Is affirmative action still necessary? It is argued that affirmative action is no longer necessary. Those who are against it say that such regualtions are the reasons employers take their jobs oversseas. Though you can't legislate morality, I think that affirmative action is still necessary because without it, we cannot guarantee employers will not hire based on race. People are people and racism and sexism is still real in this country.
Yes. As white males my son and I both are finding it very difficult to find work - a little affirmative action would go a long way.
There are plenty of laws prohibiting racism, sexism and all the rest. To then promote it by requiring a racist hiring policy is insanity.
I never did understand that particular bit of stupidity. If there is one thing guaranteed to promote resentment in a workplace it has to be a legal requirement to hire a woman, or a black, or whatever the powers that be decide you need rather than hire a qualified person.
The coworkers resent it as they have to pick up the slack, the new hire resents it because s/he knows that's why they were hired and everyone else knows it too. Resentment builds on resentment and everybody is at everybodys throat.
It started out as a sop to black activists and ended up as a sop to activists for every minority. As a tool to end inequality it was about as effective as shooting an elephant with BBs.
WOW, wilderness, great , post! Had to read it twice just to mk sure my eyes weren't deceiving me.
Affirmative action (LBJ called it positive discrimination) was launched all the back in 1965 ... by the buffoon LBJ - this after the DEMS guaranteed the republicans - during civil rights debates - that they would not do it. Under Nixon, and continued by Carter, came black hiring quotas. The small business Loan Administration has been deliberately favoring blacks for over 40 years. In 1960, there were only about 34,000 black owned businesses. In 2004, apprx. 830,000. Virtually all of these were sole proprietorships/mom/pop operations. Blacks hv had tremendous benefits GIFTED to them via federal , state and local gov't - principally from the white tax base.
BTW, i do understand that unemployment among blacks is exorbitantly high. But, nevertheless, the past benefits hv been there ; and almost exclusively for them. enough is enough. Affirmative action - along with the EEOC - needs to go.
So, let me get this straight, you and Wild don't believe that blacks were unfairly discrimiinated against in hiring practices in the 60's and 70's? You still don't believe that blacks are still discriminated against even this day? Perhaps, you are against AA because you've never been turned down for a job because of your race (or if you have, maybe its why you are against it).
Of course blacks suffered discriminated then, and to a lesser extent, now. Just as women, hispanics, atheists and all number of other minorities did. That is not a reason to force employers to also follow that despicable practice.
Yes, I've been turned down for a job because of my race. It was, plain and simple, discrimination. Legal discrimination, and enforced by law, but discrimination nonetheless. One of my sons was fired as a teenager because he wasn't female. Another was refused a job last week because he wasn't hispanic. So yes, I know what it feels like.
There is no need for AA in this day and age however. There are plenty of laws to prevent discrimination; the only thing AA does is force companies that don't discriminate anyway to hire people that aren't as qualified to make absolutely sure at all times that their quotas are met. As I said, it is nothing but a sop to minority activists; something they can point to with pride and declare "See what I accomplished! I made that evil company discriminate so my brothers (or sisters or whatever) can get a job they can't do!".
"you and Wild don't believe that blacks were unfairly discrimiinated against in hiring practices in the 60's and 70's? You still don't believe that blacks are still discriminated against even this day?"
No, of course I don't think blacks were discriminated, pre 1964 or post 1964. Pre 1964, blacks faced historical group recognition when they applied for jobs in the white community - your people practiced it to preacherdon, everywhere, every time.. White people, particularly prior to 1960s, were under no legal obligation to hire blacks, nevertheless, they employed them by the millions. Blacks employed virtually no white people that I could find prior to 1960. Your people, preacherdon ,WERE NOT owed integration rights by the US Constitution. You received a legislative gift, not a constitution right, in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Prior to 1964, you (your people) were wronged in an way. Blacks were a free people, free to build their own towns, their own cities, their own industries; and their own political environments (like the Mormons). Your people, on their own volition, chose integration. And when you got that, your people then got contract set-asides, double standards, racial preferences in hiring, free monies from the Small Business Loan Administration, and countless other gratuities - all gifted to your people simply becuz of the color of your skin. And now we hv Obama giving 100,000 black males a free check of $50,000 ... becuz "they claim" they wanted to become farmers, and white people wouldn't let them becuz they were black. Yeah, sure.
enough is enough. be appreciative of ALL the gratuities your people received based on solely on your skin color. It NEVER should hv happened. But - incredibly - it did. Stop demanding more gov't gifts!
"Blacks employed virtually no white people that I could find prior to 1960."
Well, to employ someone, you have to have a certain amount of money, don't you? How many Black business owners could you find prior to 1960? And how many white folks applied to work at those businesses?
You're not examining all the relevant data, but you're drawing the conclusion that Blacks were discriminating against Whites?
To draw that conclusion you'd need to show that, prior to 1960:
1) There were a statistically significant number of black-owned businesses
2) Those businesses employed a statistically significant number of workers
3) There were a statistically significant number of white applicants for jobs at those businesses
4) (and finally) white applicants were routinely and systemically denied jobs for which they were qualified, and those jobs were given to less-qualified black applicants.
I'll bet a dollar you can't show any of that.
"Blacks were a free people, free to build their own towns, their own cities, their own industries; and their own political environments (like the Mormons). Your people, on their own volition, chose integration."
And here you're arguing for a segregated USA, for a separate but equal America, for American Apartheid.
What a disgusting idea. You should be ashamed of yourself.
How many Black business owners could you find prior to 1960?
I already answered that. Less than .0043 of all adult blacks - excluding farmers - owned their own business in 1960 (that comes from the Chronological History Of the Negro). All of their businesses were sole proprietorships. If you do the simple math, that means that about 100,000 blacks were employed by blacks - out of a total adult population of 13 million ( I say blacks because I simply cannot find, prior to 1960, any instance of blacks employing whites. Can you?) Carrying this further, you can see that from the black generated tax base, only a few thousands government jobs could be created. This fact, and you can bet your last dollar that white males were acutely aware back then, the black tax base simply did not support the number of jobs blacks were receiving via the federal, state and local gov't.
"And here you're arguing for a segregated USA, for a separate but equal America, for American Apartheid.
What a disgusting idea. You should be ashamed of yourself."
Strange interpretation of what I wrote. I'll try again. I am not arguing for segregation then, or now. I am telling you at the time in which the "movement" was going on, and going back to 1865, white people, generally speaking, expected blacks to be separate and a self-reliant people. BTW, didn't EVERY American Indian tribe DEMAND an Apartheid situation? Didn't virtually every Chinese American at that time live in their China towns? I cannot find one instance of a Chinese complaining about that. They very clearly seemed to hv demanded it. Mormons, Amish also lived a self imposed Apartheid. Blacks, on their own volition chose something that no other male group had ever done in human history: integration. White Christian males are to be congratulated for accepting this societal anomaly. It was and still is a social engineering experiment.
Whether integration by legislative fiat continues I believe will be determined by black behavior. Specifically, black on white violent crime. For over 40 years this has been a national outrage.
"I already answered that."
That's only one of the relevant questions you need to answer before you can draw a conclusion.
"Less than .0043 of all adult blacks - excluding farmers - owned their own business in 1960"
I assume you mean .0043%, right? Okay.
So now you need to ask, how many workers did these businesses employ. "Sole proprietorship" doesn't necessarily mean "no employees." It means "One owner." The owner can employ as few or as many people as he needs/can afford. So to have any ground to base your argument on, you need to get that statistic: how many employees did those sole proprietorships employ?
Then, to demonstrate that blacks were discriminating against whites, you need to show both that white people regularly applied for those jobs and that white people were regularly denied those jobs in favor of a less qualified black applicant. Go dig up those numbers and then we can have a real discussion.
Without them, you're just saying stuff that sounds good to you.
"I am telling you at the time in which the "movement" was going on, and going back to 1865, white people, generally speaking, expected blacks to be separate and a self-reliant people."
Really? I'm curious about the logic underlying that conclusion.
"BTW, didn't EVERY American Indian tribe DEMAND an Apartheid situation?"
Um, every American Indian tribe was a sovereign nation before the US conquered them and booted them off their lands (in most cases, in violation of the same treaties imposed by the US government). Plus, they were here first. You're comparing apples to softballs. Try again.
"Didn't virtually every Chinese American at that time live in their China towns?"
"Virtually every?" I don't know. But just because you never heard of a Chinese person object to being discriminated against, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It also doesn't mean that no Chinese-American ever tried to buy a home in a non-Chinatown neighborhood, or that they never had a problem doing so. Further, Chinatowns exist not only because the Chinese immigrants wanted to live near each other but also because for a very long time they were the only places a Chinese immigrant could get an apartment.
"Mormons, Amish also lived a self imposed Apartheid."
Sort of, but not really. The Mormons were driven into their Apartheid situation by the majority Christians who wouldn't tolerate the new sect since it let Joe Smith be the voice of God and let a man mary more than one wife. The mormons didn't decide to move to Utah because of the climate. They were driven out. Nowadays, Mormons are all over the place, because they no longer have to worry about being tarred and feathered by a mob of mainstream Christians.
The Amish, I'll mostly agree with, but that's not really Apartheid either. I could convert and join an Amish community if I chose to, and I'd be welcomed. Likewise, an Amish person can give up being Amish and live with the "English," as they call non-Amish society. Plus, the Amish regularly mingle with the rest of the world. I buy food from several Amish farmers at my local farmers' markets, for example. But you're right that they do choose to live separately from mainstream society.
But Blacks, on the other hand, would have had a hell of a time building their own communities. An Amish man who decided to leave the Amish neighborhood could just shave his beard and buy a home in the 'burbs, no big deal. Sure, he might have some trouble adjusting, but most people wouldn't refuse to sell him a home because he used to be Amish. A Mormon can buy a home wherever he wants, and nobody will bat an eye. You can't tell who's a Mormon by looking, after all. Unless faith comes up in conversation, a Mormon is indistinguishable from anyone else. Before the Civil Rights Act, if a white person wanted to sell a house, he might not have been able to sell it to whomever he wanted: many purchase agreements came with a legal obligation not to sell the home to a black person in the future.
Plus, you forget that of all the people you mentioned, blacks are the only group who weren't already here or didn't come here of their own volition (until after slavery, anyway). You overlook the systemic practices that would not let black people buy homes wherever they wanted. You overlook Sundown Towns. You make mention of black-on-white crime, but conveniently ignore the long history of white-on-black crime which would be cheerfully ignored by local police, many of whom participated in it. Are you unaware of the big group photos of white folks at a lynching? Some families brought their kids and a picnic lunch and made a day of it. They didn't mind having their picture taken at the scene of a brutal murder because they knew no jury would ever find them guilty, no District Attorney would ever prosecute them, and no cop would ever arrest them in the first place. Heck, sometimes most of the officials mentioned were in the photo, next to the murder victim.
Either you genuinely didn't know about any of this stuff (which is only a small slice of what black folks have had to deal with from white folks over the years) and you're speaking from ignorance, or you're conveniently forgetting it to artificially strengthen your arguments, which is reprehensible. And you're arguing that White Society ought to be patted on the back for how benevolent and tolerant it has been? Seriously? Wow.
My point with the American-Chinese, Mormons and Amish was dead on. You want to interject sophistry , that's your American right.
Jeff: "Blacks, on the other hand, would have had a hell of a time building their own communities."
Weak, but I’ll respond. My concern with the black race regarding housing for their people is that they did not build their own urban housing like those of Euro descent. In every urban center in America (blacks males created no urban centers), blacks simply chose to occupy a premise formerly built by a white male. I have found not one example from 1865 to 1965 where black males came into an Anglo-created urban center and built urban housing for their people. There may hv been a house built here or there but no communities. Again, the pattern, which continues to this very day, is simply to move into an already existing home … built by a white male. The fact that blacks did not build urban housing needs to be explained.
“you forget that of all the people you mentioned, blacks are the only group who weren't already here or didn't come here of their own volition”
I have not forgot this fact. The slave trade is an unfortunate fact of human history. However, it shouldn’t be apologized for. It happened. Lot’s of examples of unfortunate events in human history. When Jews committed their second holocaust against the innocent Romans and Greeks in Judea (66 AD & 133 AD - slaughtering men, women and children) , Emperor Hadrian, in an attempt to destroy the culture of Judaism, enslaved most and scattered the rest across the Empire. We know Judaism survived … and life went on. The Mongol (Chinese) invasion of Europe was nothing more than rape, pillage and slaughter, but life went on. As for African Americans, they offer social scientists an amazing opportunity to witness people stripped of their culture (those customs, nuances and eccentricities that build and bind a people together) and then observe how they would adapt to the introduction of a foreign culture. The short of it is that blacks in America were exposed to only ONE culture, that of the European. Certainly after the second generation of free blacks (i.e. after 1900) the behavioral characteristics of the two races should have been very similar. Blacks needed to create occupations (businesses and industries), and build their own urban housing.. A tax base and a political environment would follow. Between 1800 and 1964, thousands of times white males followed this development pattern. As for African Americans between 1865 & 1964, , they built no cities, insufficient number of urban businesses and NO industries. In every urban center in America they became dependent on the white population. Why?
As for the Sundown Towns, it seems that a few may have existed. Don’t like it, build your own towns, your own cities. Male groups living separate (all of human history up to 1964) was the norm, not just in America, but in everywhere on planet earth. Expecting white people to hv human behavioral patterns different from every other racial/ethnic group in the world is a ridiculous expectation. Also with regard to black males, it’s likely the “get out after dark” ws a safety issue. Prior to forced integration, for inexplicable reasons , white people actually did fear violent crime coming from African males. It was white & black's legal right under Plessy to hv separate living arrangements.
Jeff: “Some families brought their kids and a picnic lunch and made a day of it.”
Yes, a few incidences like this did occur. It wasn’t about race it was about crime. Every act of rape or murder could provoke a mob response , particularly prior to the 1940s. Blacks and whites who committed rape or murder were well aware what fate they could suffer. I won’t pity ONE of them. My pity is for the victim and/or the family that lost a loved one(s).
Jeff, you also failed to note that blacks lynched many, many blacks. No question in my mind that all those blacks on the Tuskegee Institute lynched list that were found dangling with no name and no reason cited for the lynch, were lynched by blacks. White people lynched to send a message to any future lawbreaker, that “this could happen to you.” They were, as you so rightly pointed out, not the least bit shy about advertising - what they considered - salutary retribution.
Jeff Berndt: “You make mention of black-on-white crime, but conveniently ignore the long history of white-on-black crime”
Here is a similar comment on another web site of mine from a black male:
“Too bad the internet wasn’t around to show how many innocent black people you all have murdered for the last 400 plus years. But, [raping , robbing, murder and massacring white people] ]is our overdue payback!”
I find these kinds of comments not only shameful and cowardly, but also cruelly callus.
I hv been in countless discussions with blacks trying to get them to recognize black racism and hate. They won’t do it. Generally, the response will end like this: “yeah, but, all them murders and rapes your people did to our people…” Every time I press them for specifies, I get Emit Till or NOTHING. Shannon Christian and C. Newsum did NOT deserve rape ,torture and murder, nor did Brian Harvey and his entire family deserve to die. All the victims of racist Coral Watts didn’t deserve their deaths. On and on it goes.
"In every urban center in America (blacks males created no urban centers), blacks simply chose to occupy a premise formerly built by a white male."
Wow. Your arguments are transparently ignoring the stacked deck that black people have been paying against since they were first brought here. You say, "Well, blacks didn't build any cities," but ignore the fact that they were not free to do so, and while after the end of the Civil War, they may have been technically free to do so, they had no means to do so, and were actively prevented from doing so by white Americans.
"The fact that blacks did not build urban housing needs to be explained."
I just explained it. But you'll probably ignore it because I don't blame it on black people.
"The short of it is that blacks in America were exposed to only ONE culture, that of the European."
What? That is an ignorant statement. First of all, there wasn't one pan-African culture any more than there was a pan-European culture. There were many nations in Africa just like there are many nations in Europe. The enslaved Africans were exposed not only to the culture of their owners, but also each other's cultures. Further, there were also the various Native American nations' cultures that enslaved Africans were exposed to. (By the way, there have been cases of black slaves escaping and finding a place in one of the Native American tribes, where they rose to prominence. It seems in general that Native Americans were more culturally mature than white Americans were.)
"Blacks needed to create occupations (businesses and industries), and build their own urban housing.. A tax base and a political environment would follow. Between 1800 and 1964, thousands of times white males followed this development pattern. As for African Americans between 1865 & 1964, , they built no cities, insufficient number of urban businesses and NO industries. In every urban center in America they became dependent on the white population. Why?"
Well, I've already explained this, but you seem to be having a hard time grasping history. I'll try again.
To start a business, you need capital. To get capital, you either need to have it already, or to get a loan. A recently freed slave has no capital. Therefore, he needs to get a loan. But a bank (run by white people) isn't going to give a startup loan to a recently freed slave. Even if the banker isn't racist, the recently freed slave has no credit history, not education, no collateral, no nothing. Good luck. In the meantime, the white guy who wants a loan can read and write, has a credit history, and has property he can put up as collateral. Even if we pretend that there was no racism in 1865, the deck is stacked against the black guy in favor of the white guy.
So next generation, the black guy's son tries to start a business. Of course, he's grown up in his father's home (the home of an ex-slave) with limited resources and limited educational opportunities. He tries to get that loan, and he hasn't got any property, he hasn't got any collateral, he hasn't got much of an education, he hasn't got much of an income, and he has no connections in the business or financial community. Meanwhile, the white guy's son is the son of an established businessman, with a superior education, superior income, perhaps experience working in his dad's business, and connections at the bank and among other businessmen. Who's going to get the loan? Even if you pretend racism doesn't exist, the deck is still stacked against the black guy. Ten or eleven generations later, the deck is still stacked against the black guy, and conventional wisdom (among racist white people) is that black people don't have what it takes to build cities, urban businesses or industries. That's what racism looks like.
"As for the Sundown Towns, it seems that a few may have existed. Don’t like it, build your own towns, your own cities."
Easy for a white guy who hasn't experienced discrimination to say.
"Yes, a few incidences like this did occur. It wasn’t about race it was about crime."
Nonsense. If it wasn't about race, show me the pictures of white people lynching white criminals. Show me the pictures of white families enjoying a picnic while the corpse of a white man hangs from a nearby tree. You can't.
"Blacks and whites who committed rape or murder were well aware what fate they could suffer. I won’t pity ONE of them."
You assume that all victims of lynchings were guilty. Typical of the segregation apologist. But you can't know this. Heck, most of them hadn't even been convicted.
Should we infer that if a black man is accused of rape or assault, you don't think he deserves a fair trial?
"No question in my mind that all those blacks on the Tuskegee Institute lynched list that were found dangling with no name and no reason cited for the lynch, were lynched by blacks."
So, no evidence, no facts, no reason to believe anything other than a guy was lynched by unknown parties, but in spite of that, you have "no doubt" that the perpetrators were black?
Dude, that's what racism looks like.
"White people lynched to send a message to any future lawbreaker, that “this could happen to you.” They were, as you so rightly pointed out, not the least bit shy about advertising - what they considered - salutary retribution."
So, should we infer that you also approve of extrajudicial executions? The people in those pictures weren't shy about advertising the fact that they were accessories to murder because they were confident that the authorities wouldn't spend resources to investigate and prosecute the murder of a black man. That's what racism looks like.
"Here is a similar comment on another web site of mine from a black male: "
The only thing similar about those two comments is that they both remind you that white-on-black crime has a longer and bloodier history than black-on-white crime, and that the authorities would punish one and not the other.
I do not condone violent retribution on anybody. You seem to have condoned the lynchings of the 19th and early 20th century, which were sterling examples of shameful, cowardly, cruel, and callous actions. Congratulations on reaching the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
"Every time I press them for specifies,"
Amidou Diallo. Rodney King. Malice Green. James Byrd, Jr. And others.
The Tuskeege experiments.
And that was just off the top of my head.
Pile these on top of the other specific examples I've already given.
But given your history, you'll ignore them, or pretend that they're somehow justified, or that they're isolated incidents.
That's what racism looks like.
*edited to fix link formatting.
"My point with the American-Chinese, Mormons and Amish was dead on. You want to interject sophistry , that's your American right."
Oh, I forgot about this little gem.
Your points about Chinese, Mormons and Amish were full of holes. I pointed out those holes. You can pretend that I was injecting sophistry into your arguments, and that's your right.
Of course, ignoring facts that don't support your arguments is intellectually dishonest. But there's no law against intellectual dishonesty.
Do you remember the movie, Rosewood? It was based on an actual attempt of blacks to create their own community. It was destroyed by whites who thought a black man had raped a white woman. Remember Emmitt Till? He was from the north visiting his family in the south. He was murdered for whistling at a white woman. And you talk about black on white crimes?
It is still happening today. Just last month, the news spoke of a black man being beaten and ran over by a group of whites who were looking for a n****r to mess with.
As Jeff pointed out, there were many instances when blacks were unwelcomed. There were unwelcomed in white schools. They were unwelcomed in white communities. They were unwelcomed in white businesses. After a while, whites hired blacks to clean, cook, and rear their children but not for any job of any significance. That is, not until after AA laws were passed.
I admit, I don't know if those laws are still applicable today. Racism is not as rampant as it was when the laws were implemented. Perhaps, they should be reviewed and revised before they are repealed.
Affirmative action was a good thing to start with. Now it's just overkill. And has been taken off onto tangents it never was meant to go.
Sure we can legislate morality! We do it all the time. That's what laws against theft, lying, fraud, murder, etc., does.
If you're saying we can't legislate personal preference as far as racial issues, that's another thing that is being done and that actually comes under the category of overkill, and we should actually stop legislating that.
I'll say to you what I said earlier to S_Leretseh, I admit, I don't know if those laws are still applicable today. Racism is not as rampant as it was when the laws were implemented but it still exists. It is still happening today. Just last month, the news spoke of a black man being beaten and ran over by a group of whites who were looking for a n****r to mess with. Perhaps, these laws should be reviewed and revised before they are repealed.
Today there is freedom.
If people would take each case on its own merit, acknowledging that all Americans have basic human rights (which we all do have), then this issue would be resolved. I do believe that.
Slavery was horribly wrong.
Forced segregation was wrong.
Willing segregation or willing desegregation on either "side" was simply choice and should've been left entirely up to personal choice.
Because forced desegregation was very wrong too! It actually divided people, such as our school children. It united them supposedly on common ground but divided them really as far as personal dignity, whether they were black or white.
There are some instances and nuances that make it all more complex than that, but in a nutshell that's how I see it.
Does anyone have a sense of how widely affirmative action is practiced? I have yet to hear at any job that I've ever worked at, that someone was supposed to have been picked because of their race.
What does the law mandate? Are there any estimates of how often it's actually invoked?
it should depend on the company's objective if it is necessary or not
I am a white adult male, but I have many African American friends, my friend's dad actually is African American, and he was very qualified for a certain job. He did not get hired and someone else who was comparably qualified for the job got hired, who happened to be white and around the same age as him. My friend's dad actually sued the company saying that it was racial discrimination. He won the court case and received a large settlement, since it was for a vice president position of a large fortune 500 company. Either way, do I think it is wrong that they hired a white male instead of him? No, they were equally qualified for the position, although who knows if that decision was based upon race, but we can't assume they hired the white male just because he was white. Maybe my friend's dad wasn't as personable, (which could be very possible) maybe the interview went smoother with the other guy, who knows. Either way I don't think if someone is passed up for a job that they should be able to sue and say it's because of racial discrimination especially when people are equally qualified. There's been many times I've been passed up for a job even if I am overly qualified, yet I can't sue and say that they discriminated against me.
by Sychophantastic13 months ago
According to recent polls, about half of all white Trump voters feel as though white people face a lot of discrimination.If you're white, please feel free to offer up your tales of discrimination or what you see as...
by Renee S6 years ago
an African American president made it worse or better in your opinion?
by S Leretseh4 years ago
If these victims were black and ...well never mind. I'm so sick and tired of saying it ...and seeing it. All the links are 'unprovoked' attacksElderly white male socked in the...
by mrpopo19 months ago
Privilege is defined as “a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.” White privilege means that there are rights, immunities or benefits enjoyed only by whites because...
by Don W11 months ago
Call me simplistic, but doesn't the 2017 executive order break the law?Executive Order, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States, 2017:"Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
States Supreme Court, why ARE there SOME opposed to this basic human right? What are they REALLY FEARFUL of? LBGT Americans have the same basic rights as other Americans. It is about time that...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.