Validity of Racism and Affirmative Action

Ok, so I am not all together clear on a couple things, but I am going to integrate my questions into my argument, as I'd rather not waste another round tying up loose ends. I will probably touch on A, B, and C, but have most interest in A and C, as I see them to be closely related and can easily apply to all peoples, not just present Americans. If you'd like to talk about different places, you may. I just thought it could make the task overwhelming as there are many many combinations of peoples who have shared the same lands throughout space and time. Some were peaceful and others were far from it, so there is certainly plentiful history to draw from. You may use whichever of the 3 racial divisions you put forth. I don't see any one as markedly better or worse. BOP is indeed equally on both of us. I chose Con because of how the topic was phrased. It seemed to make sense. I'll first address the 3 questions you put forth: Q1) Does each race possess unique qualities? I think the clear answer is yes. Physical qualities alone should answer this question, but as I'm sure you know, there are other less obvious qualities that trend higher in some groups than others. Q2) Are the qualities of each race equal in all categories? Are their qualities of equal value? I propose that the qualities are of equal value overall, but are best suited for the adaptive conditions that gave rise to them in the first place (example: tall, skinny people cool themselves better than short, fat people; this is beneficial in basketball perhaps, but was designed to survive the dessert). However, given that many of those conditions no longer apply (we dont have to chase down our food, etc.), its very common for those traits to be re-purposed. That being said, with regard to the first part of this question-- no, not all races have equal ability in all categories. That is why the answer to #1 is yes. Q3) Are there benefits to integration? Of all races or only some? Yes, of course there are. Bringing different skills together can surely offer more benefit than the same number of people, all with the same skills and weaknesses. We have uses for all different qualities. There is no reason, to praise some traits over others, when the uses of each depend so heavily on situational need. Ok, now to apply those answers to the big questions (A-C): A)There are two points I'd like to make here. 1. Integration (ie: non-segregation) is not harmful and can in fact be positive. and 2. There is NO benefit to differing groups fighting each other based solely on their differences. This could in fact be severely detrimental to the human race, not to mention hinders progress. 1. In the past, there have been many ideas about why different people should not mix personally, socially, politically, etc. Some used to think there were diseases that could be passed back and forth. Others used to profess that certain races were in fact another species. These, as well as many other ideas about race, have long since been debunked and put to rest. SO, given that these ideas are behind us and widely agreed to be false, I see little risk or harm in modern integration of all peoples. If anything, the modern world should show that more so than race, factors like money, status, and eduction unite (and divide) people just as strongly. Looking back at Q1-3, you may be thinking, "Well you said races are distinctly different and now you're saying there's no reason they cannot mix and live together-- what gives?" Thats true. They are different AND can live together. How? Well, in the simplest terms, living with those who are different has ALWAYS been something humans have done. It is simply a question of degrees of difference. If you take the skin color out of the equation and focus only on the characteristic and physical differences that remain, it is likely that that gap between any two people has nothing to do with race. Even within groups there can be enormous variation. The thing about race is it lets us color code those difference in certain groups. However, it does not in fact mean that those color-coded differences are any greater. And that is exactly why segregation is pointless. It harps on perceived differences. Further, segregation takes an active and often violent effort to enforce, thus requiring extra input and risking higher losses. Yet, the benefits are marginal, if any. Those who support it may gain peace of mind. However, the quantitative benefits are few as compared to a system in which resources (including natural skills and abilities) are pooled for the greatest possible outcome. Thus, the differences that justify segregation are no greater than the differences we live with every day. The mere act of segregation requires risk and added effort towards a benefit-less cause. And, by segregating we actively pass up a certain group of resources that could otherwise go towards overall progress. 2. As for the idea that visibly different groups might be best suited to simply fight each other: nonsense. While there are some fights that yield measurable gains such as land, resources and power, race wars just for the sake of race wars offers only bloodshed, loss and chaos. Not only is there nothing to gain from annihilating another group of people, simply for the sake of it, but it is also a HUGE resource drain (as are most wars). If humans were (for some crazy reason) to spend the next X years fighting each other across racial lines with the intent of wiping out all "other" or non-self groups, it would be a huge step backwards for humans as a species. We have made thousands of years of progress and to revert to senseless fighting would be tragically backwards. The most amazing inventions and innovations have come from brilliant minds that were allowed to think rather than fight. The resources needed to create the things that move us forward have been available because they were not lost to pointless wars. The manpower needed to turn a handful of people into a strong nation comes only if those people may channel their lives and their skills to productive means. If the goal is progress, there is none to be found in race wars. At the end of it all, if (and it's a HUGE if) we hadn't cleared the earth of every human life, those that were left would have only smoldering tatters from which to rebuild humanity. Its a sad post-apocalyptic image. And the odds of failure would be great. Simple survival would be a daily task. And our future kin would be no better off than our ancestors that lived in caves. As a matter of fact, their odds of success would be far lower. This all seems like a simple risk/benefit analysis to me. The risk of segregation and eventual race war is alarmingly high, no matter who's side you're on. It would certainly lead to strife, violence, hatred, war, injustice. Progress would be left by the wayside as fighting became priority #1. And the benefits are few at best. Those committed to segregation would enjoy brief victory, while those disadvantaged by forced removal would absorb the loss and start stoking the fire of resentment and hate that would later serve as fuel for war. There would be no true winners of any race war. All sides would endure devastating losses to people and resources alike. Anyone left standing at the end would have little to work with. Manpower would be scarce. Our food sources depleted or destroyed. Much energy would be lost to the fight. The greatest minds, bodies and souls from each group would probably be lost (this ties into C a bit, but more on that later). Realistically, the whole planet would probably be devastated, if not irradiated at the end. No one can, in earnest, call that progress. Next round I'll talk about B and C. Good luck!