When baskeball shows become more expensive than computers.
Quirk
Chico. He has published 13 books, including Railroading Economics,
Manufacturing Discontent, The Perverse Economy, and The Invention of
Capitalism.
http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2006/08/13/a-new-kind-of-jock-is-this-as-good-as-it-seems/
Berner, Robert. 2006. "Cheap Chic." Business Week (21 August): p.
14.
"Fed up with the high prices urban kids pay for sneakers marketed by
their basketball heroes, New York Knicks point guard Stephon Marbury is
launching the Starbury One, a $14.98 sneaker he'll wear on the court.
Discount retailer Steve & Barry's will make and sell the shoe, which
is 1/12 the price of Nike's $180 Air Jordan XX1. "Two hundred to
buy a pair of sneakers," Marbury says, "that's groceries for the
week." He wants Starbury One's low price to show kids how little
it costs to make a high-quality sneaker. "History is going to say
Stephon Marbury changed the game," he says."
In my book Transcending the Economy I wrote this about expensive shoes
and racism:
Basketball, Racism, and Computer Technology
Racism is pervasive in the present day United States. Even in sports,
one of the few venues where society associates Blacks with excellence,
Blacks still face discrimination. For example, in cities where the
population is more White, professional basketball teams hire fewer
Black players (Brown, Spiro, and Keenan 1991). In an unpublished
paper, Dan Rascher and Ha Hoang found that after adjusting for a number
of factors, Black basketball players have a 36 percent higher chance of
being cut than Whites of comparable ability. This statistic reinforces
the widely held impression that while teams will want to employ the
Black superstar for a better chance of winning, they will prefer a
higher mix of White players on the bench to please their predominately
white audience. A cynic might think of the employment of an excessive
number of Whites in professional basketball as a form of affirmative
action.
Today, in the United States, one aspect of racism is a stereotype of
Blacks as natural basketball players rather than having a natural
aptitude as engineers or business leaders. Accordingly, Blacks appear
to have an unfair advantage over Whites in the sports arenas. I would
like to explore this stereotype a little further.
True, many of the greatest basketball players today are Black. Why
basketball? In the 1920s, the prevailing stereotype was that
basketball was by its nature a Jewish game. According to the wisdom of
the day, qualities such as sneakiness and guile, gave Jews a major edge
that allowed them to be the best basketball players of the day.
I suspect that we will do well to steer clear of stereotypes and look
for other influences on the social makeup of basketball players. The
most commonsensical approach seems to be economic. After all,
basketball is a very inexpensive recreation. You do not need elaborate
facilities, such as certain water sports or ice hockey require. You do
not even need the large open spaces that soccer or baseball requires.
You can nail up a basketball hoop almost anywhere. So basketball is a
wonderful sport for poor people, not because of the genetic makeup of
Blacks, but because it is more available to people in the inner cities
than, say, golf or polo.
Now let me shift gears for a second. A study by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration of the United States
Commerce Department shows that at the end of 1997, 40.8 percent of
non-Hispanic White households owned a personal computer, compared to
19.4 percent of Hispanic and 19.3 percent of African American
households, a gap of 21.5 points (United States Department of Commerce
National Telecommunications and Information Administration 1998).
Now, suppose that computers were as accessible as basketball hoops.
This possibility is not nearly as farfetched as it might seem. After
all, while basketball hoops may be readily available, the ratio of the
cost of basketball shoes to the price of a computer continues to soar.
Should this trend continue, in the near future, we might see
innumerable young Blacks pounding away at their keyboards with all the
exuberance that we now see on the basketball court. Those Black
children with the advanced computer skills would enjoy the admiration
of their peers.
Once excellence with computer skills becomes commonplace among the
Black youth, some eminent scientists would will no doubt set out to
explain why the mental or biological makeup of Black children makes
them ideally suited to computer programming. Perhaps we will hear that
the result of natural selection over generations of cotton picking left
them better suited than Whites to working with a keyboard.
Computer skills would soon command a lower wage, just as typing did,
once the stereotype of operating a typewriter changed from being a
man's job (since the typewriter was seen as a machine) to being a
woman's job.
In the wake of the depreciation of computer skills, opinion makers will
bemoan the fact that so many Blacks waste their lives sitting in front
of computers instead of following some higher calling where White youth
seem to excel, perhaps basketball.
I want to emphasize the point that racism does not only harm Blacks.
We all suffer from racism. Forget the moral and ethical implications
of racism. That dimension of racism is so obvious that we have no need
to subject it to detailed discussion here. Instead, I want to insist
that from a purely economic perspective, racism is a disaster for most
people. Racism denies society the benefits of the talents of those
people that racism stigmatizes. Racism is expensive for society.
Educating people in schools and universities is far more economical
than incarcerating them.
Ryoga Hibiki
>Today, in the United States, one aspect of racism is a stereotype of
>Blacks as natural basketball players rather than having a natural
>aptitude as engineers or business leaders.
just because the second is bulshit, why should the first be one be
too?
>True, many of the greatest basketball players today are Black. Why
>basketball? In the 1920s, the prevailing stereotype was that
>basketball was by its nature a Jewish game. According to the wisdom of
>the day, qualities such as sneakiness and guile, gave Jews a major edge
>that allowed them to be the best basketball players of the day.
I hate this Jewish argument, it comes over again and again, and always
misses the point.
The point is that lack players, somehow, look like better athletes (as
far as a combination of speed, power, quickness and coordination) than
the white ones, on average. Not just in basketball, in *any* sport.
In any position where it's needed a great athlete (according to the
standards already mentioned) you'll find a black guy *if* the sport
widely played by black communities.
Basketball? Football? American Football? Rugby? Track and field?
It's not like there are no white people playing them, but somehow all
the best athletes are black, isn't it weird?
Why the heck is that hard to admit that there might be a correlation
somewhere?
--
Ryoga Hibiki (Marco Fracasso)
icq: #132215537 mail: ryogahibiki(at)inwind.it
"Players ALONE don't win championships, organizations do"
Jerry Krause B,SVAODNEVCUQQOOPJVE
Quirk
> On 21 Aug 2006 23:12:56 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> >Today, in the United States, one aspect of racism is a stereotype of
> >Blacks as natural basketball players rather than having a natural
> >aptitude as engineers or business leaders.
>
> just because the second is bulshit, why should the first be one be
> too?
Why is the second bullshit? What the author is saying is that so-called
"aptitude" is related more to access than any natural endowment
particular to a "race."
The idea that races are limited in their endownments by nature has a
name: Racism.
> >True, many of the greatest basketball players today are Black. Why
> >basketball? In the 1920s, the prevailing stereotype was that
> >basketball was by its nature a Jewish game. According to the wisdom of
> >the day, qualities such as sneakiness and guile, gave Jews a major edge
> >that allowed them to be the best basketball players of the day.
>
> I hate this Jewish argument, it comes over again and again, and always
> misses the point.
How so? It furthers the argument perfectly by demonstrating that at one
time an alltogether different "race," one not simular in physical-type,
was considered to have natural endownments for the game.
> Basketball? Football? American Football? Rugby? Track and field?
> It's not like there are no white people playing them, but somehow all
> the best athletes are black, isn't it weird?
The argument is not dependant on sport, I think you are missing the
point. The argument is that access is the key factor, not anysort of
racial predetermination.
Turn your argument around:
Lawyering? Doctoring? CEOing? Governmenting? Land Owning?
it's not like there are no black people doing that, but somehow all
the most successfull are white, isn't it weird?
Do you draw the conclusion that whites are simply more natually
endowned for these positions? Or is it a question of access an
opportunity? Hint: People that think the former are called "Racists."
> Why the heck is that hard to admit that there might be a correlation
> somewhere?
The question is not whether they correlate, the questions is what is
the basis of the correlation: natural predisposition or socioeconomic
circumstance.
Cheers.
Eric Lew
"Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote in message
news:1156495034.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Ryoga Hibiki wrote:
>> On 21 Aug 2006 23:12:56 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
>
>> >Today, in the United States, one aspect of racism is a stereotype of
>> >Blacks as natural basketball players rather than having a natural
>> >aptitude as engineers or business leaders.
>>
>> just because the second is bulshit, why should the first be one be
>> too?
>
> Why is the second bullshit? What the author is saying is that so-called
> "aptitude" is related more to access than any natural endowment
> particular to a "race."
>
Fistpout Trebuchet
Ryoga Hibiki wrote:
>It's not like there are no white people playing them, but somehow all
>the best athletes are black, isn't it weird?
Here is a list of URLs that lead to webpages showing every gold medal winner
from the 2004 Olympics. You can maybe look through them and tell me how,
even though all the best athletes are black, they appear white or East Asian
in these photos.
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/17/eng20040817_153406.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/17/eng20040817_153472.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/18/eng20040818_153612.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/19/eng20040819_153791.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/20/eng20040820_153979.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/21/eng20040821_154110.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/22/eng20040822_154225.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/22/eng20040822_154230.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/23/eng20040823_154380.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/24/eng20040824_154578.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/25/eng20040825_154737.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/26/eng20040826_154884.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/27/eng20040827_155004.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/28/eng20040828_155099.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/29/eng20040829_155216.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/29/eng20040829_155221.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/30/eng20040830_155326.html
Random sample:
Aug 14: 6 East Asians, 7 "whites", 0 blacks.
Aug 22: 5 East Asians, 21 "whites", 1 blacks.
Aug 18: 4 East Asians, 8 "whites", 0 blacks.
Aug 24: 1 East Asian, 17 "whites", 4 blacks.
Aug 29: 3 East Asians, 10 "whites", 5 blacks.
Aug 17: 7 East Asians, 8 "whites", 0 blacks.
Aug 27: 3 East Asians, 15 "whites", 2 blacks.
Aug 21: 0 East Asians, 16 "whites", 0 blacks.
Quirk
> Quirk, I think you misunderstood Ryoga's statement.
Always possible. How do you think he meant it?
Cheers.
Ryoga Hibiki
>Why is the second bullshit? What the author is saying is that so-called
>"aptitude" is related more to access than any natural endowment
>particular to a "race."
maybe I wasn't clear:
black genetically better at basketball = no BS
white genetically better doctors, engineers, etc = BS
>> I hate this Jewish argument, it comes over again and again, and always
>> misses the point.
>How so? It furthers the argument perfectly by demonstrating that at one
>time an alltogether different "race," one not simular in physical-type,
>was considered to have natural endownments for the game.
because at the time basketball wasn't played everywhere as it is now,
*then* the access argument worked.
I haven't seen any game back then, but did the Jewish look on average
faster, stronger, quicker, more explosive as the black look now? Or
they were just better players?
If black people were just more skilled, I'd agree it could be just a
cultural thing, but not now: what sets them apart is athleticism, and
that's 90% a god given quality.
>> Basketball? Football? American Football? Rugby? Track and field?
>> It's not like there are no white people playing them, but somehow all
>> the best athletes are black, isn't it weird?
>
>The argument is not dependant on sport, I think you are missing the
>point. The argument is that access is the key factor, not anysort of
>racial predetermination.
access is a key factor because the more people play a sport the higher
the level it's going to be, likely.
but do you think that in the US and in the *world* there are more
white or more black people playing basketball?
How is it that, if you take the 1000 best athletes (not players,
athletes) like 900 are blacks?
It's the same in so many sport, I don't find any reasonable
explanation outside race.
>Lawyering? Doctoring? CEOing? Governmenting? Land Owning?
>it's not like there are no black people doing that, but somehow all
>the most successfull are white, isn't it weird?
>Do you draw the conclusion that whites are simply more natually
>endowned for these positions? Or is it a question of access an
>opportunity? Hint: People that think the former are called "Racists."
no, I don't. You know why? Because it's *TRUE* that white people have
more opportunities, being on average part of welthier families.
can you say the same, that black people have *more* opportunities in
bball? all you can say, is that they have *the same* opportunities,
and they're using them to dominate the sport in the way we're
witnessing.
>The question is not whether they correlate, the questions is what is
>the basis of the correlation: natural predisposition or socioeconomic
>circumstance.
I'm going with the first.
Eric Lew
> Eric Lew wrote:
>
>> Quirk, I think you misunderstood Ryoga's statement.
>
> Always possible. How do you think he meant it?
>
engineers or business leaders."
I think Ryoga broke this down into 2 parts:
1. Blacks are natural basketball players
2. Blacks do not have a natural aptitude as engineers or business leaders.
So he says: "just because the second is bulshit, why should the first be one
be too?", meaning that he doesn't agree with the second part, but he agrees
with the first part, and the rest of his post is devoted to that first part.
But I'm sure he'll come back and explain his statments further.
Quirk
> maybe I wasn't clear:
> black genetically better at basketball = no BS
> white genetically better doctors, engineers, etc = BS
If you contend that it is possible for some "race" known as "blacks" to
have common genetic characteristics that allow them to preform at a
higher level in sporting activity, then how can you out-of-hand dismiss
the notion "whites" have genetic characteristics that allow them to
perform at a higher level as doctors or engineers?
Can you really have it both ways? Especially, when the question is
begged from the begining, as your premis is the fact that more are
doing so, which is true in both cases.
A big problem for me is the fact that "black" is a very broad term (as
is "white"), encompassing many different cultural and physical types,
let alone people and comunities. What specific genetic characteristics,
that "blacks" have makes them better at basketball? Let alone, all
sports as you claimed earlier.
Perelman is presenting the idea that these chartacteristics do not
arise from any racial predisposition, but rather from the socioeconomic
circumstance; If you grow up with access to the oportunities to learn
to do certain things well, and to be around others who do them well,
you will be better. Thus, the premise that when computers become
cheaper than basketball shoes, perhaps "blacks" will become computer
experts and "whites" will see it as something they should just let the
"blacks" do and attribute it, not to the skill, dedication, talent,
support and evironment, but to some inhereted quality common to "their
kind."
> I haven't seen any game back then, but did the Jewish look on average
> faster, stronger, quicker, more explosive as the black look now? Or
> they were just better players?
It would seem that with modern training, diet, medicine, etc., that
athletes today in general would be faster, stronger, quicker, more
explosives, etc.
You can not look at the modern athlete and say that because he is
"black," this means that "black" people make better athletes. That is a
circular argument.
The contention is that more blacks become good athletes because blacks
can afford to be involved in athletics, while "whites" can also afford
to develop in other ways, usualy more lucrative and prestigeous.
(remember that only a tiny percentage of amazing athletes can actually
work profesionaly as athletes)
IMO, concieving of "blacks" as a socioeconomic group, with a common
economic class, is far more accurate than concieving of "blacks" as a
different subspecies, with common physical predispositions, beyond the
superficial.
In terms of genetic predisposition, "black" is skin deep.
Cheers.
Fistpout Trebuchet
wrote:
>A big problem for me is the fact that "black" is a very broad term (as
>is "white"), encompassing many different cultural and physical types,
>let alone people and comunities. What specific genetic characteristics,
>that "blacks" have makes them better at basketball? Let alone, all
>sports as you claimed earlier.
I've been through this with him before. (This is ed, btw.) So far, no
response to the vast genetic, morphological, and cultural heterogeneity that
masquerades as a single entity under the label "black."
It really is a silly argument.
1. "Blacks" do not dominate sports. They dominate a mere handful of sports.
"Whites" dominate more sports by an order of magnitude, as befits a class of
people with the resources to train and dedicate themselves to activities
that will likely not pay well.
2. "Blacks" are not a single genetic population. They aren't even several
genetic populations. The whole idea of a black race does not map to any
single genetic profile. This was proved many years ago by Cavalli-Sforza. I
can't believe people are still buying this.
3. If "Blacks" are not a genetic population, but a social classification
(which should be obvious), than the idea that one group dominates a sport is
descriptive, not normative, and does not preclude *any* group from
dominating that sport.
ebrian
pictures of black vs 'white' athletes.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/SIDreamTeam.jpg/240px-SIDreamTeam.jpg
http://www.nba.com/media/warriors/TeamPhoto0405_1024x768.jpg
http://www.fsd1.org/westflorence/Boys%20Basketball%20Team%20Photo.jpg
http://www.lhup.edu/sports/volley/new%20volleyball/05%20pictures/2005VBteamshot_hires.jpg
http://www.eosc.edu/athletics/team_photos/mens_basketball_grp.jpg
http://www.blinn.edu/Buccaneer/athletics/Drill%20Team/0506cheerteam-pix.jpg
http://www.tigereyephotography.com/images/Sports/basketball/Lincoln%20Thunder/Team%20Photo%20DSC_0326%20web%205x7%20team.jpg
http://img.search.com/c/cd/300px-Devils_1982_1983_team_photo.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/353/am_vs_tcu_06ncaa434.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/United_States/photo358834.htm&h=462&w=800&sz=131&hl=en&sig2=uCcT6RYWITi2ZrxHdo0PNw&start=16&tbnid=B51jpHTktkWlmM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=143&ei=qnLvRKqSFpTgigGY3fDaBA&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522team%2Bphoto%2522%2Bncaa%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2004-10,GGLD:en
http://www.cobbk12.org/~osborne/Sports/Basketball/800_Osborne%20HS%20Basketball%20Program%20VB022.jpg
http://www.bpc.edu/athletics/bball_mens/images/TeamPhoto2005-06_000.jpg
http://blazers.belhaven.edu/m_basketball/images/Team1.jpg
http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/usd/sports/w-volley/usd-team-photo04.jpg
http://ihome.ust.hk/~su_track/team%20photo.bmp
http://www.garrettcollege.edu/athletics/images/2005_MensBB_Team_photo.jpg
http://www.chuckthomas.com/stl01tea.jpg
http://www.buccaneers.com/media/graphics/cheerleaders/2005_tbbc_teamphoto2a.jpg
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dptorres/97_team_photo.jpg
http://cachemediasrv.patriots.com/ImgDyn.cfm?s=TeamPhoto1985.jpg&c=1&w=525&cs=1
http://donger.tripod.com/Favs/sports/98TeamPhoto_2b.jpg
Yes! I'm winning now!
Quirk
> Yes! I'm winning now!
Congratulations. You are the champion in missing the point.
Quirk
> 3. If "Blacks" are not a genetic population, but a social classification
> (which should be obvious), than the idea that one group dominates a sport is
> descriptive, not normative, and does not preclude *any* group from
> dominating that sport.
Well said. 100% agree with every point.
Nice nick, btw.
Cheers.
Fistpout Trebuchet
ebrian wrote:
>Oh oh oh.. this is fun, let's have a contest of who can show more
>pictures of black vs 'white' athletes.
That's not what I posted. I showed every gold medal winner from every sport
in the 2004 Olympics. I didn't pick and choose -- I showed them all. If
"blacks" dominated sports, shouldn't they have won more than 5% of the gold
medals?
If you want to say "blacks" dominate basketball, you'd get no argument from
me. But dominating a single sport out of hundreds doesn't really persuade me
that any race has an innate athletic ability.
>http://donger.tripod.com/Favs/sports/98TeamPhoto_2b.jpg
That is one URL I am afraid to click.
Ryoga Hibiki
>If you contend that it is possible for some "race" known as "blacks" to
>have common genetic characteristics that allow them to preform at a
>higher level in sporting activity, then how can you out-of-hand dismiss
>the notion "whites" have genetic characteristics that allow them to
>perform at a higher level as doctors or engineers?
I don't dismiss it at all, actually, I just don't consider it a valid
explanation once having examined the current siatuation.
You really don't need to bring up genetic differences to explain why
there's a shortage of black engineers, the access and socioeconomic
theory works properly. Had not there been all the cultural differences
and somehow we could agree that the situation an average white or
black man grows is about the same, *then* I could have even started
discussing about genetics, but not now. Simple Occam Razor, no need to
come out with the more complicated explanation when the easier works
fine.
I'm gonna insist on this, your theory doesn't work always, and it for
sure doesn't work in basketball.
There are no black hockey or alpine skiiers? Easy to explain, no need
for race debate.
There are few white rappers? Equally easy to explain.
Basketball is *athletically* dominated by black people, who are
showing comparable technical skills than white guys trained in similar
conditions? Hell no, it's not a point of access.
It could work if:
- there were *much* more black then white guys playing basketaball,
but that's not the case, afaik.
- the best white athletes (as far as speed, power, quickness, etc)
were all somehow directed elsewhere. How many white guys over 2m tall
are dominating other sports? Freaks like Amare or Howard end up doing
something, at least to get free education.
>A big problem for me is the fact that "black" is a very broad term (as
>is "white"), encompassing many different cultural and physical types,
>let alone people and comunities. What specific genetic characteristics,
>that "blacks" have makes them better at basketball? Let alone, all
>sports as you claimed earlier.
I never claimed all sports, at least once I did write that I was
considering just sports where the right comination of speed,
quickness, power, agility was crucial, and basketball is the first in
my list.
Btw, I know genetists could attack my ideas saying that there's no
black race, there are really minor differences between groups etc.
I'm not a biologist, I'm not gonna discuss that, but I still wanna ask
one thing. There are very obvious similarities between people with
west african ancestors. The darker color of the skin, the black eyes,
the shape of the skull, the nose, the hair... everyone is different, I
know, there are people in between what I call races, but can we agree
that there are differences between the average caucasion and the
average west african black other than the color of the skin?
Is there a reason to exclude that the higher % white muscles and lower
% of fat some attribute to black people (west african ancestors, I'm
gonna repeat it every time...) have a genetic basis? Is it really that
hard to believe? Afaik they've yet to isolate what genes effect how
easily an individual develops white fibers, so no genetic study can
still demostrate what theory is right.
Considering facts, imho the genetic explanation works better for
basketball.
>> I haven't seen any game back then, but did the Jewish look on average
>> faster, stronger, quicker, more explosive as the black look now? Or
>> they were just better players?
>It would seem that with modern training, diet, medicine, etc., that
>athletes today in general would be faster, stronger, quicker, more
>explosives, etc.
see, what I suspect is in the last century jewish were better players
thanks to their superior fundamentals.
Fundamentals come 90% out of training, and considering the relative
diffusion of bball at the time, it's easy to suppose that access was
100% the reason of their domination, as it could be for other sports
played by small groups.
The current "Black Domination" (BD) doesn't come out from a better
understanding of the game, better fundamentals, whatever, but it's 99%
about athletic ability. This is such a big difference that it imho
completely dismisses the analogy.
>The contention is that more blacks become good athletes because blacks
>can afford to be involved in athletics, while "whites" can also afford
>to develop in other ways, usualy more lucrative and prestigeous.
>(remember that only a tiny percentage of amazing athletes can actually
>work profesionaly as athletes)
in North America, an amazing athlete can at least show his abilities
in college, to get free education.
>IMO, concieving of "blacks" as a socioeconomic group, with a common
>economic class, is far more accurate than concieving of "blacks" as a
>different subspecies, with common physical predispositions, beyond the
>superficial.
the socioeconomic group you're decribing is low class urban people,
not necessarely black, isn't it?
I know the terms I'm using are not always the proper ones. It can be
because English is not my first language so my vocabulary might be not
wide enough, as it can be because I'm not a biologist so I'm
simplifying things.
I know race is very tricky word to use, I know there's a multitude of
black groups, some very different from each other from a genetic
standpoint, I know caucasian means nothing, I could be more similar to
an ethiopian than a scandinavian guy.
But what I'm doing is just making observations and drawing conclusions
I consider the most valid.
What I like less of the access theory is that it really sounds too
politically correct and too american to be true. In the US debating
about race is very dangerous, I'm sure it wouldn't be wise for some
college professor to come out and defend the genetic theory.
"We're really all the same, no differences at all", sound more like
political propaganda than a scientific conclusion to me.
Quirk
> On 25 Aug 2006 14:40:14 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> >If you contend that it is possible for some "race" known as "blacks" to
> >have common genetic characteristics that allow them to preform at a
> >higher level in sporting activity, then how can you out-of-hand dismiss
> >the notion "whites" have genetic characteristics that allow them to
> >perform at a higher level as doctors or engineers?
> I don't dismiss it at all, actually, I just don't consider it a valid
> explanation once having examined the current siatuation.
> You really don't need to bring up genetic differences to explain why
> there's a shortage of black engineers, the access and socioeconomic
> theory works properly.
I am not at all sure what you mean by "you really don't need to" and
"works properly."
The point is you can attribute a lack of success in business, science,
etc, to a genetic predisposition of "blacks," if you believe that
"blacks" have a common genetic predisposition.
Once you claim that "blacks" have any genetic predispostion, it follows
logicaly the effect of this predisposion can not be limited to the
areas you think it should be.
If you can say "blacks" are better athletes because they are "black,"
then you implicitely support the notion that "blacks" can also have
negative characteristics just by being "black."
You can not have it both ways, either "blacks" _do_ have genetic
predisposition for both success _and_ failure in many areas, or they
have neither.
> I'm gonna insist on this, your theory doesn't work always, and it for
> sure doesn't work in basketball.
It sure does, especially when you consider that Basketball is not
dominated only by "blacks," but actually by American blacks. A
community in which Basketball is one of the few prominent and
accessible form of achievement.
> Basketball is *athletically* dominated by black people, who are
> showing comparable technical skills than white guys trained in similar
> conditions?
I understand athletisism to be natural talent extended by diet,
training, medicine, etc, I am not sure what you sort of phenomenon you
think athletisism is. The athletes showing better skills than white
guys are also showing better skills than other black guys, and indeed
there are also white guys who show higher skill than black guys.
Your argument remains substantiated only with a begged question, you
contend that because more basketball players are black that blacks are
genetical presidisposed to be better basketball players.
I again point out that this is not a proof, but rather a circular
argument, you are not explaining the phenomen but doing the reverese,
using the phenomon to try and prove your proposed cause.
>From WIkipedia:
"That begs the question" is an apt reply when a circular argument is
used within one Syllogism. That is, when the deduction contains a
proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove; in
essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its
simplest form is not very persuasive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#An_example
You say that genetic predisposition must be ther reason that "Blacks"
are better at basketball because blacks are better at basketball, and
seem to you, athleticaly superior.
Ed and I have tried to explain why this is bogus, Ed's 3 points in his
recent comments sum it up fairly well.
Besides the begged question, you have offered no clear argument, and
have not dealt with the facts presented to you.
According to "Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people
using phony science." by Francisco Gil-White:
We have seen:
1) that we cannot create rigorous human categories based on
morphological variation (i.e., differences in surface traits),
because the various visible traits do not covary in such a way as to
make this possible;
2) that even if we rely on a single morphological trait (e.g., skin
color) we will not find crisp boundaries anywhere because the changes
in human traits are very smooth;
3) that in the human species any set of surface traits that we
choose will be misleading rather than informative about overall genetic
variation;
4) that in any case it is pointless to try to rely on surface
traits, because we can now directly study the human gene pool; and
5) that when we study the human gene pool, we find that the human
species is spectacularly uniform and in consequence we cannot find any
cut yielding differences large enough to justify dividing our species
into 'races' or 'subspecies' as biologists use these terms.
Francisco Gil-White is an Anthropologist who was Assistant Professor of
Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and lecturer at the
Solomon Asch Centre for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict. He holds a
Masters Degree in Social Sciences from the University of Chicago and a
PhD in Biological and Cultural Anthropology from UCLA.
He has published the book quoted above online:
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrcontents.htm
> in North America, an amazing athlete can at least show his abilities
> in college, to get free education.
No, only a small precentage of amazing athletes can get a free
education. The number of athletes who get a free education are only a
tiny percentage of those with tremendous physical gifs and dedication.
> >IMO, concieving of "blacks" as a socioeconomic group, with a common
> >economic class, is far more accurate than concieving of "blacks" as a
> >different subspecies, with common physical predispositions, beyond the
> >superficial.
>
> the socioeconomic group you're decribing is low class urban people,
> not necessarely black, isn't it?
That is the point, besides the social construct, there is no such thing
as "blacks" the idea that there are black people and white people who
each share common genetic predisposition with other members of their
"race" is bogus.
Race is something that is believed in by racists.
Cheers.
ebrian
This thread subject contains the word basketball. I couldn't be
bothered reading all the stuff you guys said, so I just assumed you
were still talking about basketball. All of a sudden I notice these
pictures of Olympians only, which I thought was kind of pointless til
now when I see your point.
If the topic is accessible sports, everyone has equal access to sports,
but not all sports have the same kind of glamour as others. Diving for
instance, is easily accessible to anyone, but the glamour is missing
which is why you don't see a lot of americans in the sport, and the
ones who are there are larger, more portly compared to the ones you see
winning all the medals. In America, gymnastics is huge. If some of
these tiny white girls in gymnastics invested the time to do diving,
then China wouldn't be cleaning house in that sport year after year.
China is all about grace. We like sports that are graceful. You don't
see very many Chinese people in track & field. Though we tend to be
small in stature, I honestly would say that the reason has nothing to
do with our size -- track & field is just not considered glamorous for
us. Small splashes, that's what it's all about for us. Being one with
the water, or ice for that matter, pummelhorse, mat. That's what it's
all about.
But back to the most important sport of all the world, football.
Football is a pretty evenly distributed sport. There are football
greats who are black and white, it's pretty even. QBs tend to be
dominated by caucasian. All the black QBs are versatile and can run,
but their fundamentals aren't as good. They either aren't as accurate
or can't throw as hard, or they should be throwing more instead of
running. But the game is evolving and sooner or later these
Slash-prototypes are going to flood the market.
The runningbacks and receivers are all black, at least, the best ones.
Defensively, the big guys are split right down the middle. I tend to
see more white offensive linemen and more black defensive ends. The
kickers are all white. Coaches are getting there in terms of equality,
but, for the most part they are white too. The Tony Dungy's, Herm
Edwards, Dennis Greens, Art Shells.. they're out there but there aren't
enough of them.
ebrian
Ryoga Hibiki
>I am not at all sure what you mean by "you really don't need to" and
>"works properly."
>The point is you can attribute a lack of success in business, science,
>etc, to a genetic predisposition of "blacks," if you believe that
>"blacks" have a common genetic predisposition.
of course I can, but I don't *need* to so I don't *have* to!
Why should I bring out race when success in all that stuff is more
correlated to the social class of people, and so the opportunities to
get a good education, rather color of their skin?
For that area, your theory *works properly*, so I agree that the most
successfull groups are the one with the more access to education.
>Once you claim that "blacks" have any genetic predispostion, it follows
>logicaly the effect of this predisposion can not be limited to the
>areas you think it should be.
yeah, but you need to come out with some evidence that race is more
important than the other factors.
Once again:
1) some groups have an easier access to a top education
2) people in those groups end up at the top of business, science,
whatever...
very easy logic, no *need* to bring up race to justify the evidence
that white people are in the top positions in business, etc
>It sure does, especially when you consider that Basketball is not
>dominated only by "blacks," but actually by American blacks. A
>community in which Basketball is one of the few prominent and
>accessible form of achievement.
yes, the only large black (west african etc) community in the world
that has the access and the cultural background to practice it.
>I understand athletisism to be natural talent extended by diet,
>training, medicine, etc, I am not sure what you sort of phenomenon you
>think athletisism is. The athletes showing better skills than white
>guys are also showing better skills than other black guys, and indeed
>there are also white guys who show higher skill than black guys.
can we agree that the best athletes on a basketball court are 99%
black? Of course Ginobili is more athletic than your average black
guy, but can we agree that your average black player is more athletic
than the average white player?
If we could rate the top100 athletes in the NBA, you think more than 5
would be white (stretching...)? Ed would agree that's statistically
significant, considering that white people are more than 5% of the NBA
players.
>Your argument remains substantiated only with a begged question, you
>contend that because more basketball players are black that blacks are
>genetical presidisposed to be better basketball players.
no, my friend, predisposed to be better athletes for bball and so
better players.
>I again point out that this is not a proof, but rather a circular
>argument, you are not explaining the phenomen but doing the reverese,
>using the phenomon to try and prove your proposed cause.
my logic is different, actually.
1) it starts with the evidence already mentioned that black players
are better athletes and that's the reason they're better players. Not
skills, instincts, fundamentals, that are not substantially different
from white players. If we agree ok, otherwise stop reading here.
2) I'm assuming that athletic ability is mostly god given. As much as
you can train yourself, you need some good genes to be Vince Carter or
Amare Stoudemire. I don't think there are either the conditions as far
as access to training, medicine and proper food regimens to justify
the difference we're witnessing.
3) I don't believe that a hypothetical white Dwight Howard would play
another sport or no sport at all, 'cause 6-10 freaks, at least in the
US, all play basketball. At least, I would expect a white guy in the
Top10 of the best athletes, but I don't see him.
4) I openly contest the thesis that the black community has a better
access to basketball: there are actually more white guys exposed to
this sport, in the world but also in the US. This is not alpine
skiing, there are plenty of white players.
5) I can't help but notice that in any sport they've access to, black
players (west afr.. etc) show their dominance as far as speed and
power, even if they don't dominate the game itself as it happens in
basketball.
6) with no other possible explanation, black people (we.. etc) have a
genetic advantage, on average, as far as speed and power, and they
take advantage of it in basketball
>According to "Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people
>using phony science." by Francisco Gil-White:
>
>We have seen:
[...]
>5) that when we study the human gene pool, we find that the human
>species is spectacularly uniform and in consequence we cannot find any
>cut yielding differences large enough to justify dividing our species
>into 'races' or 'subspecies' as biologists use these terms.
I would just add, actually, that while we have a map of our genes
we've yet to know what they control but a very tiny group of them.
Untill you discover what genes control the ability to develop white
fibers and, overall, what makes someone a natural athlete, those
researches lead nowhere: we can't draw any statistic to know what
races have the higher % of these so called natural athletes, but just
study the phenomena, that's all we have at this point.
The phenomena is that blacks (w... etc) show those same traits in all
sports they've access too.
>> in North America, an amazing athlete can at least show his abilities
>> in college, to get free education.
>No, only a small precentage of amazing athletes can get a free
>education. The number of athletes who get a free education are only a
>tiny percentage of those with tremendous physical gifs and dedication.
really? A white Shaq wouldn't find anyone to offer him a scolarship?
>Race is something that is believed in by racists.
my ass.
you can't call someone racist in this way.
Ted
>It's clean.
>
>This thread subject contains the word basketball. I couldn't be
>bothered reading all the stuff you guys said, so I just assumed you
>were still talking about basketball. All of a sudden I notice these
>pictures of Olympians only, which I thought was kind of pointless til
>now when I see your point.
>
>If the topic is accessible sports, everyone has equal access to sports,
Oh really? How much do you think it costs to register and outfit a
kid to play MTHL in Toronto? I't's a lot, whatever it is - and I
really think a lot of families in Toronto -- black or white -- won't
even consider it because they can't afford it. Equal access? You
sound like some Maoist.
Ted
ebrian
kids growing up in Toronto. Fortunately, there's about 20 leagues
available.
And another thing, if you "really think" parents aren't willing to pay
an arm and a leg to put their kids into the extra-curricular activities
that they enjoy, welcome to parenting 101. Hockey is only one example.
Different sports have varying operational costs. Soccer only takes a
pair of cleats. Basketball, a good pair of shoes. $15 can get you a
pretty good pair of basketball shoes.. just ask Marbury.
Quirk
> >The point is you can attribute a lack of success in business, science,
> >etc, to a genetic predisposition of "blacks," if you believe that
> >"blacks" have a common genetic predisposition.
> of course I can, but I don't *need* to so I don't *have* to!
The point is by supporting the idea of common charactistics shared by
"Blacks" you implicetly support the existence of both positive and
negative ones, regardless of which you actually claiming exist.
Your contention that "Blacks" are naturally better basketball players
leaves you with nothing to dispute the possibility of "Whites" having a
higher IQ, especially as your "evidence" is the same begged question as
presented by those claming the later.
> >Once you claim that "blacks" have any genetic predispostion, it follows
> >logicaly the effect of this predisposion can not be limited to the
> >areas you think it should be.
> yeah, but you need to come out with some evidence that race is more
> important than the other factors.
The same evidence you are using is available: Your begged question
based on claiming that many basketball players are black, thus "blacks"
are better at basketball.
You have not presented evidence that issolates your claims, and you
have ignored the evidence presented to you coming from scientists who
have stidied the subject and written books about it.
> >I understand athletisism to be natural talent extended by diet,
> >training, medicine, etc, I am not sure what you sort of phenomenon you
> >think athletisism is. The athletes showing better skills than white
> >guys are also showing better skills than other black guys, and indeed
> >there are also white guys who show higher skill than black guys.
> can we agree that the best athletes on a basketball court are 99%
> black?
I am not sure about 99%, but yes I agree that the //descriptive//
statement that many baskteball players are black. Claiming, however,
that this proves the //normative// statement that "Blacks" have a
genetic predisposition to be good basketball players is "begging the
question." Which is a falacious argument and proves nothing, as has
been explained to you. I am not sure why you refuse to understand this.
> >Your argument remains substantiated only with a begged question, you
> >contend that because more basketball players are black that blacks are
> >genetical presidisposed to be better basketball players.
> no, my friend, predisposed to be better athletes for bball and so
> better players.
Despite the fact that your reply begins with "no," it does not
otherwise despute the quoted text it seems to be a response to.
Whatever the deatils of your genetic claim, your proof remains no more
than a begged question.
> 1) it starts with the evidence already mentioned that black players
> are better athletes and that's the reason they're better players. Not
> skills, instincts, fundamentals, that are not substantially different
> from white players. If we agree ok, otherwise stop reading here.
You have presented no evidence that black players are better athletes
because they are black.
> 2) I'm assuming that athletic ability is mostly god given. As much as
> you can train yourself, you need some good genes to be Vince Carter or
> Amare Stoudemire. I don't think there are either the conditions as far
> as access to training, medicine and proper food regimens to justify
> the difference we're witnessing.
Naturally ability is a factor in any area of achievement, not only
basketball. Bioligists, as cited, have proven that there are no
characteristics that correlate to Black skin, thus having black skin
does not tell you anything about natural ability of anykind. This has
also been explained to you.
> 3) I don't believe that a hypothetical white Dwight Howard would play
> another sport or no sport at all, 'cause 6-10 freaks, at least in the
> US, all play basketball. At least, I would expect a white guy in the
> Top10 of the best athletes, but I don't see him.
No idea what the above means, or is intended to prove, Dwight Howard is
Dwight Howard. Niether having White Skin or Black Skin makes you Dwight
Howard, and the idea of a White Dwight Howard is a Red Herring; a
meaningless absurdity from which we can derive no logical conclusion.
> 4) I openly contest the thesis that the black community has a better
> access to basketball: there are actually more white guys exposed to
> this sport, in the world but also in the US. This is not alpine
> skiing, there are plenty of white players.
You are missing the point, the black community has better access to
basketball than other fields of achievment, not than other races. It is
the lack of other opportunities that is the point.
> 5) I can't help but notice that in any sport they've access to, black
> players (west afr.. etc) show their dominance as far as speed and
> power, even if they don't dominate the game itself as it happens in
> basketball.
More begging the question. Even if true, the cause is unlikely to be
genetics common to a race called "Blacks," as no such thing exists, as
has been explained to you.
> 6) with no other possible explanation, black people (we.. etc) have a
> genetic advantage, on average, as far as speed and power, and they
> take advantage of it in basketball
You have made no explanation, you have only offered a begged question
as your proof, and you have ignored the explanations presented, as
cited from scholars in the field.
> >No, only a small precentage of amazing athletes can get a free
> >education. The number of athletes who get a free education are only a
> >tiny percentage of those with tremendous physical gifs and dedication.
> really? A white Shaq wouldn't find anyone to offer him a scolarship?
A "White Shaq" is yet another absurd red herring and does not address
the quoted comments; that only a tiny percentage of amazing athletes
get a scholarship, most do not. Most athletes are not at the level of
Shaq.
> >Race is something that is believed in by racists.
> my ass.
> you can't call someone racist in this way.
I do not think you are a racist, however the ideas you are expressing
are reacist ideas,-
Racism is attributing characteristics of people to their race. If you
believe that being black or white inherently makes you better or worse
in any area, you are supporting racism.
"You don't have to be a racist to be wrong about
what race is. That doesn't make the effects of a belief in race any
less damaging, or the situation any less perilous. Most Americans
still
believe in the concept of race the way they believe in the law of
gravity-they believe in it without even knowing what it is they
believe in. "
-- Joseph L. Graves Jr., Ph.D.
Eric Lew
"ebrian" <ebr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156601738.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> But back to the most important sport of all the world, football.
>
> Football is a pretty evenly distributed sport. There are football
> greats who are black and white, it's pretty even. QBs tend to be
> dominated by caucasian.
I was with you until I saw "QB". The "most important sport of all the
world, football", is the real football, what is called "soccer" in the
States and in Canada. A sport played practically everywhere in the world.
And here, Quirk and Fistspout (Ed?) will find their best argument: no single
"race" or skin colour can claim absolute superiority.
ebrian
why I haven't posted much on altraps lately, it's because football
season has started. As much as I love the Toronto Raptors, I would
trade all Toronto sport franchises for an NFL team. (Unfortunately I
don't think that'd be enough to get one.)
That soccer is "the football" everywhere outside of North America -- I
could not care less about. I live here.
As for the racial split or equality in soccer.. that is a tough call --
here is a sport that everyone really *does* have equal access to. But
how many of top 100 players are, say, asian (oriental)? My guess is at
most 1. The top player on Korea (or was it Japan?) was a black guy.
Take the top 100 football players of all time, hockey of all time,
baseball of all time, basketball of all time -- baseball might be the
only one that contains more than 1 asian-born player.
Obviously there is some genetics playing a role in this, but what about
culture? How important are sports for one country vs for another
country? India has over a billion people, barely any of them play the
major sports. In fact, for a country as big as they are, how many
medals did they win last Olympics? They've won exactly 17 medals since
1896. China has won 319 in that same span. And Canada? 361. We're
beating China overall, with 2.6% of their population size.
Eric Lew
> As for the racial split or equality in soccer.. that is a tough call --
> here is a sport that everyone really *does* have equal access to. But
> how many of top 100 players are, say, asian (oriental)? My guess is at
> most 1. The top player on Korea (or was it Japan?) was a black guy.
> Take the top 100 football players of all time, hockey of all time,
> baseball of all time, basketball of all time -- baseball might be the
> only one that contains more than 1 asian-born player.
That's because oriental athletes are too busy playing table-tennis or
badminton.
> Obviously there is some genetics playing a role in this, but what about
> culture? How important are sports for one country vs for another
> country? India has over a billion people, barely any of them play the
> major sports.
I also think that we cannot totally discount genetics. Asians (by that, I'm
talking chinese, japanese, etc) are on average shorter and smaller than
other people. Yao Ming is a freak.
And I do agree that culture has a huge impact. I doubt that the average
family in China cares about any sport at all. In the villages, they'd be
pushing their kids out to work on the farm; in the cities, they'd be pushing
education, education, education.
ebrian
ebrian
Quirk
> I also think that we cannot totally discount genetics.
Of course genetics is a factor! However, *individual* genetic history
is the factor, not "Race."
The fact that someone has Black skin or White skin tells you nothing
about their individual genetic history as there are no "Races" or
"Subspecies" in the Human species.
> Yao Ming is a freak.
So is Shaq. Or any athlete good enough to play against the top
0.00000001% players in the world.
Some freakishness manifests visably, in the case of size, but most
factors in achievement do not.
> And I do agree that culture has a huge impact. I doubt that the average
> family in China cares about any sport at all. In the villages, they'd be
> pushing their kids out to work on the farm; in the cities, they'd be pushing
> education, education, education.
Culture and socioeconomic factors are the big influence, IMO.
666
Interesting discussion. Quirk, I think you are looking at things a
bit too generic and subsequently defining race and particularly black
as too generic.
Imagine if you will, a group of people taken from their country and
put in the hulls of boats where just surviving the trip would require
excellent physical characteristics. Now, take the survivors and work
them very hard and take it even further and breed them for hard work.
After a few generations of grueling work and breeding I don't think
that you would be surprised to find that only the strongest and
fittest survived and that their offspring would be generally very
strong and fit.
Take it one step further and a couple hundred years and imagine a
sport where some of these same physical characteristics would be
beneficial. Is possible that this groups descendents would dominate
that sport?
Quirk
> Interesting discussion. Quirk, I think you are looking at things a
> bit too generic and subsequently defining race and particularly black
> as too generic.
The point is that "black" is too generic, there is no such thing as a
"black" race, it is a social construct. As such, "blacks" can not have
any common genetic predisposition, beyond black skin.
That is why Anthropologists like Francisco Gil-White say things like:
"even if we rely on a single morphological trait (e.g., skin
color) we will not find crisp boundaries anywhere because the changes
in human traits are very smooth"
Meaning that having black skin doesn't mean you share any other traits
with other people who also have black skin, anymore than having brown
eyes means you share traits with somebody else with brown eyes.
> Imagine if you will, a group of people taken from their country and
> put in the hulls of boats where just surviving the trip would require
> excellent physical characteristics. Now, take the survivors and work
> them very hard and take it even further and breed them for hard work.
No doubt it sounds plausable, but, logically if these correlations
existed then scientists like
Graves and Gil-White would have found this out. Instead, they claim
that there are no races or subspecies in the human species, and both
specifically address and refute the idea that "Blacks" are better
basketball players.
But interestingly, even if you where to try to collrelate slave
ancestry with physical characteristics, there is the fact that you can
not even tell from black skin whether or not they are descendents of
slaves, because:
1 - Most "blacks" have some "white" or "indian" or "asian" ancestors
as well.
2 - Many blacks are not descendents of slaves.
3 - Many Whites are also decendents of slaves.
The third is particularly intersting; a little understood fact is that
a significant number of White Americans are decendents of white slaves.
Up until the 18th century, if not even later, most of America's slaves
where white.
Acording to Michael A. Hoffman II, the author of "They Were White and
They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in
Early America and Industrial Britain":
"Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were
Whites slaves and they
were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long
before Blacks ever were.
This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves
were enslaved too.
"Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and
separated from their parents
and wives sold and separated from their husbands. Free Black property
owners strutted
the streets of northern and southern American cities while White slaves
were worked to
death in the sugar mills of Barbados and Jamaica and the plantations of
Virginia.
[...]
"I challenge any researcher to study 17th century colonial America,
sifting the
documents, the jargon and the statutes on both sides of the Atlantic
and one will discover
that White slavery was a far more extensive operation than Black
enslavement. It is when
we come to the 18th century that one begins to encounter more
"servitude" on the basis
of a contract of indenture. But even in that period there was
kidnapping of Anglo-Saxons
into slavery as well as convict slavery.
"In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who
designed New York's Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and
saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a
cargo ship's hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into
the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish.
"Olmsted inquired about this to a shipworker. "Oh," said the
worker, "the niggers are
worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard
or get their backs
broke, nobody loses anything."
"Before British slavers traveled to Africa's western coast to buy
Black slaves from
African chieftains, they sold their own White working class kindred
("the surplus poor" as
they were known) from the streets and towns of England, into slavery.
Tens of thousands of
these White slaves were kidnapped children. In fact the very origin of
the word kidnapped
is kid-nabbed, the stealing of White children for enslavement.
666
>666 wrote:
>
>> Interesting discussion. Quirk, I think you are looking at things a
>> bit too generic and subsequently defining race and particularly black
>> as too generic.
>
>The point is that "black" is too generic, there is no such thing as a
>"black" race, it is a social construct. As such, "blacks" can not have
>any common genetic predisposition, beyond black skin.
Yes, that's my point. We are in agreement.
snipped
>> Imagine if you will, a group of people taken from their country and
>> put in the hulls of boats where just surviving the trip would require
>> excellent physical characteristics. Now, take the survivors and work
>> them very hard and take it even further and breed them for hard work.
>
>No doubt it sounds plausable, but, logically if these correlations
>existed then scientists like
>Graves and Gil-White would have found this out. Instead, they claim
>that there are no races or subspecies in the human species, and both
>specifically address and refute the idea that "Blacks" are better
>basketball players.
That's because they are looking at ALL blacks (the generic ones) which
has nothing to do with what I said.
>
>But interestingly, even if you where to try to collrelate slave
>ancestry with physical characteristics, there is the fact that you can
>not even tell from black skin whether or not they are descendents of
>slaves, because:
You're kidding right? You are still arguing the "generic" issue that
we have already agreed on. You need to get this whole "black" label
out of your mind. I'm not talking about ALL blacks. I'm talking
about blacks whose ancestors were slaves and it would seem pretty
obvious that you can't tell that by looking at someone.
snipped a bunch of white slave stuff
Oh brother. Blacks (as self defined in the census) make up 13% of
the U.S. population. I don't have the number but it's pretty obvious
that a much greater proportion off blacks in the U.S have a slave
ancestry than whites.
You need to understand things from that perspective and stop
considering the generic black issue. You seem to want to believe in
science so all you have to do is look at the science of genetics and
breeding and evolution. Survival of the fittest is the reason that
the majority of NBA players are "black".
Quirk
666 wrote:
> I'm not talking about ALL blacks. I'm talking
> about blacks whose ancestors were slaves and it would seem pretty
> obvious that you can't tell that by looking at someone.
So you argument is that only "blacks" that have slave ancestors are
better basketball players? Do you have any evidence for this? Does this
theory apply to Whites too? Are you saying that decendents of slaves,
black or white, in general make better baskball players?
> snipped a bunch of white slave stuff
>
> Oh brother. Blacks (as self defined in the census) make up 13% of
> the U.S. population. I don't have the number but it's pretty obvious
> that a much greater proportion off blacks in the U.S have a slave
> ancestry than whites.
Just as it obvious, then, that numericaly there will be more whites
with slave ancestry than blacks, even if the percentage of whites
overall is smaller due to their greater population.
> Survival of the fittest is the reason that the majority of NBA players are "black".
No idea how you have arive at this conclusion. You have demonstrated no
correlation between slave ancestry and backetball acheivement, you have
only claimed this as if it was self-evident.
Personaly, I would rather attribute the success African-Americans have
at basketball to the fact that many "blacks" work damn hard to become
great baskball players and because Basketball is a part of the culture
of their communities and affordable to them. They have the access and
support they need to excell.
I find the idea that "blacks" succeed at Baskball because they where
bred this way by slavers demeaning, and as no such correlation can be
demonstrated, ridiculous,
No doubt the Jews that dominated basketball in the 20s did so as a
result of being slaves in Egypt, right?
BTW, Vassilis Spanoulis, Sofoklis Schortsianitis and friends say hi
from Japan.
666
>
>666 wrote:
>> I'm not talking about ALL blacks. I'm talking
>> about blacks whose ancestors were slaves and it would seem pretty
>> obvious that you can't tell that by looking at someone.
>
>So you argument is that only "blacks" that have slave ancestors are
>better basketball players? Do you have any evidence for this? Does this
>theory apply to Whites too? Are you saying that decendents of slaves,
>black or white, in general make better baskball players?
>
Gimme a break. You know what I mean and are just playing word games.
The point is that regardless of your ancestry "some" people from any
background will have the required skills. That's just basic
probability and natural selection. The point is that U.S. blacks with
a slavery ancestry have a higher probability of having the required
skills due to evolution and breeding and survival of the fittest.
>> snipped a bunch of white slave stuff
>>
>> Oh brother. Blacks (as self defined in the census) make up 13% of
>> the U.S. population. I don't have the number but it's pretty obvious
>> that a much greater proportion off blacks in the U.S have a slave
>> ancestry than whites.
>
>Just as it obvious, then, that numericaly there will be more whites
>with slave ancestry than blacks, even if the percentage of whites
>overall is smaller due to their greater population.
>
Depends on the numbers. Look em up but it's important to understand
survival rates, environment, living conditions etc etc etc and also
the amount of time that has elapsed.
>> Survival of the fittest is the reason that the majority of NBA players are "black".
>
>No idea how you have arive at this conclusion. You have demonstrated no
>correlation between slave ancestry and backetball acheivement, you have
>only claimed this as if it was self-evident.
>
I guess you would have to believe in genetics, evolution and math to
understand.
>Personaly, I would rather attribute the success African-Americans have
>at basketball to the fact that many "blacks" work damn hard to become
>great baskball players and because Basketball is a part of the culture
>of their communities and affordable to them. They have the access and
>support they need to excell.
>
>I find the idea that "blacks" succeed at Baskball because they where
>bred this way by slavers demeaning, and as no such correlation can be
>demonstrated, ridiculous,
>
I know you do and that's your problem. You WANT there to be no
difference in the races so that racism won't exist but you seem to be
smart enough to know that evolution and breeding and simple
environment has impacted "some" sub groups of humans. I'm not saying
ALL blacks or ALL whites. It's too generic, but if you believe in the
science of evolution and genetics then you MUST believe that some
humans are genetically different than others, which is pretty obvious.
Of course if you take an ENTIRE race you will find that everyone is
basically the same but not if you take very specific isolated groups
whose environment was different for a very long time or very selective
for a short amount of time i.e Kenyan runners etc etc etc.
>No doubt the Jews that dominated basketball in the 20s did so as a
>result of being slaves in Egypt, right?
>
Time spans are critical here. Eventually a race/breed might interact
with other breeds possibly losing potential advantages gained in
previous circumstances over time.
>BTW, Vassilis Spanoulis, Sofoklis Schortsianitis and friends say hi
>from Japan.
Why is it that some people have no problem with the science behind
evolving/breeding birds or dogs or cats or cows or corn or flowers but
as soon as similar circumstances occur with humans that it's "racist".
Racism deals with generalities over ENTIRE races. I'm not talking
about that. I just hope that you don't believe that ALL humans are
genetically pretty well the same and have the exact same potential for
everything.
Quirk
> The point is that U.S. blacks with
> a slavery ancestry have a higher probability of having the required
> skills due to evolution and breeding and survival of the fittest.
Do you have some supoprting evidence of this, or am I meant to simply
take it on your say so that this is the case?
I do not believe you and insisting is not proving.
> >Just as it obvious, then, that numericaly there will be more whites
> >with slave ancestry than blacks, even if the percentage of whites
> >overall is smaller due to their greater population.
> Depends on the numbers. Look em up but it's important to understand
> survival rates, environment, living conditions etc etc etc and also
> the amount of time that has elapsed.
Seems logical to conclude that more white americans are the decendents
of slaves than black americans, not percentage wise but in total, as
the vast majoriity of Americans are White, and up until the 18th
century pretty much half of the people arriving in the US where white
slaves, (see Hoffman), and as white slave continued to arrive in the US
up until the Civil war, not counting convict labour which of cource
still exists.
> >> Survival of the fittest is the reason that the majority of NBA players are "black".
> >No idea how you have arive at this conclusion. You have demonstrated no
> >correlation between slave ancestry and backetball acheivement, you have
> >only claimed this as if it was self-evident.
> I guess you would have to believe in genetics, evolution and math to
> understand.
Simply alluding to genetics, evolution and math is not making an
argument based on genetics, evolulution and math. That is much harder
and you have not done so.
> >I find the idea that "blacks" succeed at Baskball because they where
> >bred this way by slavers demeaning, and as no such correlation can be
> >demonstrated, ridiculous,
> I know you do and that's your problem. You WANT there to be no
> difference in the races so that racism won't exist but you seem to be
> smart enough to know that evolution and breeding and simple
> environment has impacted "some" sub groups of humans.
My beliefs are supported by evolutionary biologists and
anthropoligists, as cited.
> It's too generic, but if you believe in the
> science of evolution and genetics then you MUST believe that some
> humans are genetically different than others, which is pretty obvious.
Some humans, no doubt, but these humans can not be grouped in any
meaningfull way beyond "humans who are good at basketball."
Once again you seem to be claiming to have made an argument based on
genetics, yet all you have done is insist that a belief ingenetics
would support your argument, you have not demonstrated this at all.
> Of course if you take an ENTIRE race you will find that everyone is
> basically the same but not if you take very specific isolated groups
> whose environment was different for a very long time or very selective
> for a short amount of time i.e Kenyan runners etc etc etc.
Kenyan runners live and train in high altitudes and come from a culture
where endurance running is popular. There is no "race" of kenyan
runners. If it was race based, then kenyans from other parts of the
world, who did not grow up in Kenya, would also be great long distance
runners. AFAIK, there is no evidience that is the case.
> >No doubt the Jews that dominated basketball in the 20s did so as a
> >result of being slaves in Egypt, right?
> Time spans are critical here. Eventually a race/breed might interact
> with other breeds possibly losing potential advantages gained in
> previous circumstances over time.
If this was "critical," you could perhaps cite some details of some
study that illustartes this instead of simply insisting. Do you
seriously believe that researchers like Graves have simply overlooked
your Slavery as eugenics theorum? Actually it is not yours, Jimmy the
Greek also believed it (it got him fired by CBS) It has been discussed
and refuturd.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n3_v20/ai_6536853/pg_1
And it has already been explained that most US "blacks" even the ones
who are good at basketball, have already ineracted with other "breeds"
(there are no breeds of humans), most have a mixed genetic background,
including whites.asians and natives.
So are we meant to believe the Slavery hypothisis simply on the word of
you and Jimmy the Greek, or are you going to present some more
compelling evidence?
> >BTW, Vassilis Spanoulis, Sofoklis Schortsianitis and friends say hi
> >from Japan.
>
> Why is it that some people have no problem with the science behind
> evolving/breeding birds or dogs or cats or cows or corn or flowers but
> as soon as similar circumstances occur with humans that it's "racist".
1- Because human achievment is not based on physical charactirstics
alone.
2- Because not even Slaves have been bred int the same way that Animals
have been bred.
3- Because baskteball players are not slaves. This is just an
ubsubstantiated conjecture of yours based on the "black slave" stereo
type.
> Racism deals with generalities over ENTIRE races. I'm not talking
> about that. I just hope that you don't believe that ALL humans are
> genetically pretty well the same and have the exact same potential for
> everything.
Not all humans no. The point is that it is individual genetic history
that determines physical characterists, not any grouping that can
called "race."
You can simply not generilze nor correlate any given charactersits with
any other ones in a statistically significant way.
Cheers.
666
>
>666 wrote:
>> On 1 Sep 2006 03:56:38 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
>
>> The point is that U.S. blacks with
>> a slavery ancestry have a higher probability of having the required
>> skills due to evolution and breeding and survival of the fittest.
>
>Do you have some supoprting evidence of this, or am I meant to simply
>take it on your say so that this is the case?
>
>I do not believe you and insisting is not proving.
>
>> >Just as it obvious, then, that numericaly there will be more whites
>> >with slave ancestry than blacks, even if the percentage of whites
>> >overall is smaller due to their greater population.
>
>> Depends on the numbers. Look em up but it's important to understand
>> survival rates, environment, living conditions etc etc etc and also
>> the amount of time that has elapsed.
>
>Seems logical to conclude that more white americans are the decendents
>of slaves than black americans, not percentage wise but in total, as
>the vast majoriity of Americans are White, and up until the 18th
>century pretty much half of the people arriving in the US where white
>slaves, (see Hoffman), and as white slave continued to arrive in the US
>up until the Civil war, not counting convict labour which of cource
>still exists.
>
I decided to look up the numbers. Look it up, in 1860 there were 4.4
million blacks in the U.S. 90% of them slaves. Do the math while
understanding the difference between black and white slaves.
>> >> Survival of the fittest is the reason that the majority of NBA players are "black".
>
>> >No idea how you have arive at this conclusion. You have demonstrated no
>> >correlation between slave ancestry and backetball acheivement, you have
>> >only claimed this as if it was self-evident.
>
>> I guess you would have to believe in genetics, evolution and math to
>> understand.
>
>Simply alluding to genetics, evolution and math is not making an
>argument based on genetics, evolulution and math. That is much harder
>and you have not done so.
>
>> >I find the idea that "blacks" succeed at Baskball because they where
>> >bred this way by slavers demeaning, and as no such correlation can be
>> >demonstrated, ridiculous,
>
>> I know you do and that's your problem. You WANT there to be no
>> difference in the races so that racism won't exist but you seem to be
>> smart enough to know that evolution and breeding and simple
>> environment has impacted "some" sub groups of humans.
>
>My beliefs are supported by evolutionary biologists and
>anthropoligists, as cited.
>
Don't be silly, there are just as many evolutionary biologists and
anthropologists that support what I'm saying. You can always find
some scientist to agree with you.
>> It's too generic, but if you believe in the
>> science of evolution and genetics then you MUST believe that some
>> humans are genetically different than others, which is pretty obvious.
>
>Some humans, no doubt, but these humans can not be grouped in any
>meaningfull way beyond "humans who are good at basketball."
>
Now you're getting somewhere and in North America a significant
majority of them will have a slave based ancestry.
>Once again you seem to be claiming to have made an argument based on
>genetics, yet all you have done is insist that a belief ingenetics
>would support your argument, you have not demonstrated this at all.
>
To tell you the truth you're right. I don't have the time to track
the ancestry of all the NBA players. Do you? But simple math will
tell you that most NBA players are black and most have a slavery
ancestry.
>> Of course if you take an ENTIRE race you will find that everyone is
>> basically the same but not if you take very specific isolated groups
>> whose environment was different for a very long time or very selective
>> for a short amount of time i.e Kenyan runners etc etc etc.
>
>Kenyan runners live and train in high altitudes and come from a culture
>where endurance running is popular. There is no "race" of kenyan
>runners.
Would you please stop using the term "race" where no one but you is
using it. Of course there is no race of Kenyans, that's my entire
point. They are an isolated group of people (who just happen to be
black) who have evolved/breeded in a certain way to give them an
advantage in a certain physical task.
> If it was race based, then kenyans from other parts of the
>world, who did not grow up in Kenya, would also be great long distance
>runners. AFAIK, there is no evidience that is the case.
>
Dude, ITS NOT RACE BASED. It's isolation based in the Kenyan case and
breeding/survival of the strong in the NBA case. Now you are just
being dumb. Do you really believe that in general Inuit or native
americans aren't different than other humans. Evolving in isolation
or specific breeding or harsh environments by definition will create
humans suited for a particular environment. It has nothing to do with
race. It's isolation and breeding and then hereditary after that.
>> >No doubt the Jews that dominated basketball in the 20s did so as a
>> >result of being slaves in Egypt, right?
>
>> Time spans are critical here. Eventually a race/breed might interact
>> with other breeds possibly losing potential advantages gained in
>> previous circumstances over time.
>
>If this was "critical," you could perhaps cite some details of some
>study that illustartes this instead of simply insisting.
How bout Darwin.
> Do you
>seriously believe that researchers like Graves have simply overlooked
>your Slavery as eugenics theorum? Actually it is not yours, Jimmy the
>Greek also believed it (it got him fired by CBS) It has been discussed
>and refuturd.
>
>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n3_v20/ai_6536853/pg_1
>
Great a newspaper article. Excellent peer reviewed material there
dude.
There are more issues than just breeding at work here. Survival under
harsh conditions is a key element and then reinforcing that with
breeding. Read up on how evolution and breeding work, then get back
to me.
>And it has already been explained that most US "blacks" even the ones
>who are good at basketball, have already ineracted with other "breeds"
>(there are no breeds of humans), most have a mixed genetic background,
>including whites.asians and natives.
>
That is true but if you understand anything about breeding you will
know that number of generations is an important issue.
>So are we meant to believe the Slavery hypothisis simply on the word of
>you and Jimmy the Greek, or are you going to present some more
>compelling evidence?
>
Darwin.
>> >BTW, Vassilis Spanoulis, Sofoklis Schortsianitis and friends say hi
>> >from Japan.
>>
>> Why is it that some people have no problem with the science behind
>> evolving/breeding birds or dogs or cats or cows or corn or flowers but
>> as soon as similar circumstances occur with humans that it's "racist".
>
>1- Because human achievment is not based on physical charactirstics
>alone.
>2- Because not even Slaves have been bred int the same way that Animals
>have been bred.
>3- Because baskteball players are not slaves. This is just an
>ubsubstantiated conjecture of yours based on the "black slave" stereo
>type.
>
>> Racism deals with generalities over ENTIRE races. I'm not talking
>> about that. I just hope that you don't believe that ALL humans are
>> genetically pretty well the same and have the exact same potential for
>> everything.
>
>Not all humans no. The point is that it is individual genetic history
>that determines physical characterists, not any grouping that can
>called "race."
>
Thank you. You just argued my point perfectly in a very simple
sentence. We are in complete agreement.
Here it is: It is individual genetic history that determines
physical characteristic, and some groups of people due to isolation or
breeding have similar genetic histories, not any grouping that can be
called "race."
Fistpout Trebuchet
666 wrote:
>Don't be silly, there are just as many evolutionary biologists and
>anthropologists that support what I'm saying. You can always find
>some scientist to agree with you.
No. No, you can't. You won't be able to find an oncologist who will agree
that tobacco is not dangerous, you won't be able to dig up an astronomer who
will agree that the earth is a stationary object that the sun and planets
revolve around, and you won't find a geneticist or anthropologist who will
agree that biological races exist, and these races are the same as the
cultural tags we've given them.
I'm not going to give you any cites, but if you go to the library and pick
up any anthro textbook, check the index for "Race," and read what it says,
you'll see that they deny the existence of biological races. Every textbook
will say this. Among anthropologists, this is noncontroversial. Scientist
pushing the existence of biological races are in the same position as those
denying anthropomorphic climate change -- that is, cranks, usually
scientists whose expertise lies in fields not relevant to the topic, or
those who are funded (ie bought) by corporate interests.
What's weird is that it's been 20 years since the work of Cavalli-Sforza,
Lewontin, and others proved that the variation of genetic information does
not map to cultural races, yet the idea still hangs on in the face of a
mountain of evidence to the contrary. I have to believe this is because
people want it to be true, but also because the idea of variation is hard to
grasp. I'll try:
Take a genetic marker, let's say blood type. Imagine two races, white and
black. Now take blood samples from various populations within those races,
but spread out geographically. Compare the blood types of whites from
Europe, North America, South America, Australia. Do the same for the samples
of blacks. You'll get something that says something like
Population O+ A+ B+ AB+ O- A- B- AB-
Europe (white) 38% 34% 9% 3% 7% 6% 2% 1%
Australia(white) 40% 31% 8% 2% 9% 7% 2% 1%
...
(All numbers made up to illustrate the point.)
And so on. If biological races existed, you'd find that the blood type
variation of whites in Europe were more similar to the whites of North
America than they were to the blacks of Europe, and that the blacks of
Africa were more similar to the black of South America than they were to the
white of Africa, and so on. But that's not what you see. What you see is
that the blacks of Africa are most similar to the whites of Sweden but not
Denmark, and the whites of North America are most similar to the blacks of
North America, and that even within each geographical population there is a
huge amount of variance. In other words, it's a big clusterfuck, and that
sometimes geographical proximity is closely related to blood type
similarity, and sometimes it's not But one thing stands out: blood types do
not map to races. Choose any other genetic marker, and you'll find the same
thing (this experiment has been performed 8 billion times). Biological races
do not exist.
Quirk
> I decided to look up the numbers. Look it up, in 1860 there were 4.4
> million blacks in the U.S. 90% of them slaves. Do the math while
> understanding the difference between black and white slaves.
I would be happy to do the math: 90% of 4.4 million is 3.96 million.
That was easy.
Now, You will still need to explain how this calculation proves your
argument. Also, when presenting numbers that you have looked up, it is
helpfull to cite the source. Please feel free to explain the difference
between black and white slaves.
> >My beliefs are supported by evolutionary biologists and
> >anthropoligists, as cited.
> Don't be silly, there are just as many evolutionary biologists and
> anthropologists that support what I'm saying. You can always find
> some scientist to agree with you.
Then please find them and cite them so we can compare the arguments to
the ones I am presenting.
> >Once again you seem to be claiming to have made an argument based on
> >genetics, yet all you have done is insist that a belief ingenetics
> >would support your argument, you have not demonstrated this at all.
> To tell you the truth you're right. I don't have the time to track
> the ancestry of all the NBA players. Do you?
So where is it you do get the idea from that there is a correlation
between slave ancestry and outstanding achievment in basketball?
> > If it was race based, then kenyans from other parts of the
> >world, who did not grow up in Kenya, would also be great long distance
> >runners. AFAIK, there is no evidience that is the case.
> Dude, ITS NOT RACE BASED. It's isolation based in the Kenyan case and
> breeding/survival of the strong in the NBA case.
Please read the quoted paragraph again, if the source of their success
has anything whatever to do with their "breeding" as you put it then
the same argument applies whether or not you use "race" or how broad or
narrow your claim of common genetic characterics is.
> Now you are just
> being dumb. Do you really believe that in general Inuit or native
> americans aren't different than other humans.
No doubt they are different, however, as Gil-White says "there are no
sharp boundaries in human variation: human traits vary smoothly. "
You are tying to make a normative statement, that American descendents
of black slaves, as a result of breeding and of surviving as slaves,
are now better geneticaly suited to play basketball.
You need to do more than simply present the fact that there differences
among human communities to prove the normative statement your are
making.
As cited in Jonathan Rowe's article about the Jimmy the Greek afair,
James Horton, a history professor at George Washington University, says
"There was nothing like systematic breeding in this country," and
Michael Blakey, an anthropologist at Howard University says this about
breeding of slaves: "It was pure and simple a matter of reproducing
large numbers rather than body types. That kind of breeding couldn't
possibly lead to any difference in athletic ability."
> It's isolation and breeding and then hereditary after that.
I would be very interested in some supporting evidence for this.
> >If this was "critical," you could perhaps cite some details of some
> >study that illustartes this instead of simply insisting.
> How bout Darwin.
Okay. Please cite Darwin to support your point, if you like.
Saying his name is not citing.
> >http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n3_v20/ai_6536853/pg_1
> Great a newspaper article. Excellent peer reviewed material there
> dude.
Feel free to dispute any of the points contained by addressing them
directly.
Funny, though, that you think a newspaper article can be dismissed
out-of-hand, yet on the other hand, you expect me to adopt the argument
you have presented in a usenet newsgroup article, without any
citations. If you think I should ignore Jonathan Rowe, why should I
listen to you?
> There are more issues than just breeding at work here. Survival under
> harsh conditions is a key element and then reinforcing that with
> breeding.
I would love to know on what you base your theory of the "key element"
on. Once again, you seem to have confused inisting something is true
because you insist it is true, and making on actual argument by way of
compelling reasoing.
> Read up on how evolution and breeding work, then get back
> to me.
Perhaps I would, if you where to make a clear argument and substantiate
it in some way. All you have done is make a claim and offer no more
than insistance of it's validity.
I am not sure what I would need to learn about evolution to understand
your argument, which includes no citations of works I could read.
> >And it has already been explained that most US "blacks" even the ones
> >who are good at basketball, have already ineracted with other "breeds"
> >(there are no breeds of humans), most have a mixed genetic background,
> >including whites.asians and natives.
> That is true but if you understand anything about breeding you will
> know that number of generations is an important issue.
Once again, details regarding this are needed if we are to assertain
whether or not you understand something about breeding, and wether my
understanding more would cause me to agree with you or not. You keep
insisting as if your say-so should be enough to convince me to agree
with you and not Graves, Gil-White, Horton, Blakey, etc.
> >So are we meant to believe the Slavery hypothisis simply on the word of
> >you and Jimmy the Greek, or are you going to present some more
> >compelling evidence?
> Darwin.
Citation?
My feeling is that your arguments beter reflect those of Darwin's
cousin,
Sir Francis Galton, than Darwin. Galton, as far as I know, never
mentioned slavery and basketball, so I can not say what ven Mr.
Eugenics would say reagrding the Jimmy the Greek hypothesis given
Horton and Blakey`s indication that that there was no systematic
breeding of slaves for body type.
"This is especially so," Jonathan Rowe wrote, "considering that some of
the breeding involved the slave owners themselves" and that therefor
the idea of breeding for body-type "was surely undone by the legacy of
knock-kneed, uncoordinated, and oversexed white slave owners."
> >Not all humans no. The point is that it is individual genetic history
> >that determines physical characterists, not any grouping that can
> >called "race."
> Thank you. You just argued my point perfectly in a very simple
> sentence. We are in complete agreement.
Ok, but you continue to believe in genetic groupings of humans sharing
common genetic characteristics that create an athletic advantage, you
simply don't want to call it "Race."
You believe that descendents of black slaves in America have been
"bred" in a way that enables them to be better basketball players.
Whether you call it "Race," "Breed," or "Them People," it amounts to
the same argument and therefor the same refutations, as made and cited,
apply.
> Here it is: It is individual genetic history that determines
> physical characteristic, and some groups of people due to isolation or
> breeding have similar genetic histories, not any grouping that can be
> called "race."
Individual genetic history can not be easly generalised to groups, you
are postulating a group of slave descendents that dominate basketball
as a result of their "breeding".
There simply is no such group.
Cheers.
666
Where on earth did I say biological races exist? I said isolation and
breeding have made some humans different than others. Yikes, you
don't seem to read very well.
666
much snipped, sorry but you're just repeating yourself and the
remaining part is the only good part.
>
>> >Not all humans no. The point is that it is individual genetic history
>> >that determines physical characterists, not any grouping that can
>> >called "race."
>
>> Thank you. You just argued my point perfectly in a very simple
>> sentence. We are in complete agreement.
>
>Ok, but you continue to believe in genetic groupings of humans sharing
>common genetic characteristics that create an athletic advantage, you
>simply don't want to call it "Race."
>
Somewhere in the above snippage you agreed that Inuits and Native
American due to isolation etc are different. You've already agreed
that grouping can be different so we're half way there.
>You believe that descendents of black slaves in America have been
>"bred" in a way that enables them to be better basketball players.
>Whether you call it "Race," "Breed," or "Them People," it amounts to
>the same argument and therefor the same refutations, as made and cited,
>apply.
What part do you not understand? Take 100,000 random humans and
subject them too the hardships and environment that African Americans
slaves were. A substantial proportion won't even live. Now breed
these obviously "stronger" humans within their group and you will have
obviously "stronger" descendants.
>
>> Here it is: It is individual genetic history that determines
>> physical characteristic, and some groups of people due to isolation or
>> breeding have similar genetic histories, not any grouping that can be
>> called "race."
>
>Individual genetic history can not be easly generalised to groups,
It doesn't have to be easy as long as it can be done.
> you
>are postulating a group of slave descendents that dominate basketball
>as a result of their "breeding".
>
Not just breeding. Genetics and more importantly the extreme living
conditions that would result in only the strong surviving. Maybe
you're missing this point. The slaves who survived didn't need to be
specifically bred for strength, they aready are "stronger". Just
being bred with each other even randomly would produce "stronger"
offspring because we are already dealing with the "stronger" ones who
have survived even just making it to America etc.
Imagine you are in Africa hand picking which slaves to load onto your
ship. Are you going to randomly pick them? I don't think so. You're
gonna pick the biggest and strongest one who are going to survive the
trip and then make you the most money. You are already starting with
the strongest at least by appearance. This is how everything from
corn to pets are bred.
>There simply is no such group.
>
Yes there is and they are descendants of the African American slaves.
>Cheers.
Quirk
> On 2 Sep 2006 11:40:15 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> Somewhere in the above snippage you agreed that Inuits and Native
> American due to isolation etc are different.
Different they may be, however, what you are saying is that they are
the same. The same as each other in a way that makes them dominant
basketball players.
It is not the differences I am rejecting, it is their genetic sameness
can be grouped in a way that is meaningfull in determining whether or
not they have the genetic predisposition to excel in Basketball.
> >You believe that descendents of black slaves in America have been
> >"bred" in a way that enables them to be better basketball players.
> >Whether you call it "Race," "Breed," or "Them People," it amounts to
> >the same argument and therefor the same refutations, as made and cited,
> >apply.
> What part do you not understand?
The part I would like to understand is the missing part that contains
the logical basis for your thesis.
> Take 100,000 random humans and
> subject them too the hardships and environment that African Americans
> slaves were. A substantial proportion won't even live. Now breed
> these obviously "stronger" humans within their group and you will have
> obviously "stronger" descendants.
This proposed thought experiment fails to address too many issues.
1 - What exact "hardships and environment" where black slaves subjected
to that where unique in the general context of slave labour? What other
communites could be said to have faced similar conditions?
Your alegation is very precise. As the exact characteristic you are
claiming is basketball acumen, your conditions should therfore also be
precise -- Did black slaves jump alot? Is it the result of
multigenerational plantation labour? Cooking and cleaning up after
obnoxious white save owners? Being wipped and humiliated? What?
Can you describe the //particular// conditions you are asking me to
subject the 100,000 random humans to, that no other community on earth
has faced so that my random humans' great grand children become the
best basketball players in the world?
2- You have ignored the fact that the idea that slaves where bred for
body-type in America has been refuted (see James Horton, Micheal
Blakey). They where bred for population, often with the slave owner as
the father.
3- You have not idemonstrated that any people who possess the paricular
physical characteristics you are suggesting exist, size, strength, etc
correlate well with top-level achievements in basketball. There are
lots of big, fast people who do not become elite basketball players,
despite trying quite hard.
> >Individual genetic history can not be easly generalised to groups,
> It doesn't have to be easy as long as it can be done.
Well, feel free to get started anytime you like, however it is up to
you to demonstrate the integrity of the generalisation that you are
proposing.
> Maybe
> you're missing this point. The slaves who survived didn't need to be
> specifically bred for strength, they aready are "stronger".
There is a lot of space between this Nietzschian conjecture of yours
and the supposition that this inhereted "strength," born of the toil
and suffering of slaves, is a factor in basketball achievement among
modern atheletes.
1- To what the degree is this "strength" pased on to generations that
follow, who live under completely different conditions?
2- Do what degree is the community discribed a specific stock and to
what degree is genetic history mixed?
3- How does this proposed "strength" manifest in phisical
characteristics and do those characteristics correlate with the
achievement claimed?
> Imagine you are in Africa hand picking which slaves to load onto your
> ship. Are you going to randomly pick them? I don't think so.
How where they actually "picked?" in Africa? Can you explain how you
know that they where hand picked for body-type and not for reasons of
poverty, being from low class or disgraced family, convicts, prisoners
of war, etc?
> >There simply is no such group.
> Yes there is and they are descendants of the African American slaves.
But for some reason, not descedants of "hispanic slaves," or "white"
slaves, or "asian" slaves, who aperently faced altogether different
conditions as slaves that involved less basketball-gene developing
activities.
Nor any other communities who have suffered in North American, such as
immigrant and migrant workers, pioneers, indiginous peoples, etc, who
have endured multigenerational hard labour, phisical violence, poverty
and humiliation.
Your argument is simply not compelling.
Cheers.
666
That's ok, I never expected you to believe it as you don't want to. I
was actually hoping that maybe you could convince me of some of other
reason but you've done the opposite.
It's important to note that it's not just basketball we're talking
about here. It's most athletics that require running and jumping etc,
particularly sprinting and other track and field events.
We don't need to discuss hockey and golf etc as you know the reasons
for those sports too.
You don't need to tell me why you think 13% of a population absolutely
and totally dominates almost all of these events. I've read what you
think the reasons are and simple math should convince you that
something is wrong with your reasoning.
There are 8 times more non blacks in the U.S. than blacks. All things
being equal one in eight olympic sprinters should be black on the U.S.
team. Of course not all things are equal but they certainly aren't so
un equal as to have blacks totally dominate. The math just doesn't
work.
In today's fairly equal opportunity environment, every gym teacher
knows what to look for in a gifted athlete. It seem unimaginable that
all these great non black athletes are being overlooked (or aren't
motivated etc etc etc), especially when there should be 7 times more
of them. Now look at it that blacks are dominating these events and
it's more like a 50:1 possibility. Think about it, 50:1.
I am enjoying our conversation and have truly learned a few things.
Anyway, we aren't really getting anywhere here so I decided to google
the topic and the first article I found (and there are tons of em) is
here
http://archive.salon.com/news/sports/olympics/2000/09/23/race/index.html
It's not perfect, it mentions some scientists but in general it tries
to say even more than I'm saying. I imagine you'll dismiss the
entire concept again but if you're open minded hopefully you'll learn
something. You might even figure out that you're being racist.
>Cheers.
Quirk
> On 2 Sep 2006 16:41:03 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> There are 8 times more non blacks in the U.S. than blacks. All things
> being equal one in eight olympic sprinters should be black on the U.S.
> team. Of course not all things are equal but they certainly aren't so
> un equal as to have blacks totally dominate. The math just doesn't
> work.
You are begging the question. We are not disputing the number of blacks
among elite athetes, we are disputing the cause of this.
> In today's fairly equal opportunity environment,
Today's environment is not in the least equal. The conditions faced by
white and black Americans today are as different as well, umm.. black
and white.
> 50:1.
This does not tell me the cause of this situation.
> I am enjoying our conversation and have truly learned a few things.
Yes, this is indeed an interesting conversation, there are a few things
I learned in investigating this question;
- Black slaves where not bred for body-type in America, nor where they
"picked" for Body-type in Africa.
- Most slaves in America where not black and the conditions faced by
blacks where also faced by an even greater number of non-blacks. Life
was pretty rough for a lot of Americans.
- Decendents of Black slaves are a very diverse group who do not share
a clear grouping of genetic characteristics.
Given the above, the Jimmy the Greek theory doesn't have a leg to hop
on.
> Anyway, we aren't really getting anywhere
I agree. Perhaps if we try to explain it a different way it may help.
We both agree that the success of black athletes is not a result of a
biological racial predisposition, but rather the result of cultural and
socioeconomic conditions.
Where we disagree is specifically what and when the condition had its
effect.
You think that it was the condition of slavery in the ancestry of the
modern athlete and that cirtain qualities where inhereted from these
ancestral conditions. I think it the actual, current conditions of the
modern athletes and the qualities are the result of the current
condition.
So, looking at it this way, if you propose it is possible for ancestral
conditions to have an impact on the athletic performance of modern
athletes, you must also permit that *current* conditions, certainly,
could have an impact on the athletic performance of modern athletes?
Thus, we have no reason to accept the Jimmy the Greek theory as
ancestral conditions are not the only set of conditions we can
attribute the observed success to. However, the ancestral conditions
assume by the Jimmy the Greek theory have been shown to not have
actually existed, thus, even if such ancestral condition //could// have
led to athletic superiority, they are not the reality of the actual
genetic history of the athletes in question, as explained.
Now take a moment to question why you believe that the success of the
modern black is beter explained as being rooted in slave ancestry and
not in the current conditions faced by black Americans? Are the
conditions of past centuries, of which you actually don't seem to be
presenting much in the way of details to support your claim, really
more important than the conditions black Americans currently live in?
> here so I decided to google
> the topic and the first article I found (and there are tons of em) is
> here
> http://archive.salon.com/news/sports/olympics/2000/09/23/race/index.html
> It's not perfect, it mentions some scientists but in general it tries
> to say even more than I'm saying. I imagine you'll dismiss the
> entire concept again but if you're open minded hopefully you'll learn
> something. You might even figure out that you're being racist.
Sure I remain open minded, but as it happens the work of Jon Entine,
the author of the article you are citing, has already been specifically
refuted by Gil-White in the work I have already cited linked.
Ironic that you mention racism while quoting Entine, his work is a part
of what Gil-White wrote about in "Resurrecting Racism: The modern
attack on black people using phony science."
Here is some what Fransico Gil-White has to say about Jon Entine:
Chapter 5
The new 'race scientists' want us to view everything in terms
of...race.
________________________________________________________
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap5.htm
We have seen:
1) that we cannot create rigorous human categories based on
morphological variation (i.e., differences in surface traits), because
the various visible traits do not covary in such a way as to make this
possible;
2) that even if we rely on a single morphological trait (e.g., skin
color) we will not find crisp boundaries anywhere because the changes
in human traits are very smooth;
3) that in the human species any set of surface traits that we
choose will be misleading rather than informative about overall genetic
variation;
4) that in any case it is pointless to try to rely on surface
traits, because we can now directly study the human gene pool; and
5) that when we study the human gene pool, we find that the human
species is spectacularly uniform and in consequence we cannot find any
cut yielding differences large enough to justify dividing our species
into 'races' or 'subspecies' as biologists use these terms.
Given all this, for Entine to write a book explaining the role of
genetic differences in physical ability between 'the races' is no
better than if he wrote a book explaining the motor efficiency of
dragon flight. The details of nonexistent things cannot be studied or
compared, and human races do not exist. Using the data he has
presented, Entine could in principle write a book about the possible
biological underpinning of the better performance of certain small
population groups in Africa (e.g. the Kalenjin) in a few specific
sports, but no more.
Why then is Entine apparently so obsessed with using the term
'race' as laypeople use it, and pretending it has biological
reality? Could it be that he has a broader purpose, namely, that he is
a propagandist for racism? Not according to Entine, who affects the
pose of an innocent seeker of truth.
For example, in an article he wrote to defend Taboo, he asks,
"...why do we so readily accept that evolution has turned out
Ashkenazi Jews with a genetic predisposition to Tay Sachs... yet find
it racist to suggest that blacks of West African ancestry have evolved
into the world's best sprinters and jumpers?"[1]
Entine's prose here deserves careful attention.
His allegation about West African superiority in sprinting and jumping
is the claim that West Africans are better adapted for sprinting and
jumping. This is why he says that "blacks of West African ancestry
have evolved into the world's best sprinters and jumpers." His
argument is therefore this: If we can accept that the Ashkenazi Jews
have evolved with a predisposition to Tay Sachs, why can't we recognize
that evolution equipped West Africans with certain traits as well?
Let's be fair, he says.
But Entine has presented a non-argument.
First of all, it is false that "evolution has turned out Ashkenazi
Jews with a genetic predisposition to Tay Sachs." If evolution by
natural selection had done that, then Tay Sachs would have to be an
adaptation, but it is a disease.
And this genetic disorder is not unique to the Ashkenazi Jewish
population anyway, it is merely somewhat more common among Ashkenazi
Jews than among others. Even so, Ashkenazi Jews are not the only ones
to have a higher incidence of Tay Sachs-certain French Canadians and
Cajun French families also have a higher proportion of people suffering
from this disease.[1a]
So Entine presents a falsehood-the intimation that Tay Sachs is
supposed to be widely recognized as an adaptation of the Ashkenazi
Jewish population-in order to suggest that anybody who does not agree
that 'West Africans' are biologically superior in sprinting and jumping
must be a hypocrite.
But the real hypocrite is easy to find. Entine's book is not even about
'West African' superiority in sprinting and jumping. His subtitle,
recall, is not "Why Blacks of West African Ancestry Have Evolved into
the World's Best Sprinters and Jumpers," which would require
stating a falsehood anyway, because West Africans are not the world's
best sprinters and jumpers. Neither is Entine's subtitle the more
accurate "Why Some Small and Widely Separated Populations on the
Western Coast of Africa are Good at Sprinting and Jumping." No, the
subtitle under Taboo is "Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why
We're Afraid to Talk About it," which proclaims to the world that
what Entine calls "black athletes," as a whole, have an advantage
in sports as a whole. Any such claim appearing on the front cover
becomes his message even should Entine qualify it in the body of his
book.
In point of fact, however, Jon Entine does not attempt to qualify the
message on his front cover. Quite the contrary.
Up until page 25 of Taboo I counted a total of 79 cases where
'black' was used in a context suggesting either that this is the
category of people with a supposed advantage in sports, or that this is
the category Entine's book is about. Up to the same page there is not
one-I repeat, not one-case where Entine uses phrases such as
"descendants of Western African coastal states" and the like (and I
would have counted any, whatever the context). Instead we have a
proliferation of phrases such as "black athletic success,"
"blacks are better athletes," etc.
Similarly, up until page 25, there were 13 instances where Entine uses
words such as 'race' and 'racial' that suggest his topic is
racial differences, as against only 4 occasions where he uses
'population,' 'ethnic,' or 'regional' that would suggest
Entine is not trying to impose a racial viewpoint. That means Entine
uses racial terminology three times as often as he uses terms that
actually match his data. And this ratio is arguably even greater,
because one cannot really count the word 'population' as non-racial
given that Entine, early on, defines it like this: "science promises
a glimpse of how the world's different populations-popularly called
races-have evolved."[2]
So by the time the reader gets to page 25, a strong impression has
already been formed: the book is about what are "popularly called
races," that is, about the supposed racial categories 'black,'
'white,' and 'yellow' that people in American society are
indeed popularly taught to see the world through. And Entine makes it
crystal clear that, in his view, these supposed racial categories are
just fine for talking about supposedly biologically-based sports
performance differences.
It is true that for just a few pages, after page 25, phrases such as
"people from western African coastal states" do appear. This is
because Entine, in this section, is discussing the sports data. And
yet, as we saw earlier, even this way of talking tortures the data,
which are about truly local population differences. Quickly done with
that discussion, Entine returns to copious employment of the words
'black' and 'race' as he launches into a long defense of the
race concept. This is the real meat of the book, because what Entine
wants is for you to think that the belief in human races is
scientifically mainstream. And he wants you to view every human
situation in terms of race.
To this end, no argument, however illogical, is spared.
Consider, for example, how Entine discusses the conflict in Northern
Ireland. One view that Entine could have put forward is that the
conflict in Northern Ireland is racist. My own research shows that
culturally different populations living side by side can easily come to
view each other as alien 'races.'[3] This appears to be even more
likely when there is a real political conflict to match the cultural
boundaries. The British originally settled Scots in Northern Ireland as
a way to solidify their hold on the island.[4] As part of their
colonial strategy, the British encouraged divisions between the
original Irish inhabitants and the Scots who were resettled there (now
called Scotch-Irish) in order to prevent these two populations from
uniting on a class basis. This is the classic divide-and-rule strategy
that the British used in many other places, and a good argument can be
made that it played an important role in perpetuating the conflict in
Northern Ireland, with the British playing on a widespread tendency
that cultural populations have to imagine their differences as
biological ones.
But this is not the kind of argument that Entine defends. His argument
is that these communities in Northern Ireland are-in
fact-objectively different races in the biological sense, and that
this is why they are in conflict. One obvious problem with this view is
that if one claims that 'whites' and 'blacks' are races, as
Entine does, then how can one claim that the Irish and Scotch-Irish are
also human races, unless the Scots and the Irish are not both
'white'?
If Entine's goal were logical coherence we'd have to call him a
prodigious failure. But that is not his goal. Here's Entine:
"Consider the seemingly endless tension in northern Ireland, which is
often described as a religious conflict between Catholics and
Protestants. It would be better thought of as a racial struggle between
the native Irish and the transplanted Ulster Protestant Scots, brought
in by the English to solidify their hold on the Emerald Isle. Indeed,
some English people have long thought of the Irish as a 'savage
sub-race,' distinct from the civilized English masters. In fact, the
English and Irish have quite different cultural and genetic
histories."[5] [my emphasis]
Why would this conflict "be better thought of as a racial
struggle," when the history of Northern Ireland virtually shouts that
the causes of that conflict have to do with class, politics, and
culture? Entine, in fact, makes this clear himself because he explains
that "the transplanted Ulster Protestant Scots [were] brought in by
the English to solidify their hold on the Emerald Isle." So why does
he simultaneously deny the very point his observation makes? Because
Entine does not want us to view conflicts in terms of class, politics,
or culture; he wants us to view them in terms of race.
Entine's argument about Ireland lacks even a shred of rationality but
at this point we cannot really be shocked. His arguments about African
athletes were entirely irrational as well. So were his arguments,
derived from Vincent Sarich, about races with fuzzy edges. The point
is, Entine is not relying on rationality. He is appealing to the
powerful tendency of his readers to see the world in racial terms.
Why is the illusion that races exist so appealing?
__________________________________________
In the recent movie The Matrix, Keanu Reeves' character Neo and
everybody else are convinced that they live in 'the real world'
because that is what their perception is screaming at them and, after
all, nothing else is available for comparison. In fact, however, they
are all sleeping in liquid pods and their brains are wired to a
computer which is feeding them a simulation of a world. "A prison for
the mind," explains Morpheus, played by Lawrence Fishburne.
The Matrix is a handy metaphor for how certain processes of perception
and social categorization help trap us into particular ideologies: your
mind lives in a prison with pictures of human races on the walls. Your
brain, in other words, is built in such a way that it 'sees' human
races that aren't there. Entine wants his readers to believe that
science has proved that human races are a reality, but we have already
seen that the latest genetic science demonstrates precisely the
opposite. And the latest psychological science is beginning to explain
how and why our brains produce the illusion that human races exist.
For example, Lawrence Hirschfeld's data suggest that very young
children are predisposed to treat human phenotypic differences as a
guide to presumed biological categories, and that this bias may be
innate.[5a] My own research suggests that phenotypic differences are
not at all necessary, and that people eagerly racialize ethnic
distinctions even when the people on either side of the boundary have
very similar or even identical bodies and faces, and even though ethnic
categories are rather easily shown not to be coherent biological
populations.[5b]
Perhaps the most interesting question is this: Why are we predisposed
to 'see' humanity divided into natural biological kinds, supposedly
discernable from surface morphological and cultural variation, when
such intuitions are contradicted by the facts? Whenever a brain is
designed to see things that aren't there, it calls for an especially
good explanation. I think the failure of social and cognitive science
so far to provide a good answer to this question has been responsible
for the fact that ordinary people remain convinced that there are
biological human races. As cognitive anthropologist Roy D'Andrade
observes, "Despite years of proselytizing, anthropology has been
unable to convince the American public that races are not natural
kinds."[5c]
In other words, no matter what anthropologists say, ordinary people
know what they can obviously see-or so they think-so the claim that
there are no races appears to them as a politically correct state of
'denial.'
This is precisely what Jon Entine is counting on.
My own research has been an attempt to remedy the problem, the better
to protect ordinary people from the likes of Jon Entine, by
investigating how the cognitive illusion that there are natural human
races works. In addition, I have tried to put together an argument for
why those cognitive processes are there in the first place. There is no
space here for the latter issue, but let me briefly explain what I
believe are the cognitive process involved.
My investigations and those of others have given me an important
insight into why people are so tenaciously resistant to the finding
that our species has no races: humans easily essentialize ethnic and
purportedly 'racial' categories.[5b] An 'essence' is something
like a substance that is vaguely imagined to reside inside each member
of a given ethnic or 'racial' category, making them all of the same
supposed nature (sometimes this is glossed as 'blood'). When a
social category is essentialized, people will easily make inductive
generalizations-in other words, if something is found to be true of
one member of category X, there is an automatic bias to conclude it is
true of all Xs. Therefore, when thinking about an essentialized
category, we don't wait to build a sample of observations, but tend to
generalize from one individual to the whole. Notice that I am not
saying this happens with any social category-I am saying it happens
with such categories as ethnies and 'races.'
What are the consequences of this? Well, here's a pessimistic
prediction: most readers of this book, even if they find my arguments
persuasive while reading them, will tomorrow walk again in their
everyday world and, if they are Americans, will not fail to notice that
so-called 'blacks' are increasingly predominant in some American
sports. Their brains will then tell them: "Whatever! It's obvious:
blacks dominate sports; there must be a biological advantage."
But this inductive generalization is a logical error. Why? Because even
if it were to turn out that American blacks dominate some American
sports due to a biological advantage (something that I have not
conceded), American blacks are not 'blacks'-they are just a tiny
portion of those referred to by that label, whose ancestors originate
in just a few places on the western coast of Africa. So here one would
be making an argument about 'blacks' when the evidence is only from
a subset of them, and a subset which-to boot-is easily shown not to
be representative of all blacks. Moreover, among so-called
'blacks,' African Americans in fact have one of the highest rates
of admixture with so-called 'whites,' so this population is the
worst place to start if one's goal is to make claims about
purportedly racial biology!
And yet the erroneous inductive generalization will be made easily, and
by most of my readers, as it is almost irresistible.
Like The Matrix itself, human 'races' do not exist in the world,
but-almost irresistibly-in your mind. However, the tendency to
divide the human species into races is not utterly irresistible. Unlike
those trapped in The Matrix we have methods of observation that go
beyond what our eyes intuitively see, and we can thus measure
systematically in order to determine whether the intuitive allegations
of our brain in fact correspond to natural divisions of our species.
Such measurements reveal that 'race,' as used by evolutionary and
population biologists, is not a concept applicable to humanity, as I
have labored to explain.
Biologist Jared Diamond observes that we no longer believe many of the
things that our brains naively insist are true, such as
"that the Earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the Earth,
and that we humans are not animals... The reality of human races is
another commonsense 'truth' destined to follow the flat Earth into
oblivion."[5d]
Not, however, if Jon Entine has his way. As we have seen, he is a
propagandist for race-centered thinking.
But does that mean Entine is a propagandist for racism? There is a way
to test this. As we saw in the introduction, it is common for racists
such as Henry Edward Garrett to damn black people with faint praise
when they find themselves in a situation in which an open attack is not
acceptable. In such cases they will say that black people are better at
sports, or naturally graceful, or more talented at music, etc., and
with this they sugar coat their real message, which Garrett made clear
when he did not feel constrained:
"[The Negro] has less of what I call 'abstract intelligence' than
the white man. He functions at a lower level... he is not so able to
think in terms of symbols-words, numbers, formulas, diagrams."[6]
So here is the relevant question: Is Jon Entine's seeming praise of
supposed black superiority in sports sincere? Or does he, like Henry
Edward Garrett, push the second part of the argument? Does he allege,
directly or indirectly, that black people are intellectually inferior?
The answers, as we shall see, are that no, Entine is not sincere, and
yes, he is pushing the argument that black people are intellectually
inferior.
»» Continue to Chapter 6:
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap6.htm
________________________________________________________
Footnotes
________________________________________________________
[1] "Breaking the Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports And Why
We're No Longer So Afraid to Talk About It"; by Jon Entine; Special
SKEPTIC Issue on Race & Sports; Summer 2000; vol 8 no.1
http://www.jonentine.com/skeptic/entine.htm
[1a] "Tay-Sachs Disease"; Dr. Joseph F. Smith Medical Library; February
12, 2005.
http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00067340.html
[2] Entine, Jon. 2000. Taboo: Why black athletes dominate sports and
why we're afraid to talk about it. New York: Public Affairs. (p.8)
[3] Gil-White, F. J. 2001. Are ethnic groups biological 'species' to
the human brain?: Essentialism in our cognition of some social
categories. Current anthropology 42:515-554.
http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/Species.pdf
[4] McGary, John, and Brendan O'Leary. 1995. Explaining Northern
Ireland: Broken images. Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
[5] Taboo (pp.112-113)
[5a] Hirschfeld, L. (1996). Race in the making: Cognition, culture, and
the child's construction of human kinds. Cambridge MA, The MIT Press.
[5b] Gil-White, Francisco J. 2001. Are ethnic groups biological
'species' to the human brain?: Essentialism in our cognition of some
social categories. Current Anthropology 42 (4):515-554.
http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/Species.pdf
Gil-White, Francisco J. 2002. The cognition of ethnicity: Native
category systems under the field-experimental microscope. Field Methods
14 (2):170-198.
http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/Methods.pdf
[5c] D'Andrade, Roy G. 1995. The development of cognitive anthropology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (p.78)
[5d] "Race without color," by Jared Diamond, Discover (November
1994:82-89);
http://www.virginia.edu/~woodson/courses/aas102/articles/diamond.html
[6] U.S. News & World Report, Nov 18, 1963, pp 92-93.
666
>> In today's fairly equal opportunity environment,
>
>Today's environment is not in the least equal. The conditions faced by
>white and black Americans today are as different as well, umm.. black
>and white.
>
Do you have a cite? This is absurd. While nothing is equal when it
comes to discovering gifted athletes you can't possibly be suggesting
that it's easier to discover black athletes than white. If anything,
due to a greater proportion of blacks living in poverty it would
probably be more difficult to get highly qualified coaches and gym
teachers etc. If the conditions faced by blacks and whites is so much
different then you must agree that it should be even more difficult
for a black kid to be "discovered" than a white. Pushing the
probability even higher.
>> 50:1.
>
>This does not tell me the cause of this situation.
>
>> I am enjoying our conversation and have truly learned a few things.
>
>Yes, this is indeed an interesting conversation, there are a few things
>I learned in investigating this question;
>
> - Black slaves where not bred for body-type in America, nor where they
>"picked" for Body-type in Africa.
>
Nonsense. You can cite all of your poor examples all you want but
there is no way if you are choosing slaves that you are going to pick
a weak thin half starved individual over a strong athletic type and
even if you did the weak ones wouldn't survive the trip. Read your
own white slavery example where it said half of the white slaved
didn't even finish the trip. The simple logical conclusion is that
once that ship arrives it will ONLY contain strong healthy slaves
whether they are white or black.
Your problem is that you find one weak source on the web and you think
it's a fact. Think man.
> - Most slaves in America where not black and the conditions faced by
>blacks where also faced by an even greater number of non-blacks. Life
>was pretty rough for a lot of Americans.
>
Wrong again. Your example implies this BEFORE the huge LATER import
of black slaves. Show me census figures for the number of white
slaves by 1860's and you might have something but the number of black
slaves was about 4M and the black population by 1900 was about 9M a
great majority of then descendants of slaves . Look it up. Doubling
over 40 years. Think about it. Your poor cites are ridiculous.
Show me a number of white slaves for the late 1800's before you even
start suggesting there were more non black American slaves. Absurd.
> - Decendents of Black slaves are a very diverse group who do not share
>a clear grouping of genetic characteristics.
>
Who said anything about a clear grouping of genetic characteristics.
We are dealing with a very small subset of the population. The
extreme elite atheletes. If someday they find the genes responsible
for athletic ability great, but so far they hasn't been found. On the
other hand it doesn't mean they don't exist either. The jury is still
out on this one.
>Given the above, the Jimmy the Greek theory doesn't have a leg to hop
>on.
>
Well since the above is absurd I guess we're back to where we started.
>> Anyway, we aren't really getting anywhere
>
>I agree. Perhaps if we try to explain it a different way it may help.
>
>We both agree that the success of black athletes is not a result of a
>biological racial predisposition, but rather the result of cultural and
>socioeconomic conditions.
>
Well to be totally honest I certainly wouldn't be surprised to find
that at least some of the conditions may have occurred before the
whole slavery era but the slavery era certainly weeded out the weaker
idividuals at a much quicker rate than would naturally occur.
>Where we disagree is specifically what and when the condition had its
>effect.
>
>You think that it was the condition of slavery in the ancestry of the
>modern athlete and that cirtain qualities where inhereted from these
>ancestral conditions. I think it the actual, current conditions of the
>modern athletes and the qualities are the result of the current
>condition.
But if you think my argument is weak then yours is non existent.
>
>So, looking at it this way, if you propose it is possible for ancestral
>conditions to have an impact on the athletic performance of modern
>athletes, you must also permit that *current* conditions, certainly,
>could have an impact on the athletic performance of modern athletes?
>
Yikes, that's some pretty poor logic there. I assume you have a
background in the liberal arts. It explains your reasoning. To
overcome the extreme odds of 1/7 th of the population dominating in
all the areas you do you would need EXTREME socioeconomic conditions
to exist now. Think about it. Slavery is about as extreme as it
gets. What possible conditions now could overcome such improbable
odds.
For example you would need conditions like:
only black are motivated by athletic heros
white don't participate in high school athletics
whites are focused on other things
Nothing even remotely comes close to something this extreme.
>Thus, we have no reason to accept the Jimmy the Greek theory as
>ancestral conditions are not the only set of conditions we can
>attribute the observed success to. However, the ancestral conditions
>assume by the Jimmy the Greek theory have been shown to not have
>actually existed, thus, even if such ancestral condition //could// have
>led to athletic superiority, they are not the reality of the actual
>genetic history of the athletes in question, as explained.
>
The very simple condition of surviving the trip to America is enough
of a condition. If you truly believe that NO slaves were bred for
success base on your weak cites, that's fine, even it's not needed.
Simply having the stronger survivors breed with each other is enough.
>Now take a moment to question why you believe that the success of the
>modern black is beter explained as being rooted in slave ancestry and
>not in the current conditions faced by black Americans? Are the
>conditions of past centuries, of which you actually don't seem to be
>presenting much in the way of details to support your claim, really
>more important than the conditions black Americans currently live in?
>
Simple. Only the strong survived giving them a richer gene pool to
start from.
>> here so I decided to google
>> the topic and the first article I found (and there are tons of em) is
>> here
>> http://archive.salon.com/news/sports/olympics/2000/09/23/race/index.html
>
>> It's not perfect, it mentions some scientists but in general it tries
>> to say even more than I'm saying. I imagine you'll dismiss the
>> entire concept again but if you're open minded hopefully you'll learn
>> something. You might even figure out that you're being racist.
>
>Sure I remain open minded, but as it happens the work of Jon Entine,
>the author of the article you are citing, has already been specifically
>refuted by Gil-White in the work I have already cited linked.
>
Have you looked Gil-White up. Gil is a psychologist not a biologist.
Your cite is very weak.
>Ironic that you mention racism while quoting Entine, his work is a part
>of what Gil-White wrote about in "Resurrecting Racism: The modern
>attack on black people using phony science."
>
>Here is some what Fransico Gil-White has to say about Jon Entine:
>
>Chapter 5
>
>The new 'race scientists' want us to view everything in terms
>of...race.
>________________________________________________________
>http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrchap5.htm
>
>We have seen:
>
>1) that we cannot create rigorous human categories based on
>morphological variation (i.e., differences in surface traits), because
>the various visible traits do not covary in such a way as to make this
>possible;
>
Ancestors of black slaves are generally black.
>2) that even if we rely on a single morphological trait (e.g., skin
>color) we will not find crisp boundaries anywhere because the changes
>in human traits are very smooth;
>
see 1)
>3) that in the human species any set of surface traits that we
>choose will be misleading rather than informative about overall genetic
>variation;
>
No ones talking about that. Even Entine is picking specific groups
>4) that in any case it is pointless to try to rely on surface
>traits, because we can now directly study the human gene pool; and
>
Of course. Surface traits are too generic.
>5) that when we study the human gene pool, we find that the human
>species is spectacularly uniform and in consequence we cannot find any
>cut yielding differences large enough to justify dividing our species
>into 'races' or 'subspecies' as biologists use these terms.
>
We still know very little about the human genome. And if you think
Gill-White have attempted a complete genetic analysis of all the
possible cuts then you have some issues.
>Given all this, for Entine to write a book explaining the role of
>genetic differences in physical ability between 'the races' is no
>better than if he wrote a book explaining the motor efficiency of
>dragon flight. The details of nonexistent things cannot be studied or
>compared, and human races do not exist. Using the data he has
>presented, Entine could in principle write a book about the possible
>biological underpinning of the better performance of certain small
>population groups in Africa (e.g. the Kalenjin) in a few specific
>sports, but no more.
>
Holy crap. Do you read the stuff that you cite. Even Entine isn't
talking about ALL blacks he is talking about specific subsets that by
the very definition of evolution MUST have a slightly different
genetic composition.
>Why then is Entine apparently so obsessed with using the term
>'race' as laypeople use it, and pretending it has biological
>reality? Could it be that he has a broader purpose, namely, that he is
>a propagandist for racism? Not according to Entine, who affects the
>pose of an innocent seeker of truth.
>
No it's just name calling.
Do you realize that these people are arguing that no human could have
evolved differently than others. Absurd.
More name calling but perhaps justified but either way it's semantics
its certainly got nothing to do with any facts.
>
>Similarly, up until page 25, there were 13 instances where Entine uses
>words such as 'race' and 'racial' that suggest his topic is
>racial differences, as against only 4 occasions where he uses
>'population,' 'ethnic,' or 'regional' that would suggest
>Entine is not trying to impose a racial viewpoint. That means Entine
>uses racial terminology three times as often as he uses terms that
>actually match his data. And this ratio is arguably even greater,
>because one cannot really count the word 'population' as non-racial
>given that Entine, early on, defines it like this: "science promises
>a glimpse of how the world's different populations-popularly called
>races-have evolved."[2]
>
the same
>So by the time the reader gets to page 25, a strong impression has
>already been formed: the book is about what are "popularly called
>races," that is, about the supposed racial categories 'black,'
>'white,' and 'yellow' that people in American society are
>indeed popularly taught to see the world through. And Entine makes it
>crystal clear that, in his view, these supposed racial categories are
>just fine for talking about supposedly biologically-based sports
>performance differences.
>
same
>It is true that for just a few pages, after page 25, phrases such as
>"people from western African coastal states" do appear. This is
>because Entine, in this section, is discussing the sports data. And
>yet, as we saw earlier, even this way of talking tortures the data,
>which are about truly local population differences. Quickly done with
>that discussion, Entine returns to copious employment of the words
>'black' and 'race' as he launches into a long defense of the
>race concept. This is the real meat of the book, because what Entine
>wants is for you to think that the belief in human races is
>scientifically mainstream. And he wants you to view every human
>situation in terms of race.
>
same, this is all ad hominem. Brutal for supposed scientists.
I skimmed the rest. This is a brutal cite.
I don't have the time to look into the "scientists" that Entine
references perhaps you'd like to but you have certainly shown that you
can find some physiologist to support any argument.
So lets stop citing useless sources and get to the point.
How bout defining reasonable socioeconomic conditions that exist today
that could justify the EXTREME improbability of the topic at hand.
The only conditions extreme enough would be something like slavery and
genetic. Go ahead take a crack it. What are the socioeconomic
conditions that exist today that somehow result in only MOSTLY black
athletes being discovered and non blacks being overlooked.
Quirk
> On 3 Sep 2006 12:46:27 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> >> In today's fairly equal opportunity environment,
> >
> >Today's environment is not in the least equal. The conditions faced by
> >white and black Americans today are as different as well, umm.. black
> >and white.
> Do you have a cite?
TRENDS IN THE WELL-BEING OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN & YOUTH, 1997 Edition.
by Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/97trends/Pf3-2.htm
- Percentage of Children living in neighbourhoods with 20% Poverty:
White: 12.2% Black: 56.4%
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/97trends/hc1-2b.htm
- Deaths of 15-19 year olds by homicide per 100,000:
White Males: 15.4 White Females: 3.4 Black Males: 135.8 (!!!) Black
Females: 15.1
Incarcerated America: Human Rights Watch Backgrounder, April 2003
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/
- Nearly five percent of all black men, compared to 0.6 percent of
white men, are incarcerated.
- Although the proportion of all drug users who are black is
generally in the range of 13 to 15 percent, blacks constitute
36 percent of arrests for drug possession.
> If the conditions faced by blacks and whites is so much
> different then you must agree that it should be even more difficult
> for a black kid to be "discovered" than a white. Pushing the
> probability even higher.
The point is that atheletics are one of the few areas of achievement
that are open to the lower classes, of which, blacks make up a
disproportionate number.
It continues to be interesting that you promote the fact that ancestral
conditions can be a factor in athletic aptitude but will present all
sorts of illogic in claiming that contemporary conditions are not a
factor.
> > - Black slaves where not bred for body-type in America, nor where they
> >"picked" for Body-type in Africa.
> Nonsense. You can cite all of your poor examples all you want but
> there is no way if you are choosing slaves that you are going to pick
> a weak thin half starved individual over a strong athletic type and
> even if you did the weak ones wouldn't survive the trip.
> Read your
> own white slavery example where it said half of the white slaved
> didn't even finish the trip. The simple logical conclusion is that
> once that ship arrives it will ONLY contain strong healthy slaves
> whether they are white or black.
You can call it nonsence and poor examples all you want, the fact
remains that I am citing anthrolopoligists, biologists and other
scholars in the field, you continue to think that the modern NBA player
is a direct decendent of a west african slave, shipped over on a boat
and picked and bred for body-type: a scenario which is pure fiction,
and for which you have presented zero substantiation, and which has
been completely refuted in the material cited, which, unable to
actually argue with you dismiss unconvincingly out-of-hand.
the poinr remains that Black slaves where not bred for body-type in
America, nor where they "picked" for Body-type in Africa and further,
most did not came over on a boat, but where born in America.
> Your problem is that you find one weak source on the web and you think
> it's a fact. Think man.
Your problem is that you are unable or unwilling to understand a well
substantiated argument, and present no substantiation of your own.
> > - Most slaves in America where not black and the conditions faced by
> >blacks where also faced by an even greater number of non-blacks. Life
> >was pretty rough for a lot of Americans.
> Wrong again. Your example implies this BEFORE the huge LATER import
> of black slaves.
This is just a nother part of your fictional world.
There was no huge later import of slaves, the height of the African
Slave Trade was the 16th and 17th century. Exactly the same period
during which half of all the people arriving in North America where
white slaves.
On March 2, 1807, the African Slave Trade was banned by Thomas
Jefferson.
Form then on, the American slave population was almost enitrely
American born.
> Show me census figures for the number of white
> slaves by 1860's and you might have something but the number of black
> slaves was about 4M and the black population by 1900 was about 9M a
> great majority of then descendants of slaves . Look it up. Doubling
> over 40 years. Think about it. Your poor cites are ridiculous.
> Show me a number of white slaves for the late 1800's before you even
> start suggesting there were more non black American slaves. Absurd.
The only thing that is absurd is that you somehow feel the above
allusions and posturing make an agrument.
Feel free to present what ever data supports your argument, if you can.
Once again, you fail to include the number of non-blacks where where
decendents of slaves.
Further, the data is consistent with the idea that Slaves where "bred"
for population, not body-type, as has already been established.
> > - Decendents of Black slaves are a very diverse group who do not share
> >a clear grouping of genetic characteristics.
> Who said anything about a clear grouping of genetic characteristics.
You did. You claim that they have a generic presdiposition to excell at
basketball, that is a pretty clear grouping.
> We are dealing with a very small subset of the population. The
> extreme elite atheletes. If someday they find the genes responsible
> for athletic ability great, but so far they hasn't been found. On the
> other hand it doesn't mean they don't exist either. The jury is still
> out on this one.
The only "jury" that is still out, it the one that has not bothered to
examine the issue and unquestioningly accepts racist propoganda.
> >Given the above, the Jimmy the Greek theory doesn't have a leg to hop
> Well since the above is absurd I guess we're back to where we started.
You simply refuse to accept the plainly stated truth of objective
reality.
> >So, looking at it this way, if you propose it is possible for ancestral
> >conditions to have an impact on the athletic performance of modern
> >athletes, you must also permit that *current* conditions, certainly,
> >could have an impact on the athletic performance of modern athletes?
> Yikes, that's some pretty poor logic there. I assume you have a
> background in the liberal arts. It explains your reasoning. To
> overcome the extreme odds of 1/7 th of the population dominating in
> all the areas you do you would need EXTREME socioeconomic conditions
> to exist now. Think about it. Slavery is about as extreme as it
> gets. What possible conditions now could overcome such improbable
> odds.
*sigh* yet more allusions and inane posturing. The conditions faced by
black slaves where not any more extreme when compared to many of their
contemporaries, as has been explained to you.
The conditions fased by modern black americans, however, is extreme
compared to white americans.
> For example you would need conditions like:
>
> only black are motivated by athletic heros
> white don't participate in high school athletics
> whites are focused on other things
>
> Nothing even remotely comes close to something this extreme.
You need no such thing. You simply need a situation where the blacks
have more to lose by not excelling at athletics and fewer oportunities
to excel in other areas.
> The very simple condition of surviving the trip to America is enough
> of a condition.
Many who survived the trip to north america where not black.
> Have you looked Gil-White up. Gil is a psychologist not a biologist.
> Your cite is very weak.
Francisco Gil-White is an Anthropologist who was Assistant Professor of
Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and lecturer at the
Solomon Asch Centre for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict. He holds a
Masters Degree in Social Sciences from the University of Chicago and a
PhD in Biological and Cultural Anthropology from UCLA.
> >1) that we cannot create rigorous human categories based on
> >morphological variation (i.e., differences in surface traits), because
> >the various visible traits do not covary in such a way as to make this
> >possible;
> Ancestors of black slaves are generally black.
It has been explained to you that "black" Americans are among the most
ethnically diverse group of people in the planet and have significant
non-black (and non-slave) ancestry
> >Given all this, for Entine to write a book explaining the role of
> >genetic differences in physical ability between 'the races' is no
> >better than if he wrote a book explaining the motor efficiency of
> >dragon flight. The details of nonexistent things cannot be studied or
> >compared, and human races do not exist. Using the data he has
> >presented, Entine could in principle write a book about the possible
> >biological underpinning of the better performance of certain small
> >population groups in Africa (e.g. the Kalenjin) in a few specific
> >sports, but no more.
> Holy crap. Do you read the stuff that you cite. Even Entine isn't
> talking about ALL blacks he is talking about specific subsets that by
> the very definition of evolution MUST have a slightly different
> genetic composition.
If you read, and //understood// what Gil-White was saying you would
understand that is exactly Entine conflating specific characteristics
with the "popular idea of race" that causes Gil-White to conclude that
Entine is a propagandist for racism.
> >So Entine presents a falsehood-the intimation that Tay Sachs is
> >supposed to be widely recognized as an adaptation of the Ashkenazi
> >Jewish population-in order to suggest that anybody who does not agree
> >that 'West Africans' are biologically superior in sprinting and jumping
> >must be a hypocrite.
> Do you realize that these people are arguing that no human could have
> evolved differently than others. Absurd.
I fail to see what your claim has to do with the passage quoted, the
claim has nothing to do with individual humans, but rather the fact
that variation among humans can not be grouped, but is instead quite
smooth.
> >Up until page 25 of Taboo I counted a total of 79 cases where
> >'black' was used in a context suggesting either that this is the
> >category of people with a supposed advantage in sports, or that this is
> >the category Entine's book is about. Up to the same page there is not
> >one-I repeat, not one-case where Entine uses phrases such as
> >"descendants of Western African coastal states" and the like (and I
> >would have counted any, whatever the context). Instead we have a
> >proliferation of phrases such as "black athletic success,"
> >"blacks are better athletes," etc.
>
> More name calling but perhaps justified but either way it's semantics
> its certainly got nothing to do with any facts.
It has to do with the fact that Entine is a propagandist for racism, a
fact that Gil-White demonstrates quite convincingly.
> >It is true that for just a few pages, after page 25, phrases such as
> >"people from western African coastal states" do appear. This is
> >because Entine, in this section, is discussing the sports data. And
> >yet, as we saw earlier, even this way of talking tortures the data,
> >which are about truly local population differences. Quickly done with
> >that discussion, Entine returns to copious employment of the words
> >'black' and 'race' as he launches into a long defense of the
> >race concept. This is the real meat of the book, because what Entine
> >wants is for you to think that the belief in human races is
> >scientifically mainstream. And he wants you to view every human
> >situation in terms of race.
> same, this is all ad hominem. Brutal for supposed scientists.
There nothing ad hominem in the paragraph quoted. However, you have
employed ad hominem frequently in your arguments.
> I skimmed the rest. This is a brutal cite.
Using the word "brutal" does not make a point, only shows you are not
able to make one, and so resort to posturing. I am getting the feeling
you are unable or unwilling to examine this issue with anything
aproaching honesty or sincerity.
> How bout defining reasonable socioeconomic conditions that exist today
> that could justify the EXTREME improbability of the topic at hand.
I have included some at the begining of this post, we can start there
if you like. There is plenty more, of course.
> The only conditions extreme enough would be something like slavery and
> genetic.
You have not describe the conditions you are refereing to at all except
to say "something like slavery" despite my specific questions about
this. So I expect you will at least provide some information here, so
as not to make you request of me to describe contemoprary conditions
seem contrived. Looking forward to your details.
> Go ahead take a crack it. What are the socioeconomic
> conditions that exist today that somehow result in only MOSTLY black
> athletes being discovered and non blacks being overlooked.
The fact that athletics, in particular basketball and track and field,
is very popular within the black community and also made available by
way of public education and recreation institutions, combined with the
fact that success in this area is one of the few avenues of achievement
available to black youth, and thus the consequences of failure are very
high.
Tell me 666, what do you make of the idea, supported by the "science"
of Jon Entine, that Black Americans are inately less intellegent than
white Americans? Possible? Likeley? After all you are pushing the
notion that there chacacteristics are created by slave selection and
breeding, certainly intellegence was not among the selection and
breeding criteria used by slavers, do you believe this has resulted in
decendents of slaves being naturaly more stupid?
Cheers.
666
>666 wrote:
>> On 3 Sep 2006 12:46:27 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
>
>> >> In today's fairly equal opportunity environment,
>> >
>> >Today's environment is not in the least equal. The conditions faced by
>> >white and black Americans today are as different as well, umm.. black
>> >and white.
>
>> Do you have a cite?
>
>The point is that atheletics are one of the few areas of achievement
>that are open to the lower classes, of which, blacks make up a
>disproportionate number.
>
You're kidding right? You're implying that because non blacks aren't
poor they don't excel at sports. That's ridiculous. If anything, non
blacks would have even more opportunity for better coaches and
training facilities which is what appears to happen in sports like
tennis, golf and hockey. Don't misrepresent this, what I'm saying is
if blacks weren't poorer they would also dominate the expensive
sports. What you are missing is that whites certainly have an
advantage in the poor sports yet they don't excel in them when faced
with the real competition of superior athletes. It's not like the non
blacks only try out for the tennis and golf teams. They try out in
overwhelmingly greater numbers for the poor sports yet they still
don't make the team. You must see how obvious this is.
>It continues to be interesting that you promote the fact that ancestral
>conditions can be a factor in athletic aptitude but will present all
>sorts of illogic in claiming that contemporary conditions are not a
>factor.
Oh, they are definitely a factor. They make it even less probable
that blacks would excel. Poorer facilities, less trained coaches,
huge social issues etc etc yet in spite of these enormous obstacles
they still excel.
>
>> > - Black slaves where not bred for body-type in America, nor where they
>> >"picked" for Body-type in Africa.
>
>> Nonsense. You can cite all of your poor examples all you want but
>> there is no way if you are choosing slaves that you are going to pick
>> a weak thin half starved individual over a strong athletic type and
>> even if you did the weak ones wouldn't survive the trip.
>> Read your
>> own white slavery example where it said half of the white slaved
>> didn't even finish the trip. The simple logical conclusion is that
>> once that ship arrives it will ONLY contain strong healthy slaves
>> whether they are white or black.
>
>You can call it nonsence and poor examples all you want, the fact
>remains that I am citing anthrolopoligists, biologists and other
>scholars in the field, you continue to think that the modern NBA player
>is a direct decendent of a west african slave, shipped over on a boat
>and picked and bred for body-type: a scenario which is pure fiction,
>and for which you have presented zero substantiation, and which has
>been completely refuted in the material cited, which, unable to
>actually argue with you dismiss unconvincingly out-of-hand.
>
>the poinr remains that Black slaves where not bred for body-type in
>America, nor where they "picked" for Body-type in Africa and further,
>most did not came over on a boat, but where born in America.
>
Oh man, that is EXACTLY my point. They were born in America from
descendants with superior genetics. Of course not ALL slaves came on
the boat. But their superior parents and grandparent etc were the
survivors hence they got survivor genes. Just like the current
superior athletes from a similar background. I've already stated
that the population of America blacks doubled from 1860-1900. Well
after slavery was abolished. Don't you even understand what I'm
saying after all this time. Geez man. Start thinking for yourself.
>> Your problem is that you find one weak source on the web and you think
>> it's a fact. Think man.
>
>Your problem is that you are unable or unwilling to understand a well
>substantiated argument, and present no substantiation of your own.
>
I am purposely not citing the well known "scientists" who support
these ideas because as you should know, this topic has not been
properly researched due to the appearance of "racist research". It
takes years and years of peer reviewed debate before something like
this gets resolved. Citing one or two example from one side is a
waste of your time. The human genome project is in it's infancy and
whether you want to believe it or not this topic has barely had the
surface scratched. Im curious what you think about recent finding
that homosexuality in males may correlate to the number of older
brothers a man has. Some of these topics are in their infancy.
Show me the numbers. I read your cite and could not find the number
of documented white American slaves at any point in time. In 1860 it
was about 4M for blacks and by 1900 9M blacks of mostly slave decent
were around. Show similar numbers for whites and we'll see. I've
looked and could not find it. Show me the numbers.
>> > - Decendents of Black slaves are a very diverse group who do not share
>> >a clear grouping of genetic characteristics.
>
>> Who said anything about a clear grouping of genetic characteristics.
>
>You did. You claim that they have a generic presdiposition to excell at
>basketball, that is a pretty clear grouping.
>
I'm not saying ALL of them. Just the best of the best. See right
below this.
>> We are dealing with a very small subset of the population. The
>> extreme elite atheletes. If someday they find the genes responsible
>> for athletic ability great, but so far they hasn't been found. On the
>> other hand it doesn't mean they don't exist either. The jury is still
>> out on this one.
>
>The only "jury" that is still out, it the one that has not bothered to
>examine the issue and unquestioningly accepts racist propoganda.
>
Are you saying that the human genome is fully understood and if there
where genes responsible for extreme athletic ability we would have
found them? You need to understand how little we still understand
about genetics.
>> >Given the above, the Jimmy the Greek theory doesn't have a leg to hop
>
>> Well since the above is absurd I guess we're back to where we started.
>
>You simply refuse to accept the plainly stated truth of objective
>reality.
You refuse the accept that we don't fully understand everything. The
jury is still out.
>
>
>The conditions fased by modern black americans, however, is extreme
>compared to white americans.
Yes which should make it even harder for them to excel at sports, not
easier.
>
>> For example you would need conditions like:
>>
>> only black are motivated by athletic heros
>> white don't participate in high school athletics
>> whites are focused on other things
>>
>> Nothing even remotely comes close to something this extreme.
>
>You need no such thing. You simply need a situation where the blacks
>have more to lose by not excelling at athletics and fewer oportunities
>to excel in other areas.
>
You're kidding again right. This can't be the basis of what you
really believe are the reasons for black domination of many sports.
With and 8:1 advantage whites have so many other opportunities that
they don't try as hard at sports? You're kidding right. That's one
of the most racist things I've heard in a while. Is this all you
have? Do you have cites that can even slightly argue this point?
Your previous numbers indicated that about 4 times more blacks live in
poverty than whites, then why do they dominate some sports at much
more that a 4:1 ratio. Seriously this is really silly. Even if you
were right the numbers still wouldn't work out. I'm shocked that this
is all you have.
>> The very simple condition of surviving the trip to America is enough
>> of a condition.
>
>Many who survived the trip to north america where not black.
>
How many and in particular what proportion to blacks. You know as
well as I do that you probably won't find the number because it's
relatively insignificant.
>> Have you looked Gil-White up. Gil is a psychologist not a biologist.
>> Your cite is very weak.
>
>Francisco Gil-White is an Anthropologist who was Assistant Professor of
>Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and lecturer at the
>Solomon Asch Centre for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict. He holds a
>Masters Degree in Social Sciences from the University of Chicago and a
>PhD in Biological and Cultural Anthropology from UCLA.
>
>> >1) that we cannot create rigorous human categories based on
>> >morphological variation (i.e., differences in surface traits), because
>> >the various visible traits do not covary in such a way as to make this
>> >possible;
>
>> Ancestors of black slaves are generally black.
>
>It has been explained to you that "black" Americans are among the most
>ethnically diverse group of people in the planet and have significant
>non-black (and non-slave) ancestry
>
We're not talking about ALL of them, we're talking about the ones from
slavery decent.
>
>Using the word "brutal" does not make a point, only shows you are not
>able to make one, and so resort to posturing. I am getting the feeling
>you are unable or unwilling to examine this issue with anything
>aproaching honesty or sincerity.
>
>> How bout defining reasonable socioeconomic conditions that exist today
>> that could justify the EXTREME improbability of the topic at hand.
>
>I have included some at the begining of this post, we can start there
>if you like. There is plenty more, of course.
>
Yes and everyone of them would make it even harder for blacks to
excel.
>> The only conditions extreme enough would be something like slavery and
>> genetic.
>
>You have not describe the conditions you are refereing to at all except
>to say "something like slavery" despite my specific questions about
>this. So I expect you will at least provide some information here, so
>as not to make you request of me to describe contemoprary conditions
>seem contrived. Looking forward to your details.
>
I don't understand your question. I'm saying that there is no
socioeconmic conditions exisiting today that would explain the numbers
and proportions. Perhaps some sort of genetic disease or massive
killings could cause as much difference as slavery has but just being
poor isn't an advantage, its a disadvantage.
>> Go ahead take a crack it. What are the socioeconomic
>> conditions that exist today that somehow result in only MOSTLY black
>> athletes being discovered and non blacks being overlooked.
>
>The fact that athletics, in particular basketball and track and field,
>is very popular within the black community
Have you ever been to a predominately non black school. They have all
the facilities and all the interest in track and field as any other
school. Oh yeah and there are 7 TIMES MORE OF THEM. That means there
are 7 times more non blacks trying out for track than blacks.
> and also made available by
>way of public education and recreation institutions, combined with the
>fact that success in this area is one of the few avenues of achievement
>available to black youth, and thus the consequences of failure are very
>high.
>
And of course you realize that being very poor makes things like crime
a much more probable avenue to explore. How bout citing the number of
black kids that even make if far enough in school to be discovered.
considering drop out rates, death rates, etc etc the number of
potential poor kids that even get a chance to be discovered would be
even lower making it even harder for blacks to excel. Don't you see
that the current environment is a disadvantage to blacks much more
than it's a motivator.
>Tell me 666, what do you make of the idea, supported by the "science"
>of Jon Entine, that Black Americans are inately less intellegent than
>white Americans? Possible?
If anything, some forms of intelligence would be an advantage to
anyone in a difficult environment certainly helping survival, so IF
intelligence is genetic then people with a slavery genetic line could
possibly be more intelligent or least have certain intelligence based
advantages. It would seem pretty obvious that extreme athletes must
have more than just bigger or faster muscles etc they would also
require the mental abilities to perform at an extreme level.
>Likeley? After all you are pushing the
>notion that there chacacteristics are created by slave selection and
>breeding, certainly intellegence was not among the selection and
>breeding criteria used by slavers, do you believe this has resulted in
>decendents of slaves being naturaly more stupid?
You need to get off of the breeding kick. As I have explained whether
or not breeding programs were in place it doesn't really matter as the
survivor slaves bred with each other propagating the survivor genes.
>
>Cheers.
Quirk
> You're kidding right?
Your continued affected incredulity in the place of reason makes
discussing this otherwise interesting topic with you tedious.
> You're implying that because non blacks aren't
> poor they don't excel at sports. That's ridiculous.
No, as stated; the lack of other opportunities makes the consequences
of failing at sports greater, thus the motivation to succeed is
stronger.
> Don't misrepresent this, what I'm saying is
> if blacks weren't poorer they would also dominate the expensive
> sports.
Whoops, here you are following in the footsteps of racism propogandist
Jon Entine slipping in the debunked idea of a "black" race just when
you think you can, instead of "certain decendents of American slaves of
west african stock" and suggesting they would dominate all sports,
instead of the few specific sports your original conjecture presents.
You have not in anyway established your base premis, thus your
willingness to so quickly extend it reveals that your motivation it to
prove a foregone conclusion based on your pre-existing bias.
Follwing your reasoning, perhaps blacks, as they obviously have
physical advantage (according to you) shouldn't be allowed to compete
against whites at all in atheletics?
After all, men do not compete against women, because of gender-related
physical characteristics, then, according to you, asking a white man to
compete against a black man is like asking him to race a horse or
wrestle a bear. Right?
The black athlete being, according to you, of fundementaly different
genetic stock should stick to competing against other blacks and whites
should compete against whites, wouldn't that be more fair? Or maybe
just go with the comparitive advantage and leave the runnin' and
jumpin' to the black man completely and let whites focus on what they
do best; bossin' and ownin'
> >the poinr remains that Black slaves where not bred for body-type in
> >America, nor where they "picked" for Body-type in Africa and further,
> >most did not came over on a boat, but where born in America.
> Oh man, that is EXACTLY my point. They were born in America from
> descendants with superior genetics. Of course not ALL slaves came on
> the boat. But their superior parents and grandparent etc were the
> survivors hence they got survivor genes.
You continue to ignore the fact that modern NBA athletes did not
descend from survivors of harsh boat trips any more or less than the
general population of Americans whose ancestory arrived in proir to the
18th century.
Why do decendents of Irish slaves not dominate Basketall? What
prevented them from having the "survivor gene" distilled by trecherous
ocean transport?
> >Further, the data is consistent with the idea that Slaves where "bred"
> >for population, not body-type, as has already been established.
> Show me the numbers. I read your cite and could not find the number
> of documented white American slaves at any point in time. In 1860 it
> was about 4M for blacks and by 1900 9M blacks of mostly slave decent
> were around. Show similar numbers for whites and we'll see. I've
> looked and could not find it. Show me the numbers.
You make yourself ridiculous when you ask the person you are debating
with to present numbers regarding your argument, you must provide the
numbers to prove your own argument. You have not done so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Here is quote from the above article:
"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad
ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in
which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been
proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been
proven true."
I suggest you read the whole article though, and perhaps this one as
well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_skepticism
They are both short, and you will find your argument style is quite
simular to that described in them. From the above, in particular these
points:
* Double standards in the application of criticism,
* The making of judgements without full inquiry,
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof,
* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing
it,
* Tendency to dismiss all evidence,
If you would like me to present quotations from your contributions
illustrating any of the above, just ask.
> >You did. You claim that they have a generic presdiposition to excell at
> >basketball, that is a pretty clear grouping.
> I'm not saying ALL of them. Just the best of the best. See right
> below this.
So what you are saying is that people who are good at basketball are
good at basketball? Your argument gets foggier with every iteration.
> >The only "jury" that is still out, it the one that has not bothered to
> >examine the issue and unquestioningly accepts racist propoganda.
> Are you saying that the human genome is fully understood and if there
> where genes responsible for extreme athletic ability we would have
> found them? You need to understand how little we still understand
> about genetics.
We do not need to fully understand the human genome to understand that
the historical facts to not match the assumptions of the Jimmy the
Greak theory. Yet again, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> You refuse the accept that we don't fully understand everything. The
> jury is still out.
I fully accept that we don't fully understand everything, it does not
follow though that this means we understand nothing and I accept the
opinion of anthropolgists who tell me that the Jimmy the Greek theory
is bunk. Feel free to prove them wrong if you can.
> >The conditions fased by modern black americans, however, is extreme
> >compared to white americans.
> Yes which should make it even harder for them to excel at sports, not
> easier.
It makes them more motivated to succeed in one of the few areas of
opportunity that they have. Motivation is critical factor in becoming
an elite athelete.
> >You need no such thing. You simply need a situation where the blacks
> >have more to lose by not excelling at athletics and fewer oportunities
> >to excel in other areas.
> You're kidding again right. This can't be the basis of what you
> really believe are the reasons for black domination of many sports.
> With and 8:1 advantage whites have so many other opportunities that
> they don't try as hard at sports?
> You're kidding right. That's one
> of the most racist things I've heard in a while. Is this all you
> have? Do you have cites that can even slightly argue this point?
> Your previous numbers indicated that about 4 times more blacks live in
> poverty than whites, then why do they dominate some sports at much
> more that a 4:1 ratio. Seriously this is really silly. Even if you
> were right the numbers still wouldn't work out. I'm shocked that this
> is all you have.
The above passage is pure stupidity. You do nothing but affect
incredulity and mumble a few numbers with no context, and then imply
racism with no basis. You are the one promoting racist ideas, as I have
proven conclusively long ago in the thread. The basis of the idea of
racism is that the idea that individual potential is a factor of race.
Particularly ridiculous is your attempt to generalize "4:1" -- picked
randomly out the statistics I cited as a magic number that should be
attritutible beyond it's context. Why not pick 135.8:15.4 or any of the
other ratios implied? You plainly either have no clue as to what
constitues a statisticly plausible corelation, or are trying extra hard
to be dishonest.
Why do think the ratio of black athetes in some sports should match
some other number randomly chosen from a list of statistics? Silly
indeed.
> >> The very simple condition of surviving the trip to America is enough
> >> of a condition.
> >Many who survived the trip to north america where not black.
> How many and in particular what proportion to blacks. You know as
> well as I do that you probably won't find the number because it's
> relatively insignificant.
Then what reason do I have for believeing you? I must accept your claim
because I have not to your satisfaction proved it according to your
criteria? Yup. More argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> >It has been explained to you that "black" Americans are among the most
> >ethnically diverse group of people in the planet and have significant
> >non-black (and non-slave) ancestry
> We're not talking about ALL of them, we're talking about the ones from
> slavery decent.
Ok, it has been explained to you that "black" Americans with slave
ancestry are among the most ethnically diverse group of people in the
planet and have significant
non-black (and non-slave) ancestry
It is the ones with slavery decent who in particular have the most
diverse ethnic background, including non-black and non-slave ancestry.
> >I have included some at the begining of this post, we can start there
> >if you like. There is plenty more, of course.
> Yes and everyone of them would make it even harder for blacks to
> excel.
As I have already repeated the fact of motivation numerous times, let
me ask you this: If harsh conditions in the present make it harder for
blacks to develop the characteristics required to excell at athletecis
in the present, how can you claim that harsh conditions allowed their
ancestory to aquire these same characteristics in the past?
> >You have not describe the conditions you are refereing to at all except
> >to say "something like slavery" despite my specific questions about
> >this. So I expect you will at least provide some information here, so
> >as not to make you request of me to describe contemoprary conditions
> >seem contrived. Looking forward to your details.
> I don't understand your question.
Clearly you do not. Otherwise would not have ridiculously demand
earlier that I "show you the numbers" to support your own argument.
> I'm saying that there is no
> socioeconmic conditions exisiting today that would explain the numbers
> and proportions. Perhaps some sort of genetic disease or massive
> killings could cause as much difference as slavery has but just being
> poor isn't an advantage, its a disadvantage.
You still have not explained what exact "difference" slavery has made,
never mind your latest conjecture: In what way have mass killings and
disease have helped black athelletes but not native american athelets,
white athletes, hispanic athletes, etc.
> >The fact that athletics, in particular basketball and track and field,
> >is very popular within the black community
> Have you ever been to a predominately non black school. They have all
> the facilities and all the interest in track and field as any other
> school. Oh yeah and there are 7 TIMES MORE OF THEM. That means there
> are 7 times more non blacks trying out for track than blacks.
It doesn`t mean they are equally motivated to succeed.
> And of course you realize that being very poor makes things like crime
> a much more probable avenue to explore. How bout citing the number of
> black kids that even make if far enough in school to be discovered.
> considering drop out rates, death rates, etc etc the number of
> potential poor kids that even get a chance to be discovered would be
> even lower making it even harder for blacks to excel. Don't you see
> that the current environment is a disadvantage to blacks much more
> than it's a motivator.
So, in what way do you not understand the motiviation to success when
the consequences of failing at sports are often winding up uneducated
and unqualified for meaningfull work, if not winding up dead or in
jail.
And further, you still have not explained why harsh circumstances in
the past can produce inhereted advantageous qualities from ancestors,
but harsh circumstances in the present are unable to produce
advantageous qualities in the present.
> >Tell me 666, what do you make of the idea, supported by the "science"
> >of Jon Entine, that Black Americans are inately less intellegent than
> >white Americans? Possible?
> If anything, some forms of intelligence would be an advantage to
> anyone in a difficult environment certainly helping survival, so IF
> intelligence is genetic then people with a slavery genetic line could
> possibly be more intelligent or least have certain intelligence based
> advantages. It would seem pretty obvious that extreme athletes must
> have more than just bigger or faster muscles etc they would also
> require the mental abilities to perform at an extreme level.
So, while dancing around the subject by saying Intellegence may be
higher, you agree then that a difference in inate intellegence is just
possible as an inate athletic ability!
So then, since you are seemingly unable to understand the nature of the
racist propaganda you are propogating, please explain why, given your
above claims the fact (and it is a fact) that decendents of black
slaves do poorer in IQ tests than whites. I know what Jon Entine thinks
about this, I wonder how simular your view is.
> >Likeley? After all you are pushing the
> >notion that there chacacteristics are created by slave selection and
> >breeding, certainly intellegence was not among the selection and
> >breeding criteria used by slavers, do you believe this has resulted in
> >decendents of slaves being naturaly more stupid?
> You need to get off of the breeding kick.
Whould you like me to quote the passage where you specifcally make the
claim that blacks where picked and bred for body-type before I refuted
this?
> As I have explained whether
> or not breeding programs were in place it doesn't really matter as the
> survivor slaves bred with each other propagating the survivor genes.
Who did the survivor white, native or hispanic slaves breed with? Also,
how does the common role of slave-owner as inseminator play into this?
Further, how does interbreeding with other non-slaves and non-blacks in
general for hundreds of years after your mythical "survivor-gene"
distilling boat-trip effect the overall outcome?
Cheers.
666
This discussion has started to become a waste of time so I've decided
to start over. I've discussed this conversation with a PhD genetics
researcher and others and there are a few things you need to learn.
1) when trying to understand things like this you need to be open
minded and not just look for evidence to back up your claims but look
for the opposite. As it turns out you are listening to the a subgroup
of approximately 50% of anthropologists and not the rest of the
scientific population. The vast majority appears to believe in
biological races. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
The most recent survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked
1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition:
"There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The
responses were:
* biologists 16%
* developmental psychologists 36%
* physical anthropologists 41%
* cultural anthropologists 53%
The figure for physical anthropologists at PhD granting departments
was slightly higher, rising from 41% to 42%, with 50% agreeing. This
survey, however, did not specify any particular definition of race; it
is impossible to say whether those who supported the statement thought
of race in taxonomic or population terms.
To make a long story short the entire topic of genetic race is still
very much in debate but the majority believes they exist in some form
and more importantly biologists who understand the genetics side more
overwhelming agree. However the jury is still out. Period.
2) From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_multilocus_allele_clusters
In general, however, 5%–15% of genetic variation occurs between large
groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of
the variation occurring within such groups (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et
al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005).
and
Shriver et al. (2003) found that on average African Americans have
~80% African ancestry.
Read the entire wiki article, you'll learn some things.
IN SUMMARY it is a fact that it's possible that some clusters of
humans along racial lines are substantially different genetically and
so it's possible that a racial line might have a genetic advantage in
athletics. I've purposely made this statement very general but even
as general as it is I believe that you don't accept it as a fact and
hence we can stop discussing the genetic race concepts. If you do
agree with the statement then we can still stop discussing it too.
Either way we are done with the genetic side of things at least until
you learn more about it..
part 2
The second part of our argument which I find much more entertaining is
that you really seem to think motivation is the single reason why
American blacks dominate many sports. The most interesting part of
your theory it that it is 100% impossible for you to prove it. It's
probably virtually impossible to even create experiments where it
could even be explored. You're theory is so lacking in any science
what so ever if could be called religious. You just have "faith" that
poor blacks have more motivation to perform at sports due to their
socioeconomic situation.
We can continue on your motivation kick as there are million issues
with it. I'll start with a few.
1) if poor blacks (I'll use the term poor but we really mean the
disadvantaged socioeconomically but you know what I mean) are
motivated to the extremes of dominating virtually every sport that
they participate in why aren't ALL non black athletes from a poverty
background? And what about the rich blacks. Are they successful at
sports or are they like whites with other motivations?
2) are blacks ONLY motivated to play sports? Are they more successful
at anything else that they would naturally be motivated to do. Don't
you think they would be just as motivated to get an education since
lets face it EVERYONE can figure out that getting an education has a
much higher probability of success than the very unlikely event of
being successful at sports. Is there anything else that you feel
blacks are motivated to exceed at and do you know of any other
positive things that blacks excel at? Why sports? The probability of
being a professional athlete is extremely small. Why would blacks be
so motivated to do something they have such a small chance of
accomplishing? Get it? Think about it. Maybe they are motivated
because the are naturally good at it. And if you think the best black
roll models are athletes lets not forget rappers and of course Condi
Rice and Colin Powel.
3) What about other poor ethnic groups. What are they motivated to
do and what do they excel at it? Are poor hispanics more or less
motivated to play basketball than blacks? Why?
4) Why aren't white motivated to play sports? They seem to dominate
hockey tennis and golf so I guess they are motivated to play sports.
Why aren't whites motivated to play basketball. They vastly out
number everyone else yet they don't seem motivated enough to make the
team? Why is that? Hmm, maybe they aren't as good at it?
5) I drive around my predominantly white neighborhood and it seems
that every second or third house has one of the free standing
basketball net things on wheels. They are everywhere around here.
Don't let anyone tell you that Canadians aren't into basketball, or
for that matter whites. Why aren't all these kids motivated enough to
excel at basketball even though they can afford these expensive
practice tools? Why aren't they good enough when they can afford
better tools?
6) Are people more motivated to do things that they are naturally
better at or are people equally motivated to do anything that
interests them?
7) What about the socioeconomic reality of blacks causes this
motivation and why do they seem to be more motivated than anyone else
who is socioeconomically poor? It is possible that there is
motivation gene?
Do I really need to go on?
I hope you will see that most of this post is serious and I would
appreciate you taking it serious.
Cheers
Quirk
> On 5 Sep 2006 04:33:42 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
>
> This discussion has started to become a waste of time so I've decided
> to start over. I've discussed this conversation with a PhD genetics
> researcher and others and there are a few things you need to learn.
What I want to know is why you have comepletely reversed your argument?
You have maintained since the begining that biological races do not
exist, and that the success of blacks is a result of some sort of
slavery-as-eugenics nonsense, as postulated by Jimmy the Greek.
For somebody who is unable to make a consistent and logical argument
you should really abandon such posturing and banalities like "there are
a few things you need to learn." Just make your point, if you can.
Ignoring the fact that you now have abandoned the Jimmy the Greek
theory and are openly arguing for the existance of biological races,
let's examine your argument.
> 1) when trying to understand things like this you need to be open
> minded and not just look for evidence to back up your claims but look
> for the opposite.
Are you talking to yourself here? Sounds like it.
> As it turns out you are listening to the a subgroup
> of approximately 50% of anthropologists and not the rest of the
> scientific population.
No, it turns out, unsurpisingly, that you are unable to read an article
and instead only cite a tiny amount of information contained in it,
without context.
The introduction on its own should have given you a clue:
"The term race distinguishes one population of humans (or
non-humans) from another. Many regard race as a social construct. The
most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits
(especially skin color and facial features), genes, and
self-identification. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial
groupings, vary by culture and over time and are often controversial,
for scientific reasons as well as their impact on social identity and
identity politics."
"Since the 1940s, evolutionary scientists have rejected the view of
race according to which any number of finite lists of essential
characteristics could be used to determine a like number of races. "
> The vast majority appears to believe inbiological races.
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
Really? Then why does the very same article you cite say:
"The American Anthropological Association, drawing on biological
research, currently holds that "The concept of race is a social and
cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven
scientifically," and that, "It is clear that human populations are not
unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The
concept of 'race' has no validity . . . in the human species""
Thus, if the "vast majority," as you say, believes what you say, why is
the official position of the American Anthropological Association the
opposite?
The fact is that a small minority of racism propogandists continues to
believe in biological races, and since you have not presented any
actual views or arguments held by this minorty, we can not logicaly
compare them to the work I have cited; Horton, Gil-White, etc.
Once again, you have not made an argument.
The article you cite, however, does:
"At the beginning of the 20th century, anthropologists questioned,
and subsequently abandoned, the claim that biologically distinct races
are isomorphic with (related to) distinct linguistic, cultural, and
social groups. Then, the rise of population genetics led some
mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to
question the very validity of race as scientific concept describing an
objectively real phenomenon. Those who came to reject the validity of
the concept, race, did so for four reasons: empirical, definitional,
the availability of alternative concepts, and ethical (Lieberman and
Byrne 1993)."
For more information on what "the jury" thinks about Race, feel free to
browse the Race Project of the American Anthropogical Association:
"Looking through two lenses, the sciences and humanities, the RACE
Project will help individuals understand the origins and manifestations
of race and racism in everyday life, and come to their own conclusion
that human variation is a part of nature and that race is not
inevitable nor a part of nature but a dynamic and sometimes harmful
cultural construct."
> The most recent survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked
> 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition:
> "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The
> responses were:
>
> * biologists 16%
> * developmental psychologists 36%
> * physical anthropologists 41%
> * cultural anthropologists 53%
>
> The figure for physical anthropologists at PhD granting departments
> was slightly higher, rising from 41% to 42%, with 50% agreeing. This
> survey, however, did not specify any particular definition of race; it
> is impossible to say whether those who supported the statement thought
> of race in taxonomic or population terms.
The key part being "it is impossible to say whether those who supported
the statement thought of race in taxonomic or population terms."
from the vary same article we know that Taxonomic means:
"An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species,
inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and
differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."
While "Population" means "Races are genetically distinct Mendelian
populations. They are neither individuals nor particular genotypes,
they consist of individuals who differ genetically among themselves."
It is quite impossible to arrive at anything regarding black athletic
performance being a fact of nature from your opinion poll with out
knowing which of the above is being agreed with.
> To make a long story short the entire topic of genetic race is still
> very much in debate but the majority believes they exist in some form
> and more importantly biologists who understand the genetics side more
> overwhelming agree. However the jury is still out. Period.
If by "the Jury is still out" you mean that there maybe some scientists
still out there who support your point of view, but you are unable to
cite them directly nor present there arguments for consideration, then
ok.
However, in reality, the jury has spoken and the official position of
the Anthrololpgical community is that biological race does nto exist.
Period. As can be known by actually reading the very Wikipedia article
you introduced-
> 2) From
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_multilocus_allele_clusters
> In general, however, 5%-15% of genetic variation occurs between large
> groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of
> the variation occurring within such groups (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et
> al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005).
Yes, virginia, a whoping 5-15% of genetic variation "occurs between
large
groups living on different continents" while "remaining majority of
the variation occurring within such groups"
So, how does that fact that variation within the group is far greater
than variation between groups, even when they live on different
continents, support your notion of black athletic domination? Again,
ignoring the fact that up until now you have been argueing that it is
not their African heritage that makes black athletes dominant, but
rather Slavery.
Further, again from the same article:
"Two random humans are expected to differ at approximately 1 in 1000
nucleotides, [...] Most of these single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)
are neutral."
So, this difference of 5-15% is itself a part of 0.1% actual genetic
difference between any two random individuals, and of that 5-15% of
0.1%, "most" are neutral.
The conclusion is obvious, but tnterestingly, you don't seem to cite
the following, from the same article:
"A large majority of researchers endorse the view that continental
groups do not constitute different subspecies. "
Note the term "A large majority".
> Shriver et al. (2003) found that on average African Americans have
> ~80% African ancestry.
Yes, and having 80% African ancestry does not give them a definable
group of common charartistics, as quoted no "finite lists of essential
characteristics" exists, thus it is not likely to produce an advantage
in athletics.
> Read the entire wiki article, you'll learn some things.
Good article, yes, I wonder why you remain unable to learn from either
of the articles you cite?
> IN SUMMARY it is a fact that it's possible that some clusters of
> humans along racial lines are substantially different genetically and
> so it's possible that a racial line might have a genetic advantage in
> athletics.
False.
Which is why the articles you cite say: "A large majority of
researchers endorse the view that continental groups do not constitute
different subspecies. " and "Since the 1940s, evolutionary scientists
have rejected the view of race according to which any number of finite
lists of essential characteristics could be used to determine a like
number of races. "
What part of "finite lists of essential characteristics" do you not
understand?
> The second part of our argument which I find much more entertaining is
> that you really seem to think motivation is the single reason why
> American blacks dominate many sports.
False, it has been explained to you that "blacks" to not dominate many
sports, they dominate only a few sports (see Gil-White).
Second, I have not given any 1 reason, nor claimed that there is only
one reason, I have only emphasized motivation. Another reasons I have
cited is the fact tha Basketball is a huge cultural institution within
the Black community.
> The most interesting part of
> your theory it that it is 100% impossible for you to prove it.
This is yet more argumentum ad ignorantiam. "It has not been proven
true, therefore it is false" -- yet another logical fallacy.
As the "Race" and "Slave Eugenics" theories have been totally
disproven, we must look to other factors, as indeed, anthrologists and
evolutionary scientists have done.
I am not saying, nor have I said, that I know and can describe the
specific contemporary conditions that make modern athletes who and what
they are, but it can and has been proven that it must be contempory
conditions and not an inate natural predispostion, because the concept
of inate natural predisposition has been relegated to the dustbin of
science.
> Do I really need to go on?
Not really, you have amply illustrated that you can neither frame nor
answer a logical question, especially as you keep abandoning and
shifting your arguments, and you have never answered any specific
question I have posed to you.
You continue to employ the false premise that "Blacks" dominate all
sports, and not simply a few sports and have not accepted the facts of
objective reality that biological anthropology overwhelmingly denies
the possibility of this.
If you want to examine which particular aspects of contemporary
socioeconomic conditions and their cultural contexts leads to blacks
succeding in basketball, while whites succeed at hockey, while soccer
is dominated by europeans and latin americans, that may be an
intersting discusion, but you would first have to abandon the bunk you
are pedling regarding racial predisposition, slavery-as-eugenics, etc,
Yes, pleople are different, and yes populations are different, However,
these differences relate to "gene flows" and "population bottlenecks"
in migratory and demographic history which does not map well to the
cultural concept of broad Racial groups, Further, even these
differences are so minor that they can only be detected with genetic
markers, and not manifested characteristics, such as athletic ability
or intellegence, and thus can not, and do not explain achievement in
any area, including athletics.
Cheers.
666
Quirk, you were presented with a well written article nicely
explaining both sides of the coin yet you only saw one side.
You were then presented with a statement that was so general and vague
that is was virtually useless and you still refuted it.
It's apparent that you have an arts background and not a science
background. You are a regurgitator not a thinker. You behave like a
religious zealot and I'm not here for conversions.
I'd suggest that you read more and think but I don't think it would
help.
Finally, when presented with compelling reasons just off the top of my
head that made part of your assertions sound absurd you just ran away.
You don't even appear to believe your side of the coin and that's just
sad.
It's going to take a while but once the human genome is understood I
think you are going to have a few surprises. We'll see.
>Cheers.
Quirk
> On 6 Sep 2006 04:46:47 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> Quirk, you were presented with a well written article nicely
> explaining both sides of the coin yet you only saw one side.
I saw both sides and I came to same conclusions, as cited in the same
articles, as the American Anthropological Association, he majority of
Evolutionary Scientists and Geneticists. The same opinions, as I have
been citing from the begining as expresses by Horton amd Gil-White.
You seem to have completely abandoned your argument, originaly claiming
to not believe in biological races, and now suddenly argueing in favour
of them.
> It's apparent that you have an arts background and not a science
> background.
I have no "background," my arguments stand on there own.
It is obvious that you have no academic background of anykind either,
nor have you managed to educate yourself, as you can not construct a
logical argument without employing well known fallacies, nor understand
the infrequent citations when you do bother to make them.
> You are a regurgitator not a thinker. You behave like a
> religious zealot and I'm not here for conversions.
It is not surprising that you continue to employ mainly fallacies to
argue your point, resorting to ad hominems
> I'd suggest that you read more and think but I don't think it would
> help.
I'd suggest you actually try to understand what you read and cite, but
that would be making the mistake of assuming you are sincere and not
simply a dupe of racist propoganda, as your M.O. has shown. (see
"Pathalogical Skepticism")
BTW are you a newcomer to this newsgroup or have your peviously used a
different nick?
> Finally, when presented with compelling reasons just off the top of my
> head that made part of your assertions sound absurd you just ran away.
You have not presented any compelling reasons, because your statements
come, as explained, assume that a) blacks do dominate sports, and b)
that other races do not, and c) that motivation alone was my sole
explantion.
As all these are false, I see no reason to refute your straw men, if I
overlooked one that is not based on the above false assumptions, feel
free to repeat it and I will address it.
> You don't even appear to believe your side of the coin and that's just
> sad.
What is sad is that you think anybody will mistake your posturing for
an argument.
> It's going to take a while but once the human genome is understood I
> think you are going to have a few surprises. We'll see.
Once again, I recommend the Race Project website if you are interested
in what schalras who are researching this field actually think.
http://raceproject.aaanet.org/
Can you recomend a site created by a scholarly community that supports
your view? Or at least one of the views you have promoted and denied at
various times in this thread?
Cheers.
666
>666 wrote:
>Once again, I recommend the Race Project website if you are interested
>in what schalras who are researching this field actually think.
>
>http://raceproject.aaanet.org/
This is really funny. Check out the funders section. Two of them,
yup, and one is NSF who funds everyone. Then go to the papers section
and read the list of contributors. There are about 20 of them, mostly
sociologists and anthropologists. No biologists. Surprising? Then
go to the bibliography section. There are about 300 papers listed.
One of my very important previous points was that the jury is out and
you are listening to a small minority of anthropologists. The
reference I gave to you mentioned a survey of 1200 scientists who
collectively have probably written at least 10,000 papers. You are
suggesting that a site contributed to by only 20 "scientists" listing
papers from maybe 80-100 people is representative of anything more
than a minority point of view. Give it up dude. Aprox 300 papers out
of aprox 10000 is an embarassment to your side of the arguement. What
is it about numbers that you don't understand? You have to admit this
is kinda funny.
>
>Can you recomend a site created by a scholarly community that supports
>your view? Or at least one of the views you have promoted and denied at
>various times in this thread?
>
Wikipedia.
Do yourself a favour, start at Wikipedia and purposely look for
arguments against your position. Follow the cites and read and read
and read. You will be overwhelmed. That's all I have left. Open
your mind to the other side and let go of your religion.
>Cheers.
Quirk
> >http://raceproject.aaanet.org/
> This is really funny.
What is? The fact that the scholarly community that is actually
dedicated to the issue we are discussing totally rejects your argument
and yet you still persist?
> Check out the funders section. Two of them,
> yup, and one is NSF who funds everyone.
So?
> Then go to the papers section
> and read the list of contributors. There are about 20 of them, mostly
> sociologists and anthropologists. No biologists. Surprising? Then
> go to the bibliography section. There are about 300 papers listed.
> One of my very important previous points was that the jury is out and
> you are listening to a small minority of anthropologists. The
> reference I gave to you mentioned a survey of 1200 scientists who
> collectively have probably written at least 10,000 papers. You are
> suggesting that a site contributed to by only 20 "scientists" listing
> papers from maybe 80-100 people is representative of anything more
> than a minority point of view. Give it up dude. Aprox 300 papers out
> of aprox 10000 is an embarassment to your side of the arguement. What
> is it about numbers that you don't understand? You have to admit this
> is kinda funny.
Your continued use of random numbers, nonsensical allusions and
posturing is better described as tedious, rather than funny.
The "small minority of anthropologists" is actualy the vast majority of
anthropologists, evolutionary scientists and gentisists.
Please cite a single scientists who specifically says they believe that
black athletes dominate sports as as a result of a racial genetic
predisposition. If you continue in this thread without doing so, I will
continue to make this same request. Surely, if your conclusions are so
widely held, you should be able to find a single scientist who cleary
states this. Notr states something else that you feel supports this,
but states exactly that.
As you well know, I have cited scientists who have specfically stated
your various theories are false. Not only stuff that I think supports
my contention that your arguments are false, but them specifically
saying that your arguments are false.
Since you are making the ludicrous claim that a large body, if not the
majority, of scientists agrees whith you, it should be no big hardship
to find one that says so, rigth?
If you can actually do so, perhaps then we can examine a real argument,
and not your banal fallacy, allusion and posturing.
> >Can you recomend a site created by a scholarly community that supports
> >your view? Or at least one of the views you have promoted and denied at
> >various times in this thread?
> Wikipedia.
In otherwords, you can not, perhaps because no such community exists,
outside of perhaps the KKK and the Heritage Front.
As Wikipedia has a pollicy of NPOV, it is obvious that it can not match
my requiest for a site created by "a scholarly community that supports
your view"
Can you provide one or not?
> Open your mind to the other side and let go of your religion.
If we where on the topic of psychology, this would be yet another
expample of your tendency to make unconcious self-references.
Cheers.
666
They're not random, you just don't understand math very well.
>The "small minority of anthropologists" is actualy the vast majority of
>anthropologists, evolutionary scientists and gentisists.
>
I should have phrased that better. It's about 50% of anthropologists
and 16% of biologists but to make a long story short it's a minority
of scientists who study the subject.
>Please cite a single scientists who specifically says they believe that
>black athletes dominate sports as as a result of a racial genetic
>predisposition.
Whoa, step back a bit. We've moved this discussion waaaaaay back from
there. Remember you're the one that has disputed the FACT that is't
even a remote possibility. We were trying to convince you of the much
simpler concepts of genetic races and then we would have moved on from
there but you won't accept the majority opinion and the absolute FACT
that it's possible that there are clusters of racially defined people
who are even different let alone superior at something.
You have at least 6 months or reading before you're ready for the
slavery argument.
> If you continue in this thread without doing so, I will
>continue to make this same request. Surely, if your conclusions are so
>widely held, you should be able to find a single scientist who cleary
>states this. Notr states something else that you feel supports this,
>but states exactly that.
>
You don't even know what we are discussing at the moment.
>As you well know, I have cited scientists who have specfically stated
>your various theories are false. Not only stuff that I think supports
>my contention that your arguments are false, but them specifically
>saying that your arguments are false.
>
>Since you are making the ludicrous claim that a large body, if not the
>majority, of scientists agrees whith you, it should be no big hardship
>to find one that says so, rigth?
>
Go back to the previous post. You'll figure it out.
Try to pay attention. One last time, this is where we are:
IN SUMMARY it is a fact that it's possible that some clusters of
humans along racial lines are substantially different genetically and
so it's possible that a racial line might have a genetic advantage in
athletics.
Before we can continue you have to accept this FACT.
This is the one and only statement you need to focus on at this point
then I'll walk you through the rest.
Start reading and come back to me in about 6 months. Then we'll move
forward.
>Cheers.
Quirk
> They're not random, you just don't understand math very well.
You have not done any math, listing random numbers is not math, you
would have to make an actual calculation for math to have taken place.
You have not.
> >The "small minority of anthropologists" is actualy the vast majority of
> >anthropologists, evolutionary scientists and gentisists.
> I should have phrased that better. It's about 50% of anthropologists
> and 16% of biologists but to make a long story short it's a minority
> of scientists who study the subject.
You continued use of poorly defined data reveals your dishonesty, not
only is this but one, rather old _opinion poll_, but this claim is
refuted even within your own citation, due to the lack of clarity
regarding the definition of terms.
I repeat that the official position of the American Anthropological
Association contradicts your view, that do me, is more complelling than
your 1985 opinion poll.
Athropology being the field of study that directly relates the
question.
> >Please cite a single scientists who specifically says they believe that
> >black athletes dominate sports as as a result of a racial genetic
> >predisposition.
>
> Whoa, step back a bit. We've moved this discussion waaaaaay back from
> there.
No we haven't, that is the point of this discusion, please provide a
citation as requested.
I repeat:
> >Since you are making the ludicrous claim that a large body, if not the
> >majority, of scientists agrees whith you, it should be no big hardship
> >to find one that says so, rigth?
The above still stands.
Don't bother with more nonsense and banalities, post a citation of some
scientists that explicitly supports your contention that Blacks
dominate sports as a result of a racial predisposition. Even one would
be a start.
Can you?
666
>666 wrote:
>
>> They're not random, you just don't understand math very well.
>
>You have not done any math, listing random numbers is not math, you
>would have to make an actual calculation for math to have taken place.
>You have not.
>
Calculating percentages is math. You just don't understand numbers.
>> Whoa, step back a bit. We've moved this discussion waaaaaay back from
>> there.
>
>No we haven't, that is the point of this discusion, please provide a
>citation as requested.
>
Yes we have.
>I repeat:
>
>> >Since you are making the ludicrous claim that a large body, if not the
>> >majority, of scientists agrees whith you, it should be no big hardship
>> >to find one that says so, rigth?
You've confused two arguments due to both of us snipping too much and
you just snipped the current argument again. I'm saying that there is
a majority of scientists who agree with my FACT which you snipped, not
my slavery idea. Here it is again.
FACT: It is a fact that it's possible that some clusters of
humans along racial lines are substantially different genetically and
so it's possible that a racial line might have a genetic advantage in
athletics.
Before we can continue you have to accept this FACT.
The slavery thing needs to build on other ideas once the FACT is
accepeted. I'll explain that all to you once we get past the basics.
I think you have missed this distinction.
You need to realize that from my perspective it's like trying to
convince a Christian that Jesus never existed. You need to agree that
there is no archeological evidence of Jesus' existence before we can
go on.
I hope you see this critical starting point. If I can't teach you a
very general FACT then how on earth can I get you to understand a much
more specific example of it.
As a side bar, do you even really understand the basics of what we are
talking about. Do you realize that Anthropology is one of the social
sciences, like Economics, Sociology and Political Science? Do you
realize that the answer to these issues will not be found by
anthropologists but by biologists and genetisists. It's like trying
to prove the existance of particle physics using Phys Ed. You're
listening to the wrong people. This debate has a very high probabilty
of being totally solved and human genome research is where it will be
solved, by biologists.
>
>The above still stands.
>
>Don't bother with more nonsense and banalities, post a citation of some
>scientists that explicitly supports your contention that Blacks
>dominate sports as a result of a racial predisposition. Even one would
>be a start.
>
>Can you?
Believe it or not I can cite some scientists who claim some things
MUCH more radical than my slavery idea. They even claim to have
enormous amounts of data, but you just aren't ready yet. What I have
cited indirectly through the Wiki articles is the evidence for the
more general FACT not the slavery thing. If you're looking for a
proof that blacks dominate sports supported by a majority of
scientists then you're gonna be out of luck. Scientists can't even
agree on the existance of the cosmological constant or not and the
group of anthropoligists you love citing don't even agree with the
majority. You are going to have to read all the fact, go through the
data and make up your own mind. The problem is you haven't gotten to
the first part yet.
Again, start at the FACT and we'll go from there.
Do you agree with it?
If not, then keep reading and come back when you do.
Until we get past it we can't go further and eventually get to the
slavery thing.
Quirk
> On 6 Sep 2006 08:43:43 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> Calculating percentages is math. You just don't understand numbers.
You have not presented any calculations.
> >No we haven't, that is the point of this discusion, please provide a
> >citation as requested.
> Yes we have.
Perhaps you have, I have not.
If you no longer wish to promote the notion that black athletes are
racialy superior, then don't, I am not interested in otherwise
discussing general science with you, as it is plain you are unable to
employ even basic logic, therefore it can only be an excersise in
frustration.
> FACT: It is a fact that it's possible that some clusters of
> humans along racial lines are substantially different genetically and
> so it's possible that a racial line might have a genetic advantage in
> athletics.
If this fact is true, as you claim, then you should have no problem
providing the requested citation of a scientist actually saying that
black athletes are racialy superior.
Can you please provide such a cite?
> You need to realize that from my perspective it's like trying to
> convince a Christian that Jesus never existed. You need to agree that
> there is no archeological evidence of Jesus' existence before we can
> go on.
Yet more unconscious self-reference,.
You are the one who continually presents bogus historical data, such as
the idea that Slaves where bred in America or picked for body-type in
Africa, and that "much later" groups of slaves *arived* after the
white slaves, etc, etc. You just make shit up, and then change the
subject when you are called on it.
Please provide the cite I have asked for that backs up your claim that
many if not most scientist believe that black athletes are racially
supperior. If this is so then you should be able to quote some (at
least one) actally saying so. Your inability to do this makes you more
and more ridiculous as this thread goes on.
> As a side bar, do you even really understand the basics of what we are
> talking about. Do you realize that Anthropology is one of the social
> sciences, like Economics, Sociology and Political Science?
Wrong and ridiculous. Anthropology is a cross disiplanary field in
which biology plays an important role, Francisco Gil-White for
instance, who I have cited, is a Biological Anthropologist.
In ancase, you are unable to cite any scientists, of any disipline,
that agree with you that Black Atheletes are racialy supperior, so the
point is moot.
And, once again, I repeat:
> >Don't bother with more nonsense and banalities, post a citation of some
> >scientists that explicitly supports your contention that Blacks
> >dominate sports as a result of a racial predisposition. Even one would
> >be a start.
> >
> >Can you?
> Believe it or not I can cite some scientists who claim some things
> MUCH more radical than my slavery idea. They even claim to have
> enormous amounts of data, but you just aren't ready yet.
Ok, Yoda, you are now officially a laughing stock.
Post the requested cite or face the FACT that scientists do not agree
with you.
666
>666 wrote:
>
>If you no longer wish to promote the notion that black athletes are
>racialy superior, then don't,
I most certainly do wish to promote the notion that black athletes (at
least North American ones) are racially superior (at least at
athletics).
> I am not interested in otherwise
>discussing general science with you, as it is plain you are unable to
>employ even basic logic, therefore it can only be an excersise in
>frustration.
But, YOU need a basic understanding of biology before we can continue.
So you need to understand some facts before we get to the slavery
thing. Do you understand this? I've tried to jump right into it
before but you didn't understand so we had to go back a bit. We'll
get back to the slavery thing as soon as you understand the basics.
>
>> FACT: It is a fact that it's possible that some clusters of
>> humans along racial lines are substantially different genetically and
>> so it's possible that a racial line might have a genetic advantage in
>> athletics.
>
>If this fact is true, as you claim, then you should have no problem
>providing the requested citation of a scientist actually saying that
>black athletes are racialy superior.
Ahhhhh, now I understand your problem. Sorry, that might have been my
mistake for not explaining a bit better. I'm not claiming that there
are scientists who say blacks are superior at athletics (but there are
some who claim much more than that). We aren't there yet. I'm
claiming that the FACT is indeed a FACT and need you to agree with it
before we move on. The key element about the FACT is that is says
that it's POSSIBLE not that it says that it's TRUE. Maybe that will
help you get over whatever it is you don't understand.
>
>Can you please provide such a cite?
>
>> You need to realize that from my perspective it's like trying to
>> convince a Christian that Jesus never existed. You need to agree that
>> there is no archeological evidence of Jesus' existence before we can
>> go on.
>
>Yet more unconscious self-reference,.
>
>You are the one who continually presents bogus historical data, such as
>the idea that Slaves where bred in America or picked for body-type in
>Africa, and that "much later" groups of slaves *arived* after the
>white slaves, etc, etc. You just make shit up, and then change the
>subject when you are called on it.
>
>Please provide the cite I have asked for that backs up your claim that
>many if not most scientist believe that black athletes are racially
>supperior.
I didn't say that most scientists believe that black athletes are
racially superior, I said that most scientists agree that it's
POSSIBLE that some clusters of humans along racial lines are
substantially different genetically and so it's possible that a racial
line might have a genetic advantage in athletics.
And as a cite I used the Wiki page on race and multilocus allele
clusters. You need to read those pages and some of their cites and
you will learn that the FACT is a FACT.
> If this is so then you should be able to quote some (at
>least one) actally saying so. Your inability to do this makes you more
>and more ridiculous as this thread goes on.
>
>> As a side bar, do you even really understand the basics of what we are
>> talking about. Do you realize that Anthropology is one of the social
>> sciences, like Economics, Sociology and Political Science?
>
>Wrong and ridiculous. Anthropology is a cross disiplanary field in
>which biology plays an important role, Francisco Gil-White for
>instance, who I have cited, is a Biological Anthropologist.
Good for him.
I should have said that at MOST universities Anthropology is studied
in the Arts faculty and is specified as a Social Science and in
general Anthropology is considered a social science. There are always
some universities that are different but my point is that you can call
yourself an Anthropologist without knowing very much about biology and
this argument is ultimately about biology. You should study what
biologists say about this topic as opposed to anthropologists because
ultimately we are taking about biology. And I don't mean just one or
two. I mean biologists in general. Read some cites, get a feel for
the science of genetics. Read man.
>In ancase, you are unable to cite any scientists, of any disipline,
>that agree with you that Black Atheletes are racialy supperior, so the
>point is moot.
>
Now you should understand what I'm claiming is FACT and we can finally
move on.
So just to summarize. What I'm claiming is that North America blacks
have a genetic advantage in athletics. I'm also claiming that the
majority of scientists who study the topic agree that there is a
possibility that some clusters of humans along racial lines are
substantially different genetically and so it's possible that a racial
line might have a genetic advantage in athletics.
I can't make it any simpler than that.
Hmmm, maybe I can. I suppose we could go even farther back. How bout
another undisputable fact.
FACT:While the human genome is now sequenced, a complete understanding
of it is a very long way off. Until the human genome is better
understood with respect to elements of race and athletic ability, it
is possible that North America black's general dominance in athletics
is due to a genetic advantage.
Can we agree at least to this FACT? If not, keep reading and get
back to me.
Quirk
> On 6 Sep 2006 11:54:16 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> But, YOU need a basic understanding of biology before we can continue.
Yet more fallacy. You have been saying that many, if not most,
scientists support your claims, yet you can not even cite a single one
who believes what you do.
> >If this fact is true, as you claim, then you should have no problem
> >providing the requested citation of a scientist actually saying that
> >black athletes are racialy superior.
> Ahhhhh, now I understand your problem. Sorry, that might have been my
> mistake for not explaining a bit better. I'm not claiming that there
> are scientists who say blacks are superior at athletics (but there are
> some who claim much more than that).
Thank you for finally admiting that few or no scientists agree with you
that black athletes are racialy superior. Your dishonesty is well
illustrated by the fact that I had to post the same questions three
times verbatum before getting a response.
As I am not scientist, and very obviously, neither are you -- as we
could employ any one of your contribution as a teaching aid in an
introduction to the logical fallacies -- I see no reason to take your
word against the word of Horton, Gil-White and the others. Why should
I?
Before you blather on further about obscure genetic markers, that if
you fudge the data and squint your eyes the right way when you look at
the graph, kinda sorta correspond to demographic history, please
indicate exactly which specific physical characteristics you are
attempting to prove result from these multilocus allele clusters, and
where you get the idea that they correspond to success at basketball.
Just like before, I will repeat the above question until you answer it,
or slither away to promote your racist propaganda elsewhere.
666
>666 wrote:
>Thank you for finally admiting that few or no scientists agree with you
>that black athletes are racialy superior. Your dishonesty is well
>illustrated by the fact that I had to post the same questions three
>times verbatum before getting a response.
>
>As I am not scientist, and very obviously, neither are you -- as we
>could employ any one of your contribution as a teaching aid in an
>introduction to the logical fallacies -- I see no reason to take your
>word against the word of Horton, Gil-White and the others. Why should
>I?
Man, no one can be this stupid. I'm not asking you to take my word
for it. I've proven to you that the scientific community is
overwhelmingly against Gil-White yet you choose to ignore the
majority.
>
>Before you blather on further about obscure genetic markers, that if
>you fudge the data and squint your eyes the right way when you look at
>the graph, kinda sorta correspond to demographic history, please
>indicate exactly which specific physical characteristics you are
>attempting to prove result from these multilocus allele clusters, and
>where you get the idea that they correspond to success at basketball.
>
Yup, you're an idiot. You just don't get it. The fact that the
scientific community does not agree with you doesn't mean that they or
I have ALL the answers. Your asking me to prove something that
requires knowledge about the human genome that isn't yet available,
yet you stand behind claims that attempt to use insufficient data
about the same human genome. All I could have done is convince you
that you are probably wrong using the scientific process not religious
faith but you're not worth the effort. Read read read till you learn.
The knowledge is out there.
I know you can't prove that socioeconomic conditions are the answer to
our debate and you should know that I can't prove what I'm saying or
else we wouldn't even be arguing. NO ONE can prove either side of
the argument yet. Knowledge of the human genome isn't available yet.
That is what I've been trying to tell you for the last 5 posts you
moron. You have to take your knowledge one step at a time until you
have as much of the facts as possible and then make your own
conclusion. You do not have the facts necessary to decide but you're
not worth my time so keep reading.
What you fail to see is that there is virtually no evidence to support
your socioeconomic idea and there is MORE evidence supporting my
ideas. In fact I'm pretty sure you have shown ZERO evidence to
support the socioeconomic side but it really doesn't matter I can find
what I'm looking for without your help.
>Just like before, I will repeat the above question until you answer it,
>or slither away to promote your racist propaganda elsewhere.
I believe I have answered your question well enough. If you want to
continue with this why don't you show some socioeconomic evidence or
better yet, don't bother responding at all and I won't mention it
again in this group. Keep reading and open you're eyes. We're done.
Quirk
> Man, no one can be this stupid.
Yes, when your argument has been shown to be baseless bunk, call the
person you are arguing with stupid, that really adds to your
credibility!
> I'm not asking you to take my word
> for it.
You have not presented any other basis for your argument, even your
word is unreliable as your position keeps shifting and you keep
pretending to have some sort of deep knowledge of biology and genetics
(which you plainly don't) and that I would automatically agree with you
if only understood the phoney science you are peddling, despite the
fact that you can cite not one scientist who shares your opinion.
You are a laughing stock.
> I've proven to you that the scientific community is
> overwhelmingly against Gil-White yet you choose to ignore the
> majority.
False. You have proven nothing but your dishonesty.
You have presented the fact that while there are a tiny percentage of
genetic markers that correspond to demographic history, Gil-White does
not deny this, he argues, like the very article you cited, that these
are mostly neutral in their effect on manifested traits, and while they
can give you some information about the demographic history of a
person, they do not correlate with any phyisical chararistics, which
they would have to in order to have an impact on athletic superiority.
You might as well claim that because all black people have black skin,
a common characteristic of "blacks," that this, like your obscure
allele, makes them dominate all sports. Or perhaps it is Afro hair?
Ignoring the fact that neither black skin nor afro hair helps you play
any sport, anymore than having a certain allele.
You are spewing bunk, pure and simple.
>Before you blather on further about obscure genetic markers, that if
> >you fudge the data and squint your eyes the right way when you look at
> >the graph, kinda sorta correspond to demographic history, please
> >indicate exactly which specific physical characteristics you are
> >attempting to prove result from these multilocus allele clusters, and
> >where you get the idea that they correspond to success at basketball.
> Yup, you're an idiot. You just don't get it.
You are right that I do not get it, and neither does a single
scientists on the face of the earth apparently, as you can not seem to
cite one that shares your conclusions. All of us are idiots apparently,
and you are the greatest scientists who has ever lived, the only one
who knows the true facts about race and athletics (even if you can not
seem to keep your own argument straight)
> The fact that the
> scientific community does not agree with you doesn't mean that they or
> I have ALL the answers. Your asking me to prove something that
> requires knowledge about the human genome that isn't yet available,
I have not asked you to prove anything, just to make a clear and
logical argument, you have failed at this.
You keep claiming that the scientific community agrees with you, yet
you can not cite a single scientists that has drawn the same conclusion
from the availaible data as you have.
I have had no trouble citing many scientists who have drawn the
opposite conclusion from the available data. If you understood the
basic rules of logic, which your endless use of fallacy shows you do
not, you would have long ago realized you are making a fool of
yourself.
> NO ONE can prove either side of the argument yet.
You have not made an argument at all. You have only explained your
opinion, insisted that it is true, claimed that science supports you.
You have substantiated nothing, while expending most of your text on
allusions, posturing and fallacy.
You started off denying race by claiming that the aledged athletic
superiority was not rooted in biological race, but rather in the
conditions of slavery. This "theory" was destroyed by pointing out that
your assumptions about the actual historic conditions and context this
theory assumed to have existed where flat false.
Then you got on the race bandwagon by claiming that because demographic
history is somewhat discernable from certain genetic markers that this
proves that advantageous physical characteristics *might* be possible
as well. This bunk was long refuted before you even entered this
discusion: Whatever you think about what *might* be possible, the facts
show that human variation is very smooth, meaning that those that have
these markers do not generally share common characteristics and
moreover that physical characterstics on their own do not correlate to
basketball achievement in anycase.
If you are going to make an argument based on inante physical
predisposition, you should at least be able to demonstrate that the
physical characteristics you are attempting to explain actually exist
and actually correlate to athletic superiorty. You have not.
> You have to take your knowledge one step at a time until you
> have as much of the facts as possible and then make your own
> conclusion.
Right, so taking it one step at a time: What specific pysical
characteristics that correlate whith basketball success, are you
attempting to explain?
> What you fail to see is that there is virtually no evidence to support
> your socioeconomic idea and there is MORE evidence supporting my
> ideas.
If thus was true then don't you think you would be able to cite some at
least one scientist who has drawn the same conclusion as you from the
same evidence? You know very well that I am able to do, and have done,
just that.
> I believe I have answered your question well enough.
False.
Here it is again:
Quirk wrote:
> Before you blather on further about obscure genetic markers, that if
> you fudge the data and squint your eyes the right way when you look at
> the graph, kinda sorta correspond to demographic history, please
> indicate exactly which specific physical characteristics you are
> attempting to prove result from these multilocus allele clusters, and
> where you get the idea that they correspond to success at basketball.
Please answer the question, foolish person.
Also, I am still interested in how you have come to appear in this
newsgroup to promote racism propoganda. Did you just happen to show up
just now, or have you changed your nick from something else?
One of the reasons I like this group is the lack of turfies so I am
curious how you found us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Cheers.
666
Quirk, you're pretty funny and I enjoy debating with you because of
your writing style but you've got your head too far in the sand. Six
or more posts for one point? You refuse to learn possibly because
you're too stupid, I'm really not sure.
However you're on your way. Start with multilocus allele clusters (
Wiki isn't really the place to do this, try
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ as a better resource). You won't
understand them so you'll need to learn some basics but try to get
back there in a few months as its a good starting point. Be warned
there will be some math and particularly statistics along the way
which I don't know if you can handle.
Some day you'll get to coalescence and that's the tip of the iceberg
of the slavery thing. It will be a while before you get there.
Check in every couple of months, I'd like to hear your progress. Good
luck.
Quirk
> You refuse to learn possibly because
> you're too stupid, I'm really not sure.
*yawn*
You neglected my question, here it is again:
>Quirk wrote:
>> Before you blather on further about obscure genetic markers, that if
>> you fudge the data and squint your eyes the right way when you look at
>> the graph, kinda sorta correspond to demographic history, please
>> indicate exactly which specific physical characteristics you are
>> attempting to prove result from these multilocus allele clusters, and
>> where you get the idea that they correspond to success at basketball.
Please answer this question.
> However you're on your way. Start with multilocus allele clusters (
> Wiki isn't really the place to do this, try
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ as a better resource). You won't
> understand them so you'll need to learn some basics but try to get
> back there in a few months as its a good starting point. Be warned
> there will be some math and particularly statistics along the way
> which I don't know if you can handle.
You have already admitted that not a single scientists you can cite has
drawn the same conclusions from the available data, I suppose, then,
that you are the only one on earth who can "handle the math."
666
>Please answer this question.
No. You're done asking the questions here until you've done as I've
asked. Besides, I've decided to let you answer it for yourself. You
will learn much better that way. When you can answer the question for
yourself then we can continue. I'll wait. By the way you can post
your question a millions times and I won't give you the answer so you
can stop now. You need to find it yourself to learn. We are truly
done on this section until you do.
>
>> However you're on your way. Start with multilocus allele clusters (
>> Wiki isn't really the place to do this, try
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ as a better resource). You won't
>> understand them so you'll need to learn some basics but try to get
>> back there in a few months as its a good starting point. Be warned
>> there will be some math and particularly statistics along the way
>> which I don't know if you can handle.
I've given you an excellent start. Good luck you have a lot of
learning to do.
By the way is this the same Gill-White? You might need to pick a new
hero.
http://www.tenc.net/comment31.htm
666
>666 wrote:
>>Quirk wrote:
>>> Before you blather on further about obscure genetic markers, that if
>>> you fudge the data and squint your eyes the right way when you look at
>>> the graph, kinda sorta correspond to demographic history, please
>>> indicate exactly which specific physical characteristics you are
>>> attempting to prove result from these multilocus allele clusters, and
>>> where you get the idea that they correspond to success at basketball.
>
>Please answer this question.
Ya know what. I'm having a great day and might as well stop teasing
you. You can ignore my previous answer as I will assume that you have
read about multilocus allele clusters at least on Wiki and if you have
any brains at all it should be good enough..
The answer to your question (and you're not going to like it) is the
specific physical characteristics I'm attempting to suggest that
result from multilocus allele clusters are the physical (and
intellectual) characteristics that make some basketball players better
than others. Note it's not just basketball. Told you, you wouldn't
like it. Yes the characteristics that make some basketball players
better are the characteristics that make some basketball players
better. What can I say? If you research the Kenyan thing there is
some great data there and you'll actually learn the physical
characteristics in that case such as smaller muscle fibers, more
muscle enzymes and better V02 max . But be careful I'm not saying the
same ones apply to basketball necessarily. The Kenyan thing is much
simpler since we are dealing with a much smaller population that is
much more isolated.
All I can say is that whatever it is that has scientists saying that
Kenyans have a BIOLOGICAL advantage at long distance running is a
similar thing to what give descendants of African Americans an
athletic advantage. It's biological and since this type of biology is
about genetics, then you guessed it. It's genetics. The exact
genetic details are still being worked out as there is alot of
uncertainty in the human genome.
If you accept the science of multilocus allele clusters and other
supporting genetic facts AND you agree with the Kenyan thing (you
better look this one up) then you should be ok with the slavery thing.
That's as simple as I can make it but I don't you're gonna like it.
Oh well.
Quirk
> On 8 Sep 2006 02:51:59 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> >Please answer this question.
> No. You're done asking the questions here until you've done as I've
> asked.
Fine then, continue being a laughing stock as long as you like.
> I've given you an excellent start. Good luck you have a lot of
> learning to do.
You have given nothing except a perfect demonstration on how top make
an ass of yourself my making claims of having expert knoweldge you
obviously do not have.
The only thing you have proved beyond a shodow of a doubt is that you
have never studied seriously studied science (or anything else,
probably) -- this is evident by your inability to structure a logical
argument without fallacy, a skill that no scientist could be without.
> By the way is this the same Gill-White? You might need to pick a new
> hero.
> http://www.tenc.net/comment31.htm
Because Jared Isreal says so? I think he has a bone to pick, given he
is interested in essentialising the palestinian-isreal situation as
being an inherently racial one to justify his anti-arab, pro-zionist
views.
Mr. Isreal, however, does occasionaly make some interesting
obeservations, so if you actually want to cite him in making your
argument or directly addressing one of mine, please do so. He is not a
scientists, as I have asked, that has drawn your conclusions, but a
start anyway.
Posting a link is not making an argument, a scientific supergenius like
you ought to know that.
Citing Isreal, if you even know who he is, is consitent with the idea
that you are a turfie, since he is, however, you must be an entry level
turfie, you certainly do not even know Schopenhauer's art well enough
to be a effective provocateur.
Cheers.
Quirk
> On 8 Sep 2006 02:51:59 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> You can ignore my previous answer as I will assume that you have
> read about multilocus allele clusters at least on Wiki and if you have
> any brains at all it should be good enough..
Like Dragon Flight, to use Gil-White's example, the Black "Race" is a
biological fiction, as is the notion that *any* inborn physical
characteristics correlate very well to elite-level athletic
achievement. As is the idea that "black" people share common physical
characteristics. As is the idea that multilocus allele clusters
predetermine *any* physical characteristics.
You continue to be a laughing stock. I am am glad, however, that you
had a good day.
> The answer to your question (and you're not going to like it) is the
> specific physical characteristics I'm attempting to suggest that
> result from multilocus allele clusters are the physical (and
> intellectual) characteristics that make some basketball players better
> than others. Note it's not just basketball. Told you, you wouldn't
> like it. Yes the characteristics that make some basketball players
> better are the characteristics that make some basketball players
> better.
"physical (and intellectual) characteristics that make some basketball
players better
than others. "
Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty so clearly by presenting
this as an answer. Please specifiy these characteristics. As has been
explained to you, there are no specific characteristics that
predetermine elite-level athetic achievement.
You are a laughing stock.
> What can I say? If you research the Kenyan thing there is
> some great data there and you'll actually learn the physical
> characteristics in that case such as smaller muscle fibers, more
> muscle enzymes and better V02 max . But be careful I'm not saying the
> same ones apply to basketball necessarily. The Kenyan thing is much
> simpler since we are dealing with a much smaller population that is
> much more isolated.
> smaller muscle fibers, more muscle enzymes and better V02 max
Please explain where you get the idea that any of the above three
things are actually the result of gentetics and not training and do
infact correspond to both the Kenyan population and top-level long
distance runners? Can you? Or this yet anther red herring pulled
directly out of your ass?
Also, please go on to explain, as was asked last time you presented
this argument, long debunked by the research cited in this thread, why
low-land Kenyans, or Kenyan emmigrants do not have a unusualy high
level of Athletic achievment, depsite being from identical genetic
makeup.
Your refusal to address clear arguments made by scientists researching
and publishing on the subject by avoiding the questions and then
bringing the same arguments up again later is one of the things that
makes you a laughing stock.
> All I can say is that whatever it is that has scientists saying that
> Kenyans have a BIOLOGICAL advantage at long distance running is a
> similar thing to what give descendants of African Americans an
> athletic advantage.
Please quote these scientists saying that Kenyans have a biological
advantage at long distance running, so that we may compare their
arguments to those of Horton, Gil-White and co, or continue being a
laughing stock. Can you? Or are making shit up as usual?
I suggest you talk to your turfie supervisor and upgrade your training
with a crash course in basic logic and controversy if you plan on
playing scientist supergenuis on usenet. As it is you are one of the
least convincing internet sock puppets I have come across, I suggest a
easier assignment, perhaps peddling murcury amalgum dental fillings or
defending aspertame in the health groups... nah that would also be to
technical for you..hmmm... water flouridatation? Do peopole still talk
about that? Maybe just posting racist hate propoganda regarding
muslims in the political groups is more to your level. Keep it simple,
stupid.
Cheers.
666
Well Quirk it looks like we have come to the end. You were tested
with the Kenyan thing and you failed the test. All you had to do was
research (actually a simple google) and you would have found the
Science paper or at least references to it and others. Try to track
it down it's pretty good. This references it
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002505.html you'll need a
subscription to Science to see the Science paper which I'm sure you
don't have. That was it, a very simple test. But you failed.
All you had to was come back with something like "hey man, that's new
to me, tell me more". But I really don't think you have any interest
in learning even when presented with compelling evidence. You have
made up your mind already and nothing is going to change it. I'm
truly sorry to hear it as you have excellent writing skills but as I
see every day, excellent writing skill does not translate into the
ability to think and reason.
But, I'm having another great day so I'll give you a starting point
for the rest just in case others are listening in. This will be my
last post to you on this topic and I'll give you the last word but you
won't be hearing back as lets fact it, you haven't contributed
anything to this conversation is a very long time.
So, once you accept the science of multilocus allele clusters and
other supporting genetic facts AND you agree with the Kenyan thing you
will obviously understand that a population of people can and DO have
a genetic advantage at some types of athletics. You really need to
get the whole "black race" thing out of your head. I have never said
ALL blacks just isolated sub populations. The reason that a
population can have these sorts of genetic advantages is due to
isolation in an environment and in-breeding but that should be
obvious. It's not necessarily breeding but in-breeding for genetic
similarity.
Then, you have to understand a bit of North American black history.
1) Most NA blacks (at least 80%) have a slavery ancestry. Why? The
civil rights movement changed many things but before that it was
virtually unheard of for a white to marry a black. It just didn't
happen very often. Therefore the descendants of black slaves almost
always mated with descendants of black slaves resulting in an isolated
population at least from the perspective of breeding. Sure, very few
blacks exist that never interacted with non blacks but ultimately the
amount of interaction is very small at least relative to non blacks.
It is actually the socioeconomic environment ( that you usually don't
understand ) and skin colour that resulted in isolation and consistent
relative in-breeding. Note, we're not talking about all blacks, just
those with the "proper" ancestry but as it turns out we are talking
about most NA blacks. The point is, this is where your socioeconomic
environment plays a huge role in keeping the population gentically
isolated. Another thing to understand is that before the civil rights
movement blacks didn't dominate like they do now because they were
considered second class citizens and weren't give the opportunity.
Now that they can have the opportunity their true ability rises to the
top.
2) Now that we have an isolated group we need to go back a bit
farther. From African selection criteria to survival on transport
ships, to extreme living conditions while being slaves, to some
breeding programs the result is further isolation and refinement but
it's even farther back in time. It's pretty similar to the Kenyan
thing. Of course, some people will go as far as the West African idea
and if that's the case then the slavery thing would only reinforce an
existing advantage.
If you put all the pieces together that I have outlined you'll learn
that not only are these ideas possible but they are probable but
definitely not certain. The human genome is obviously the key.
I'm saying it's probable, not certain, anyone that says it's
impossible CAN'T be certain. Then why do they claim it? They are
after all, wrong. Think about that one really hard. On both sides of
the coin you have people saying things for reasons other than science.
Then, finally look at why you say what you are saying when you know
that basically you are wrong or at the very least you know that you
can't be certain yet you claim 100% certainty in a very uncertain
situation. For this one you'll have to dig very deep into yourself
and be warned, I don't think you're going to like what you find.
Quirk, I recommend that you go over our discussion and do the things I
suggested that you do along the way. Keep an open mind and
particularly try to understand the opposite point of view to your own.
Only studying your own side of the coin will only reinforce incorrect
assumptions. The true key to learning is to take a risk and explore
what you don't want to hear. Only then can you truly gain knowledge.
The last word is yours. Good luck.
Quirk
> On 10 Sep 2006 03:56:05 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
> That was it, a very simple test. But you failed.
You have failed to make an argument, your attempt to suggest that I
need to make your argument for you only demonstrates your dishonesty
and lack of ability to make a logical statement.
> But I really don't think you have any interest
> in learning even when presented with compelling evidence.
You have presented no evidence of any kind, compelling or otherwise,
you have only presented inistence and allusion to expert knowledge you
plainly do not have while dismissing out of hand the many well
articulated arguments from actual specialists who are researching this
very issue.
> Then, you have to understand a bit of North American black history.
>
> 1) Most NA blacks (at least 80%) have a slavery ancestry. Why? The
> civil rights movement changed many things but before that it was
> virtually unheard of for a white to marry a black.
1- This has no relationship to, or correlation with athletic
achievement
2- African Americans have substantial "White" ancestry, and are among
the most geneticaly diverse populations in the world.
3- As most slaves who arrived in America where not "black," A large
percentage of non-blacks also have slave ancestry.
All this has been explained to you. You simply refuse to understand the
facts of objective reality.
> 2) Now that we have an isolated group we need to go back a bit
> farther. From African selection criteria to survival on transport
> ships, to extreme living conditions while being slaves,
> breeding programs the result is further isolation and refinement but
> it's even farther back in time.
Here you are repeating the same long debunked fiction about African
slaves being either picked or bred for body-type, or having to endure
transport substantially different from that endured by the non-black
population of colonial America. All this is pure fantasy.
> to some It's pretty similar to the Kenyan thing.
Yes, it is very simular to the Kenyan thing: Pure drivel than
demonstrates your lack of any supporting evidence and willingness to
lie about it, and posture as if you have some special expert knowledge,
which you for some reason are unable to directly cite.
> I'm saying it's probable, not certain, anyone that says it's
> impossible CAN'T be certain. Then why do they claim it?
No one is claiming anything is impossible, perhaps it may be possible
to employ a combination of eugenics and issolation to create an
athletic super race. We can not know this as NOTHING LIKE THIS HAS EVER
HAPPENED IN ACTUAL HISTORY. No such "race" exists.
Further, studies regarding the actual characteristics of athletes
indicate that they do not share much in the way of inbred physical
characteristics anyway, thus breeding for an undefined set of
characteristics seems like a losing strategy to begin with, especially
when training and motivation, neither of which are inbred, are the
major factors in althetic performance.
You have been unable to list any actual inhereted physical
characteristics that correlate to atheletic supperiority and you have
been unable to cite even a single scientist who has drawn the same
conclusions as you from the available data.
In summery, you are a laughing stock.
Cheers.
Ryoga Hibiki
Please excuse me for the delay.
On 28 Aug 2006 03:32:37 -0700, "Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote:
>The point is by supporting the idea of common charactistics shared by
>"Blacks" you implicetly support the existence of both positive and
>negative ones, regardless of which you actually claiming exist.
>Your contention that "Blacks" are naturally better basketball players
>leaves you with nothing to dispute the possibility of "Whites" having a
>higher IQ, especially as your "evidence" is the same begged question as
>presented by those claming the later.
you need to understand what we're talking about, because this
discussion is leading nowhere.
We might look at two different "facts":
1) the best businessmen, doctiors, lawyers, engineers, scientists are
white (not really that true, the best engineers are indians and
pakistani, actually)
2) the best basketball athletes are black
this two facts have nothing in common, as they might share the same
explanation as they might not.
There's no logical evidence that explaining #2 through genetics forces
anyone to use genetics for #1, too.
>The same evidence you are using is available: Your begged question
>based on claiming that many basketball players are black, thus "blacks"
>are better at basketball.
no man, you're making generalizations ignoring what the real point is.
I've been, since the beginning of this goddamned thread, insisting
that black people are showing a *phisical* superiority in certain
aspects (combination of quickness, speed and power), and that's what's
making them better players. PHISICAL, I want you to explain me this,
just the PHISICAL superiority.
Then I can add that in most sports where black people with west
african ancestors have access to, they're showing the same kind of
superiority in those aspects, even when it doesn't translate in the
same dominance overall because they're lacking somethingelse.
I've yet to find a sport where white people show to be faster and more
powerful than the black ones.
Pay attention that in the above paragraphs I've just pointed out some
evidences, the black superiority in certain athletic qualities.
To me that's a fact, I insist once again that there's no sport where
white players are looking faster and more powerfull.
Until someone shows me that it's not true, that there are sports
dominated by white people because of their phisical superiority in
power, speed and quickness, sports where balck have access too, I'll
never consider that sociological explanation 100% valid.
All the great scholars you've quotes, have yet to do that.
They don't really know what genes do what, so they can't prove me that
the genes that regulate the natural predisposition to certain athletic
qualities aren't more frequent in some group than in others.
Even when you're telling me races don't exist, I couldn't care less:
so what? All I'd need to prove my point would be showing evidence of
some correlation between genes that make the skin darker and the
yet-to-be-discovered ones for natural athletic abilities, as you'd
need to show how that correlation just isn't there.
Everything else is a smokescreen: at his point, no matter what
biologists say, they just *can't* do that. All the interesting
discussions about the outdated concept of race is not really that
relevant.
Instead, they came out with some sociological explanations that I'm
fully free to find not valid once understood their arguments and the
data they're basing them on.
AFAIK they don't explain:
- how the type phisical dominance in basketball is not replicated by
any other race in any other sport
- how you see flashes of that phisical dominance in ther sports, too
- how a small group that have *the same access* to a sport than a
bigger one, but only less choice (that's the argument, isn't it?), can
phisically dominated a sport with no genetic advantage. A rich men
sport, also, where millions of people in the world are contending
their superiority
Once again, I'd like to know a sport phisically dominated by white
people with their power, speed and quickness.
--
Ryoga Hibiki (Marco Fracasso)
icq: #132215537 mail: ryogahibiki(at)inwind.it
"Players ALONE don't win championships, organizations do"
Jerry Krause B,SVAODNEVCUQQOOPJVE