yeah, those are certainly some way-out-there sources all right.

Quite frankly, I question the motivation behind those who attack scientists relying on genetic studies as "race-deniers" (as in some of those web sites).Hmmm. I believe that I have just been insulted but will wait to see what you have to say in clarification of same.

To guide you in this I will edify you with the following which is common knowledge to most of those who posted to TFL in the past.

I am a White male who is married to a Mexican/Yakima Indian woman, and have been so for the past 33 years. My children are White/Mexican/Yakima Indian.

My White/Mexican/Yakima Indian son produced a grandson for us with a Black/White woman so My grandson is Black/White/Mexican/Yakima Indian.

We have stated in the past that we sincerely hope he will one day marry an Oriental/Jewish woman and complete the circle.

That desire has been somewhat realized as my White/Mexican/Yakima Indian son is now engaged to a Japanese woman. My Black/White/Mexican/Yakima Indian grandson is learning Japanese and is desirous of becoming a computer programmer for Sony Corp. He has every desire to relocate to Japan in the future.

Basically, I have done more for racial integration, and in suppport of your contentions, with my penis than Jesse jackson and his ilk could do with a thousand school buses.

I am also one of the most hated men in America as I get the animus of every racist walking because I am a race mixer.

The one thing that the likes of Tom Metzger, David Duke, Louis Farrakahn, and the late and unlamented Kahlid Abdul Mohammed agree on is that they all hate my guts.

The facts are that you cannot produce anything in evidence of the human species having not originated from the three basic races that are listed. Your contention, and that of Encarta, is based on everyone being everything but has no basis in fact on where that "everything" came from or what it breaks down into in its simplest form.

I reject all encompassing statements like:

... most anthropologists reject the idea that "pure" races existed at some time in the distant past. So the first guy was a mixture of .... ?

And then there's this:The term race is often misunderstood and misused. It is often confused with ethnicity, an ambiguous term that refers mostly, though not exclusively, to cultural (non-biological) differences between groups. An ethnic group derives its identity from its distinctive customs, language, ancestry, place of origin, or style of dress. For example, the Hispanic ethnic group comprises people who trace their ancestry to Spanish-speaking countries in the Western Hemisphere. Although some people assume Hispanics have a common genetic heritage, in reality they share only a language. Which supports my contention in the very first post I posted ... remember this part? American Blacks, Whites, and Asians all make up a geographical American Ethnicity as a whole. We can hyphenate ourselves until we all turn a lovely shade of Blue but we will still be nothing more than a Blue American geographical Ethnicity.

For example, skin color is distributed as a cline, generally varying along a north-south line. Skin color is lightest in northern Europeans, especially in those who live around the Baltic Sea, and becomes gradually darker as one moves toward southern Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and into northern Africa and northern subtropical Africa. Skin is darkest in people who live in the tropical regions of Africa. The lack of clear-cut discontinuities makes any racial boundary based on skin color totally arbitrary. I.e.: The amount of melatonin in the skin increases as one approaches the Equator. Wow! What a revelation!:rolleyes:

Race mixing highlights another problem in defining races. In the United States, the child of a white parent and a black parent is usually defined as black, because American society traditionally has not recognized intermediate racial categories. In biological terms, however, the child shares in each parent's genetic heritage equally. Until the mid-20th century, many states defined a person as black if he or she had even a small fraction of black ancestry. Most state laws specified the fraction of black ancestry that made someone black as one-fourth or one-eighth. Thus, having one black great-grandparent was sufficient to define a person as black, but having seven white great-grandparents was insufficient to define the person as white. A Virginia law (overturned in 1967) went even further, defining as black "every person in whom there is ascertainable any Negro blood"-the so-called one-drop rule. These definitions were created as part of laws against miscegenation, which were designed to prohibit interracial marriage. Politics, politics, politics. A white, blue-eyed, blond Africaner from South Africa is an African-American here in America.

The human species has less genetic variability than many other animal species, including chimpanzees, the closest living relatives of humans. Hmmm. Doesn't this single statement disavow the endangered species theory of this sub-species vs that sub-species such as the Stevens Kangaroo Rat debacle in California? If there is no distinct subset of humans there can, by definition, be no subset of rats either. Now that I would go along with readily!

[Bahadur]

jimpeel:
I reject all encompassing statements like:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... most anthropologists reject the idea that "pure" races existed at some time in the distant past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Uh, isn't your statement an "all encompassing statement" itself?
Basically, I have done more for racial integration, and in suppport of your contentions, with my penis than Jesse jackson and his ilk could do with a thousand school buses.Fine and dandy (I am in a "mixed" marriage and have a "mixed" family as well). But ignorance of scientific facts and analyses is, sometimes, fully compatible with finding members of other ethnic groups sexually attractive.
Yeah, those are certainly some way-out-there sources all right.Ah, but the information contained therein is not necessarily endorsed by these larger organizations, and was merely presented as "*a* point of view."
The amount of melatonin in the skin increases as one approaches the Equator. Wow! What a revelation!Apparently, though, you missed the more subtle implication of the statement - which is that superficial appearance differences (like skin tones) are very recent environmental adaptations rather than biological "racial" (if you will) origin differences.
The facts are that you cannot produce anything in evidence of the human species having not originated from the three basic races that are listed. Your contention, and that of Encarta, is based on everyone being everything but has no basis in fact on where that "everything" came from or what it breaks down into in its simplest form.Sigh... From my earlier post, the section titled "A. Based on Physical Appearance" demonstrates why categorizing "race" based on physical appearances is faulty, as it gives numerous facts about the scientific invalidation of some of the arbitrary "racial" physical characteristics.

The section titled "B. Based on Genetic Makeup" shows that genetic evidence is against the "race as sub-species" nonsense. Otherwise, how do you explain the following:
The direct analysis of DNA, which became possible in the 1980s, has revolutionized the study of human variation. DNA research has shown that similarities among all people far outweigh any differences. On average, two randomly chosen individuals have 99.9 percent of their genetic material in common. Of the 0.1 percent variation that does exist, 85 percent exists within populations; only 15 percent exists between populations. [emphasis mine]If there are really "races," wouldn't the genetic differences be greater between such population groupings rather than within. Yet the opposite is the case. But I suppose you'd just "reject it all," wouldn't you?

My contention is not that "everyone is from everything." Rather, it is that the physical differences you see on humans are from rather recent specific regional environmental adaptations that have NOTHING to do with the perceived notions of biological "race." On the contrary, every so-called evidence from the past of the existence of "race" has been invalidated by recent scientific breakthroughs like DNA and other methods of biological studies.

BTW, even those who refuse to admit the DNA evidences and still proclaim "race" as a valid biological sub-division do not claim that there are only three races (i.e. your "Caucasoid," "Mongoloid" and "Negroid"). The reason those three were prominent in earlier, more primitive studies of "race" was because early Europeans were first cognizant of peoples from Europe, Asia and Africa - before they began to make voyages to other, more distant, parts of the world. The prevalence on the part of many to see "distinct races" also has to do with patterns of human migration and conflict (for example, the human populations of sub-Saharan Africa and China were linguistically much, much more diverse at one time before the Bantu expansion and Han Chinese expansion, respectively, displaced a great majority of these diverse groups, whose vestige still remains in the form of certain linguistic remnants incompatible to Bantu and Han Chinese languages). Because people are generally very poorly informed and educated about these population displacements, they do not realize that the supposedly "uniform"-looking population characteristics (often arbitrarily mislabelled as racial characteristics) are a very recent phenomenon associated with conquest and the subsequent widespread settlement of a particular group of people (like Bantus) in a given region (like sub-Saharan Africa).

I've already explained earlier that the origin of the term "Caucasoid" isn't even scientific, and that it evolved from a bizzarre cranial fetish of an 18th Century "physician" (who pronounced the cranial remains of a Caucasian Georgian woman the most "beautiful" and "ideal," and that the rest of humanity simply degenerated from this "pure" Caucasian race, thus making the Europeans or "Caucasians" in his term that closest thing to this "pure" race).
So the first guy was a mixture of .... ?Sigh... You really don't get it, do you? Who says that there was "the first guy"? Or is it that you believe Adam was "the first man" and then his (and Noah's) descendants Ham, Shem and Jephtha divided neatly into the three "races"?

I hate to make a cross-spiecies comparison, but do you believe that the different breeds of dogs are also a biological sub-species "pure" categories too (which is nonsense as every "pure" breed is a mixture of various different strains of proto-dogs and earlier dogs)?

[Ed Brunner]

Bahadur

Sigh... You really don't get it, do you? Who says that there was "the first guy"? Or is it that you believe Adam was "the first man" and then his (and Noah's) descendants Ham, Shem and Jephtha divided neatly into the three "races"?

Not to but in:) , but I too think there had to be some primary parents. Not sure if and when they "divided" but I don't think anyone is.
If skin color were the only racial differences, it might be easier to explain.

[Bahadur]

Ed Brunner:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigh... You really don't get it, do you? Who says that there was "the first guy"? Or is it that you believe Adam was "the first man" and then his (and Noah's) descendants Ham, Shem and Jephtha divided neatly into the three "races"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not to but in , but I too think there had to be some primary parents.Oh, I agree that it is very likely that there was a fairly small group of common ancestors for most, probably all, of humanity. Most likely, that group migrated out of East Africa. What I was getting at earlier was this notion of jimpeel's that there was ONE (or three) "pure race" ancestor(s).
Not sure if and when they "divided" but I don't think anyone is.It appears from the study of biology (genetics) and culture (linguistics) that the initial small group out of Africa migrated throughout the world, producing specific regional environmental adaptations as they migrated. But these adaptations were superficial, literally "skin-deep" and did not create distinct "racial" genetic variability, certainly not enough to warrant sub-species categories.
If skin color were the only racial differences, it might be easier to explainAgain, I do NOT deny that there are physical appearance differences among people (plainly there are). My contention, backed by modern, mainstream science, is that these differences in appearance are very superficial adaptations rather than inherent biological differences per some arbitrary "racial" sub-divisions among humanity, and that genetic differences are much more pronounced among individuals within the same "race" than between two different "races."

I know this idea feels extremely counter-intuitive to those who have been programmed (by faulty 19th Century pseudo-science and its remant like the US Census racial categories dating from the 1790s) into categorizing people by extremely superficial external appearances, which aren't really even uniform among the single perceived "racial" group.

[Sergeant Bob]

Why doesn't Affirmative Action include Asians?
Because the Socialists don't feel they need to attract the "Asian" vote. If the Asian population was similar in numbers to the Hispanics and Blacks, they'd be all over it.

[Ed Brunner]

Bahadur
Oh, I agree that it is very likely that there was a fairly small group of common ancestors for most, probably all, of humanity. Most likely, that group migrated out of East Africa. What I was getting at earlier was this notion of jimpeel's that there was ONE (or three) "pure race" ancestor(s).

More like Iraq fron my references :)

[Bahadur]

Ed Brunner:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I agree that it is very likely that there was a fairly small group of common ancestors for most, probably all, of humanity. Most likely, that group migrated out of East Africa. What I was getting at earlier was this notion of jimpeel's that there was ONE (or three) "pure race" ancestor(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



More like Iraq fron my referencesIraq, or better yet, Mesopotamia is probably where a human civilization first arose. But most plausible and supported theories point to Africa as the origin of the men as biological beings (as opposed to civilizational beings).

[anchored]

So are you now claiming that it is a "fact" that there has not been a history of discrimination against Asians in the US?

Go back and read my original post, and then my second post. Go read some caselaw on affirmative action. I never said any such thing, and neither has anyone else.

[jimpeel]

I concede the debate but with some reservations and considerations.

I still reject the premise that there was never a pure race of any kind as that premise is based on there being a multitude of persons who were "first" rather than whoever actually was first. I don't buy into the "evolution started it all" theory as I cannot accept the premise that all of this simply went "poof" based on some random primordial mixture of all of the right ingredients.

I also don't reject evolution as I see it every day. When I was a kid, a six foot man was considered tall. These days, he would have trouble seeing where he was going in a crowded high school hallway.

You stated:

Apparently, though, you missed the more subtle implication of the statement - which is that superficial appearance differences (like skin tones) are very recent environmental adaptations rather than biological "racial" (if you will) origin differences.That part about "very recent" would be predicated on the fact that the world, as we know it, has gotten far smaller, figuratively, than it was in the past; and migrations today are en masse rather than the "couple of families pulling up stakes" type of migration that occurred in the early part of the world's history. Racial mixing will become more and more common as time passes.

That idiotic woman Maya Angelou has written on the "racial genocide" fear that Whites supposedly have that once they have mixed with a "person of color" we will be wiped out as a race as we cannot ever go back to being pure white once we have that drop of coloring added.

What a load of tripe; and the proof of that is you and me. If we actually held such fears, we would not have married who we married; instead favoring the more "pure" spouses available to us.

But most plausible and supported theories point to Africa as the origin of the men as biological beings (as opposed to civilizational beings).There was a study done that was in the Scientific American some years ago, that traced the origin of homo-sapiens to a single woman in Africa. It was an interesting article.

There were more recent articles along these same lines also.

Scientific American : [Feature Article] : OUT OF AFRICA, INTO ASIA
01/13/1999 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00084EA5-DD43-1C6A-84A9809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID=2)

Scientific American : [News] : Ethiopian Fossil Discovery Prunes Human Family Tree
03/21/2002 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00091821-FD8D-1CCF-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=1)

Scientific American : [News] : Ancient Bone Tools Suggest Modern Human Behavior Has African Roots
11/08/2001 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009BB46-F71D-1C67-B882809EC588ED9F&pageNumber=1&catID=1)

Scientific American : [News] : Y Chromosome Study Suggests Asians, Too, Came from Africa
05/11/2001 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000516FE-B082-1C5E-B882809EC588ED9F&pageNumber=1&catID=1)

Scientific American : [News] : Rooting the Human Family Tree in Africa
12/07/2000 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0008CDDC-29DF-1C68-B882809EC588ED9F&pageNumber=1&catID=1)

[Bahadur]

jimpeel:
I still reject the premise that there was never a pure race of any kind as that premise is based on there being a multitude of persons who were "first" rather than whoever actually was first.Either way, the "pure race" idea makes no sense, actually. Why? Even if we were to assume that there was only ONE "pure" ancestor, how would you then explain how the progeny of that ancestor became "impure"?

Some 18th Century and 19th Century pseudo-scientists held on to that view, but they tried to explain by stating that Europeans were the closest to the original "pure" race and that the rest of humanity has "degenerated" (!) into "impure" races by a variety of "reasons" ("lack of grace from God," "lack of Christianity," "mongrelization," and etc.).

The actuality is that we humans ALL share almost the same genetic make-up (something like 99.9% commonality), which appears to support that we all came from a fairly small group of ancestors (or even one, if you'd like). That either invalidates the notion of several distinct "pure" races different from each other OR it is a proof that we - pretty much all of us - belong to a ONE pure race - that of humanity.
I don't buy into the "evolution started it all" theory as I cannot accept the premise that all of this simply went "poof" based on some random primordial mixture of all of the right ingredients.I don't know what you mean by "all."
I also don't reject evolution as I see it every day. When I was a kid, a six foot man was considered tall. These days, he would have trouble seeing where he was going in a crowded high school hallway.Likely, the height increase has little to do with "evolution" per se and more to do with dietary changes (in Japan, for example, the average height has increased by 4 inches in the last several decades, a time period too short to experience an evolutionary change; improved diet heavy with protein has something to do with it in most likelihood).
That idiotic woman Maya Angelou has written on the "racial genocide" fear that Whites supposedly have that once they have mixed with a "person of color" we will be wiped out as a race as we cannot ever go back to being pure white once we have that drop of coloring added.

What a load of tripeIndeed. Either Angelou holds onto a unscientific and ridiculous concept or she *thinks* that "whites" are ignorant enough to hold the same. If latter, how can she explain that only "whites" hold onto such a "race consciousness," and not others who supposedly lend themselves much more easily to "race-mixing"? Furthermore, does she realize that "white" people aren't white and that many of them have very dark complexions (some darker than people who are termed "Black," "Brown" or "Yellow"). Perhaps somebody ought to inform the good writer that ascribing such ridiculous caricature to a group of people is often referred to as "racism."

BTW, the fear of another who looks "different" is not biological. It is a conditioned response the days when tribalism ruled and when encountering those who looked "different" meant conflict. Thankfully, we humans are a bit less tribalistic these days (some of us have even transferred our allegiances to much larger social concepts like "nation-states" while reserving the greatest allegiance to much more primordial "families").
There was a study done that was in the Scientific American some years ago, that traced the origin of homo-sapiens to a single woman in Africa. It was an interesting article.I am aware of the idea and the attendant literature. It is a very intriguing idea. But even if it were true, it does not necessarily mean that humans evolved out of the progeny of a single human couple (the proverbial "Adam and Eve") or that this female ancestor was "pure."

[Soap]

Lotta Asians around here! I'm half Asian if that helps ;)

Runt of the Litter- I can completely understand what you mean. My white aquaintances think of me as Asian, my Asian aquaintances think of me as white. :eek:

[Bahadur]

Lotta Asians around here! I'm half Asian if that helpsWhat do you mean by "Asian"? Are you suggesting that half of your body came from Asia, the continent? :)

[Soap]

Bahadur-

Har Har. ;)

[El Tejon]

[El Tejon stuffing face with Pad Thai lunch special] Dan, funny, I think of you as tactical.:cool:

[Soap]

El Tejon,

Maybe I should quit the job search and just try to be in those UberTacticool Blackhawk ads :D

[Skunkabilly]

Maybe I should quit the job search and just try to be in those UberTacticool Blackhawk ads

I can arrange that.

[jimpeel]

I don't know what you mean by "all."Since I used the word "all" three times in that post I will define them "all".

First: I don't buy into the "evolution started it all" theory ..."All" life, flora, fauna, minerals, water, etc.as we know it.

Second:I cannot accept the premise that all of this simply went "poof"... See "first" above.

Third:... based on some random primordial mixture of all of the right ingredients.Perhaps I should have said "... based on some random primordial mixture of the right combination of ingredients necessary for same".

[jmbg29]

Come on...an Asian guy that speaks Ebonics and plays the banjo?Is this a great country, or what? ReeeeHawww! Peace out! :D

[Bahadur]

jimpeel:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't buy into the "evolution started it all" theory ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"All" life, flora, fauna, minerals, water, etc.as we know it.Evolution explains how life evolved - how biological organisms adapted itself to the environment. It does not, IMHO, necessarily explain how it all began, i.e. how biological organisms came into being in the first place.

So one does not need to believe in "evolution started it all," to believe in the evolutionary theory of adaptation.

IMHO, at the most philosophical level, there IS a connect between evolutionism and the idea of intelligent design (quite contrary to the verbal snipes from each side). We tend to see "God" or "the Creator" as a human-like, fatherly being (complete with a beard and a kindly smile), but it is my suspicion that there is a pattern to the great creative force (after all, evolution would be meaningless without its patterns of adaptation). Whether you call that force "God," "Universe," "Truth" (with the capital T) or the "Great Umatanye" is a cultural construct.

[jimpeel]

We tend to see "God" or "the Creator" as a human-like, fatherly being (complete with a beard and a kindly smile), ...I hold no distinct visual conception of God. I see him every day in the people I meet and the guy in the mirror.

[yy]

Buddhist teachings mentioned that all sentient beings have the potential to become a buddha -- meaning to achieve nirvana -- meaning to make a concious end to the endless rebirths yet unselfishly helping other sentient beings to achieve the same state.

Wasn't there some school of thought (or a sect?) that said everyone is god? Or was it everyone has a piece of god inside? Or was that a facecious snide similar to the chimp priest in the planet of the apes who intoned that God made chimps in his own image?:neener:

I believe the original post spoke of the observation that some political body in America don't seem to apply affirmative action policies in favor of Americans who recently came from East Asian geography?:evil:

anyways, I echo some of the earlier posts. Evolution is a process. It does not claim to explain how the world came into being. And Creationism never offered an explanation of how life adapts. The bible never mentioned T-Rex gobbling up the people so discovering dinosour bones that implied these creatures once roamed the earth casts doubt on the bible. Doubt that the bible contained all knowledge. Not quite the same as disproving all content in the bible.

The telling difference is how evolution and creation fit science. Some people confuse science as a religion when it is truly a procedure where we update our knowledge (cast out false ones) in the face of new evidence. Hence a 'thing' must be falsifiable to be scientific. Unfortunately, 'faith that it happend one way' is not falsifiable, so it is not science.:scrutiny:

Bad enough that the younger, TV generation never learned how to doubt doctrine to grow their knowledge. I find myself getting sucked in sometimes. Some folks teach faith to bolster the moral fiber of the learned, but truly important but missed is the skill to doubt constructively to learn from new evidence. And seek new evidence after formulating a falsifiable hypothesis.

There. Bookish mode off.

[Skunkabilly]

Did Yao Ming get preferential treatment?

[Bahadur]

jimpeel:
I hold no distinct visual conception of God.Really? Let's look at your next sentence then.
I see him every day in the people I meet and the guy in the mirror [Emphasis mine]."Him," eh? That says a lot about *your* construct of God.

My original point was this: whether one claims (or claims not) to "picture" God in one way or another, it is apparent that we humans tend to see the deity (or Universe, Truth, Knowledge, etc.) in a distinctly human prism.

If one sees God as the entirety of matter and space, the objective reality, the sum of all knowledge - which can NEVER be seen entirely by limited human beings, it needs not be a humanistic figure. One can then see evolution as an essentially "godly" work, and all things in the world as "godly" creation.

In such a, not-so-humbly-speaking, sophisticated view of deity, there is NO conflict between evolution (or any other observable scientific concepts) and God.

[jimpeel]

Okay, now you are starting to nitpick. I didn't capitalize "Him" which I know better but failed to do. Your post clearly stated:human-like, fatherly being (complete with a beard and a kindly smile), ...and I responded to that contention.

Yes, I say "Him" as that is what the Bible, the scripture of my religion, teaches. There is no scripture of any religion that teaches that God is anything other than a male so your point is moot. Don't go to the "Mother Earth, Father Sky" crap, either as that is not a religion as much as a New Age credo of the Ghia crowd.

The religions of antiquity are long dead long so don't tell me about Hera and Diana either. Those were delightful stories for reading in Jr. High School.

My religion teaches that Man is the "Image of God" and goes no further than that. Yes, there are those who attempt to effect an image of God but they have to all be failures as the face of God is "Unknown to Man".

Renaissance painters tried and their attempts still adorn the Sistine Chapel.

To repeat myself. "I hold no distinct visual conception of God."

[Bahadur]

jimpeel:
Yes, I say "Him" as that is what the Bible, the scripture of my religion, teaches.My religion teaches that Man is the "Image of God" and goes no further than that. Yes, there are those who attempt to effect an image of God but they have to all be failures as the face of God is "Unknown to Man".Then why "Him"? If the unknowable is unknown, why is it "Him," not "Her," "It," "They," and etc. BTW, the Old Testament/TNK does refer to God as "a host," "Elohim" and other plural terms. Furthermore, when it is stated that Man is in "the image of God," it is referring to Man's "spirit," not his physical shape.
There is no scripture of any religion that teaches that God is anything other than a male so your point is moot. Don't go to the "Mother Earth, Father Sky" crap, either as that is not a religion as much as a New Age credo of the Ghia crowd.

The religions of antiquity are long dead long so don't tell me about Hera and Diana either. Those were delightful stories for reading in Jr. High School.I see. What deviates from your vision of God is either "crap" or "dead" or merely "delightful stories for... Jr. High School." Clearly, you do not look beyond your own cultural construct.

[jimpeel]

Clearly, you do not look beyond your own cultural construct.Those are my teachings; those are my beliefs; and those are my adherence. To believe otherwise is a denial of my faith.

There is nothing beyond my own cultural construct.

That is what true belief is about. "Well, maybe ..." is not true belief -- it is true doubt.

I have no doubt.

My religion asks but one simple task of me -- belief. There is no strain, no work, no athletic expenditure of my time, no chanting, no postulating, no kowtowing, no prostration, no offerings, no burning of money, no apologies to lower creatures, no holidays to the dead, no shaving of my head, no facing a distant geographical entity, no drugs, no ringing of bells.

Even prayer is not required.

Just plain old simple belief.

The Bible is not a "work in progress", and not a "living document". You either believe; or you have doubts that equate to disbelief. You, nor any other person, can deter me from my belief and that's that.

In my world there is one God -- my God. Period.

In your world ...? None of my business and I'd like to keep it that way.

End -- and I do mean end -- of discussion.

[Frohickey]

No where else have I seen a topic go 5 pages long, and start from Affirmative Action and finally end up in religion.

[XLMiguel]

To answer the original question, being Asian does get you minority points in a lot of gov't programs, tho perhaps not AA.

But let me climb up on this deceased equine and state that there is only one race - the human race - all the rest is just variations on a theme. :neener:

It's Miller Time, anyone care to join me?

[Frohickey]

But let me climb up on this deceased equine and state that there is only one race - the human race - all the rest is just variations on a theme.

Since this thread is about out-of-topic topics... whats your feelings about horsehide or leather for holsters? :D

[XLMiguel]

I thought Horsehide was leather, too. But seriously, I like horse more for IWB, but otherwise, not too picky. Just got a kydex (fobus) paddle for my H&K USP45C, like it so far.

[Skunkabilly]

Get a Glock.

Well, I was reading a thread two days ago on Cult of the P7 that went from IWB holsters to ...ahem....self-gratification.:o

Do government jobs use preferences? I have seen some say 'Asian and Hispanic candidates are encouraged to apply', but no where on the applications did it ask for race or ethnicity.

[XLMiguel]

Les'see, IIRC, the ultimate AA candidate was a one-eyed hispanic-surnamed over-40 black woman, wounded in Vietnam married to a gay Jewish native Ameican small businessman. Skunk, you is just a simple minority, hope youse can live wid it:neener:

[Frohickey]

You forgot, 'diagnosed with AIDS', and 'unmarried single mother'.

[Bahadur]

Jimpeel:
There is nothing beyond my own cultural construct.To believe so would mean a belief in one's perfection - that there is no world beyond what one can observe. To believe so is to deny that there is something greater than us (for example, God) that we cannot understand one-hundred percent.
That is what true belief is about. "Well, maybe ..." is not true belief -- it is true doubt.

I have no doubt.True belief must be tempered by humility, the understanding that we are not perfect beings and see the world with some degree of error. Only God has no doubt, and you, my friend, are no God.
My religion asks but one simple task of me -- belief. There is no strain, no work, no athletic expenditure of my time, no chanting, no postulating, no kowtowing, no prostration, no offerings, no burning of money, no apologies to lower creatures, no holidays to the dead, no shaving of my head, no facing a distant geographical entity, no drugs, no ringing of bells.

Even prayer is not required.Neither do my spiritual beliefs. But I do not claim to see all of the Truth. My belief system requires me to continue to learn, discover and try to reach God, the sum of all knowledge and existence, until the day I die.
The Bible is not a "work in progress", and not a "living document". You either believe; or you have doubts that equate to disbelief.The Bible was written by Man, perhaps endowed with the grace of God (if you are a Christian). But because it still is the work of Man, it is bound to contain human interpretations which is subject to error. If you believe that every word of the Bible is the direct, quoted word of God without any human interpretation, feel free to keep the Kashruth law, slaves, multiple wives and so on.
You, nor any other person, can deter me from my belief and that's that.Nor was it my intention to deter you from your belief, but to engage you in a reasoned discussion to increase our mutual understanding.
In my world there is one God -- my God. Period.Are there other people in your world? If so, must they believe in your God or otherwise be damned to hell?
End -- and I do mean end -- of discussion.While I am happy to end exchanging ideas with you, it is by mutual consent, not because you impolitely declare so as if you are my superior.

[Bahadur]

Mike in VA:
But let me climb up on this deceased equine and state that there is only one race - the human race - all the rest is just variations on a theme.You got that right! And the variations aren't really all that deep either.
It's Miller Time, anyone care to join me?Already had one, friend. But thanks anyway! :)

[jimpeel]

As you once put to me: "You just don't get it, do you?"

Of course you are trying to deter me from my belief. To attempt to convince me that there is anything beyond my belief is to introduce doubt. Doubt is disbelief.

True belief requires holding one God above, and to the rejection of, all others. I reject all others so my belief is true. There is no Kali, Allah, etc. in my world. They are simply words on a page. Some may find some comfort in playing "eenie, meenie, miney, mo" with their Gods. I do not.

You equate this with some type of self diefication. Bunk!

My belief system requires me to continue to learn, discover and try to reach God, the sum of all knowledge and existence, until the day I die. Then you have no belief system as you cannot come to true belief. You are always in flux. That, Sir, is doubt; not belief.

Basically, the Bible is a very nice book of history, geography, and a few quaint moral stories called parables. The important part is where it requires of me that I believe in God, His Son, that I try to adhere to the principles set out in the Ten Commandments, and be the best person I can while I inhabit this Earth. THAT'S ALL. That is what I have settled on as my true belief and that's that.

This does not mean that what is right for me is right for anyone, or everyone, else. It is right for me. I do not proselytize.

When I said "End -- and I do mean end-- ..." I meant that this segue from the stated thread subject should be ended. If you wish to continue this Theological discussion, I would suggest we go to PMs and let the thread get back on track.

[Frohickey]

I like Kydex holsters... what kind of animal does Kydex come from? Kydexasaurus? :D

[Bahadur]

jimpeel:

True belief requires holding one God above, and to the rejection of, all others. I reject all others so my belief is true. There is no Kali, Allah, etc. in my world. They are simply words on a page. Some may find some comfort in playing "eenie, meenie, miney, mo" with their Gods. I do not.My Kung Fu is better than your Kung Fu. Ha-i-yaaaaah! :)

Okay, answer me just ONE question (well, a series of questions), please:

Are you a perfect being? Are you capable of observing the entirety of truth perfectly?

If you say "Yes," isn't it self-deification since only gods, by definition, are omniscient?

If you say, No," how can you then be sure that your belief system is 100% truth and not be subject to even an inkling of doubt?

[jimpeel]

Are you a perfect being?Of course not. If I were, I wouldn't be participating in debates on this subject.

Are you capable of observing the entirety of truth perfectly?We all have our own "truths". You have yours, I have mine, and everyone else has theirs. The firearms debate is a perfect example of this. Sarah Brady, Wayne LaPierre, Dennis Hennigan, Charleton Heston, Tom Diaz, Aron Zelman, Badahur, and Jim Peel all have their set of truths to which they adhere. Of the first six, every other one calls every other one a liar. You and I get to watch from the sidelines while they make fools of themselves.

If you say "Yes," isn't it self-deification since only gods, by definition, are omniscient?I have never claimed to be so endowed.

If you say, No," how can you then be sure that your belief system is 100% truth and not be subject to even an inkling of doubt?Because, as I stated above, we each have out own truths to which we adhere. I have settled on mine and, as such, dwell in a place of belief. If I were still contemplating other "Gods" and the like, I would still be in the realm of doubt about that which I truly believe.

I went through my periods of Agnosticism, etc., but finally came to rest on a specific "one" that is the only one as far as I am concerned.

I do not state that those who have not settled on their specific "one" that is the only one as far as they are concerned are wrong. They simply haven't found the firm belief that I have -- yet.

I am sure that there would be as similar an argument between yourself and Ghandi, or Kohmenni, or the Pope as there is with me as they also had their "one" that is the only one as far as they are concerned; to the rejection of all others.

You have as much chance with me as you would have with them in convincing me otherwise.

[Bahadur]

jimpeel:
Because, as I stated above, we each have out own truths to which we adhere.Ah, the crux of the matter is that you believe individual perception to be reality itself. Do you not accept, then, that there is an objective reality, some of which is obviously outside our individual views?

Isn't that one of the points to religion - to recognize something greater than yourself?
I do not state that those who have not settled on their specific "one" that is the only one as far as they are concerned are wrong. They simply haven't found the firm belief that I have -- yet.Or perhaps they had the "firm belief" but then came to see a bit more of the truth, which convinced them there is something more, something that they can glimpse, but not quite see clearly yet. Furthermore, though they may not be sure of what that something is, they can be "firmly" convinced that their original, limited belief is most certainly NOT the perfect truth.

"Verifiability" is not the only kind of belief. So is "falsifiability."
You have as much chance with me as you would have with them in convincing me otherwise.Who said anything about "convincing" you? You seem very preoccupied with the notion of (not) being swayed even when no one brings it up.

That brings up another point. Are you "done" with learning about the world (cultures, geography, computer science... anything)? I imagine you'd acknowledge that there is always more knowledge to gain, through which some of your earlier knowledge is reinforced and expanded and others invalidated. Right?

If so, how is understanding of God different?

[KMKeller]

To follow blindly and without question is to failure to see the path before you. To question the path you follow opens the path before you for all to see and for others to explore.

[Betty]

:uhoh:

...and about Asians and affirmative action?