That’s not really true. Every Jewish kid has the opportunity to play basketball and most do at a young age. Granted, there might be some who take themselves out of the athletic pool, but It’s not the same situation at all. Unless you want to claim that Black kids had access and motivation to compete in basketball 60 or 70 years ago.
Opportunity? That doesn’t create a valid statistical sample.
I notice you dodged the other examples that I included.
It would seem that you are the one attempting a distraction.
My overall point–that picking any ethnic group’s superiority in an athletic field when the duration of that superiority is of limited duration is bad logic–remains true.
I dont’ know.
Isn’t the fact that most Chess Grandmasters are Russian evidence that there’s a chess gene that’s far more common amongst Russians than non-Russians?
Deep Blue has Russian genes? 
Perhaps his programmers were Russians.
So, do you agree that Jewish success in basketball decades ago is a bad example? Is it fair to take your non-defense of that point as an admission? Just want to be sure I understand you.
As far as your overall point, no one is saying that we can look at any instance of domination in any sport and be able to claim that that group’s success is due to genetics. That’s a straw man fit for Burning Man. The question has to be asked, are a all races/groups represented? Do they have access? Interest? As I mentioned earlier, NO ONE here is of the opinion that the dominance of Whites on the U.S. Ski Team is an indicator that Whites have some genetic predisposition making them batter skiers. That may be true. It may not. (Which would be my guess.) We are looking at sprinting. Everyone has participated in sprinting. Every kid plays tag and basic games that involve running away from or after someone. Kids progress to see who is the fastest. This is natural play. Later, kids play organized sports. Something that Black kids and White kids do to rather equal percentages. If you look at raw numbers, WAY more White kids play sports. And, again due to the pure numbers, I’d venture to say that WAY more white kids play football in high school. If the natural talent was evenly distributed between Blacks and Whites, one would expect to see roughly percentages at each position that align with the White/Black breakout. One would then expect to see roughly the same percentages at the college level. But we don’t see that. We see the percentages at at each position move toward the heavily skewed distribution you see in the NFL, as shown in the link provided earlier. And at the elite level, you then see the virtual exclusion of Whites from the speed position. When you look at 100 meter athletes, the distribution is even more glaring.
So that is why we look at football. And sprinting. There is a suggestion there that Blacks are genetically predisposed to be faster sprinters than Whites.
There is NO such suggestion in all sports. Nor dare I say, any other sport. So, it is not anyone’s job to defend any dominance at any point in time by any group. People should be asked to defend the claims they’ve made. Not one’s they have not made.
What do you think? And why?
Define “Whites” and define “Blacks”.
Thanks.
I was making a joke. I thought that was obvious.
I think it would be idiotic to even entertain the notion that there was such a thing as a Russian chess gene.
The reason why Jewish success in basketball is relevant is because of what the society at large attributed their success: innate ability.
As you may know, Jews were often depicted as devious and opportunistic and this was believed to be part of their core, their ‘genetic’ makeup so to speak. This in many ways mirrors the constant mantra of African-American success in sports being due to their innate abilities, with little regard to society, culture and how the combination creates a top performer.
For the African-American and blacks in general, just like the Jews before them; many believe that their success comes not from hard work, but by simply doing what comes natural.
I’ve posted this link in the past and I think it’s still relevant because it addresses many of the points in this thread.
I’m underwhelmed, and I think you know why.
This is a specious argument, advanced only by those wanting to cloud the facts.
The Jewish kids who came to dominate the NBA and then stopped did so only because the NBA became open to all and they were no longer able to compete. Not to mention that during those days it was not a multi-million dollar career which would be preferentially chosen by anyone with aptitude for it.
When the NBA was opened to all and became a job opportunity that would reasonably be chosen above all others (assuming one had a choice), THEN the cream could rise to the top out of all groups. One can now reasonably say: The NBA is now open to all. The ratio of wannabe whites to wannabe blacks is hugely in favor of whites and the nurturing opportunity favors whites. Therefore if blacks kick their basketball asses in actually securing an opportunity in the NBA, it’s nature and not nurture. This is not perfectly true in any sports example anywhere, but it the NBA it’s pretty much black and white, which is why I use it. Open to both groups; sought after as the first goal for both groups; clear distinction in nurturing advantage to whites; clear performance superiorty as the sole reason for dominance by blacks over whites.
If you want to argue that whites just abrograte their NBA dreams because they are too lazy to practice hard or would rather have a quiet corporate career, have at it. I’m underwhelmed, as I said.
This pretense that it was the Jews yesterday, the blacks now and might be the Inuit tomorrow is not worthy of you, because you know it’s silly.
But if you insist on holding it and proclaiming it, it does make the facts of nature less painful. Creationists have been proclaiming the same for years: We’re all the same, pretty much. Sure we are. In fact we all just showed up on the planet recently and we’ve all got the same genes.
People who Self-identify with the category White.
People who Self-identify with the category Black.
As it turns out, these SIRE groups correlate amazingly well with those who have genetic mixes of either mostly (recent) European stock or of (recent) sub-saharan stock.
They are horribly broad categories, with a large social construct that overlays them. For instance, someone with a 50% admixture of each might describe himself as “black.”
But as an average rule of thumb, a self-description of Black or White assigns a greater probability for genes belonging to one pool or the other. So, for instance, if there is a gene set for sprinting that is most prevalent in blacks from West Africa, a SIRE group of black gives me a greater chance of having that gene set than a SIRE group of white.
These debates often degenerate into arguments about how finely to lump or split. But that’s not the argument here. The argument is: If you do lump into these two groups for sprinting/basketball, is the performance difference genetic? It is, even if the categories are not otherwise internally related genetically.
Think of this example of grouping. The Tall, over 6 feet, and the short, under 5 feet. Possible explanations are nurture (nutrition, or stretching, or something) and nature–genes. Normalize for the nurture, and the difference is genetic.
It makes no difference if the Tall group is otherwise genetically related or if they are good groups, or if there are social constructs around who gets to call themselves Tall, or anything else.
So the argument at hand is that power sprinting sports and the NBA–two areas where there is clear inclusion at the front end of all groups, clear normalization of nurturing, and clear differences in outcomes–are strong examples that nature (gene differences) are at play.
It’s not about whether or not we should categorize people as black or white. That’s a social argument built for a social construct.
NO. The Jewish example is imperfect, but it reamins an historic phenomenon. Absent the black players, are you really claiming that all the Germans, Irish, Anglo-Saxons, and others were hopelessly outclassed by the Jewish players? Are you saying that Jewish players would be the second best players in the NBA, now? Where are they?
Looking at an example of an ethnic domination of a sport for a limited period to arrive at a “genetic” explanation is simply cherry picking and that is true whether it is Jewish players in previous years or black players, today.
And I see you are still avoiding the other examples.
Bullshit. It is a claim made repeatedly on this board for a dozen years. Not every racialist makes the claim, but it is made often and with sufficient consistency that a claim that it is a straw man is utter balderdash.
And the suggestion is valid to the point where someone would actually make the effort to do a rigorous scientific examination. So far, no one has done any such thing. They have looked at a couple of countries with some suggestive testimony and drawn a conclusion without actually doing the real work to discover the truth.
As I noted earlier, it shoud not be that difficult to actually compare the DNA of top sprinters and then go back to the various points of origin to discover the actual locales where similar DNA is found and then check relative speed of people from those locales. Until someone does the science to show that, everything is speculative.
As to your insistence that anyone can and everyone does sprint and that, therefore, any perceived differences must be innate: I am sure that you believe that, but you have not actually provided a reason for anyone else to accept your belief. It may be true that sprinting requires less training than more complex sports, but it is only your belief that training cannot improve it. (I know, you said you could never improve your speed, but that is a bit anecdotal for a serious discussion. We don’t even know whether you had a decent coach schooled in sprinting.)
You have provided no facts, and, like magellan01, you are avoiding the broader argument.
To whom was it closed previously? The NBA was really discriminating against Irish and Italians? Now whose claims are specious?
And if you want to run away after building a straw man, go ahead, but that is not what I said.
More straw men? Talk about “unworthy” of a position.
I have never made any claim that all populations have the same genes. I have never made any claim that all populations have the same capacities for all efforts. That sort of “you [liberals?] just think we’re all equal” argument is the sort employed by NDD and over at Stormfront. I have made no such statement. I have been pretty consistent for a very long time in making two points: 1) that if we are going to make claims about populations, we need to identify those populations accurately; 2) that when someone tries to make a population discussion into a “race” discussion, it will inevitably be used to make a broad and misleading claim about a much larger group than the population examined.
You do it here when you talk about “blacks” and “whites” even though you try to avoid that discussion at the end. Most of this discussion has at least focused on people from the west coast of sub-Saharan Africa. As soon as you use the word “blacks,” you have included people from the East coast, from Madagascar and Southern Africa, and from Namibia, as well as the central regions. If you are going to use fuzzy language and make broad claims, then you are supporting the people who really do think like NDD and a few of our current racialists who spend a lot of time trying to lump together unlike people based on accidents of pigment and geography. If that bothers you, then use more precise language.
And you really should not accuse me of things I have never said when my words are still posted where we can see that I never said them.
No. I’m saying that the Jewish kids did well because so few other “groups” embraced the sport the way they did. Blacks, Hispanics, and smaller ethnic groups were simply not present. Also, you go back far enough and gym shoes were a luxury that the poorest ethnic groups could not even think about.
YES! It is cherry picking!! Of course it is!!! Because—again—NO ONE is saying that all domination by any group at any time in any sport can be explained by genetics. You keep offering up this straw man. Now, if you look at sprinting or the speed positions in today’s NFL—YES, CHERRY PICKING!—you are faced with the very strong suggestion that the tastes humans share a genetic advantage.
Sigh. Oh, all those ones that have a weak suggestion of there being a genetic component? How about instead I argue for positions I do hold? if you have a specific question you’d like to ask about a particular instance of domination in a particular sport, ask away.
Have I made such a claim? Has anyone in this discussion made that claim? If not, why do you bring it up? If so, please point to who in this discussion did so.
First, I have not claimed that any difference is or must be innate. I have stated repeatedly that training can improve performance. That’s unquestionable. My point is—and still is—that you can’t take someone of average speed and turn him into a speed demon. My reason for believing so is real world observation spent playing sports. Anecdotal, yes. But it seems so obvious that the burden falls to you and others who choose to take the (apparently) ridiculous position that one can become a speed demon without the right genes present.
Again, I never said that training could not improve one’s sprinting ability. I never said it because I don’t believe it. Training would help anyone be faster. But faster doesn’t equal FAST.
Please tell me you got a good deal on all the straw.
Why? I’ll just use the stuff you’ve ripped out of the arguments you have attributed to me that I have not made. You are getting all worked up over things I have not said and it has gotten boring.
I will note:
which looks pretty much like you are mistaken in your claim, (unless you are deliberately twisting my words to claim that I am arguing against all sports on all occasions, which would be a position you have imagined and is not in my text).
The domination by specific groups on specific occasions is often attributed to genetics and when counter examples are provided for the same sports, the genetics people fall back on the aspects of opportunity and environment that they dismiss when talking abut their favorite “example” of genetics. *::: shrug ::: * I will wait until the science is undertaken before I get caught up in defending specualtive stuff. So far, the science regarding actual populations has not been carried out.
I have been making claims regarding sprinting and the speed positions in the NFL. Both of those require great natural sprinting ability. Training will improve anyone’s performance, but you must be born fast to begin with.
Do you agree with those positions or not?
And then you ask me to talk about Jewish basketball success, which I do NOT think is genetically based. 
Note all you want. But you keep asking me to defend shit I’ve not said. Please stop it. My position is that I think there is strong evidence for a genetic determining factor when it comes to sprinting. Not basketball, not cricket, not curling, not hurling, not fencing, not baseball, not wrestling, not jujitsu, not gold, not skiing, not pistol shooting, not rugby, not synchronized swimming, not hockey, not archery, and not quiditch. Sprinting. Period. As it applies to track and field and the speed positions in football.
(emphasis added)
Please restrict asking me to support positions to those positions I actually hold and have put forth.
Perhaps a large farm interest would be interested in purchasing that which you seem to have an endless supply of.
You first.
Here is where the confusion began:
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
[QUOTE=magellan01]
The era of Jewish basketball success is always brought up, but it’s a distraction. The Jewish kids didn’t have to compete with any real umbers of black kids. You can’t just take a moment in time and look at who might be dominating the sport. You have to ask if at that same time all groups were competing in a serious way.
[/QUOTE]
I notice you dodged the other examples that I included.
It would seem that you are the one attempting a distraction.
My overall point–that picking any ethnic group’s superiority in an athletic field when the duration of that superiority is of limited duration is bad logic–remains true.
[/QUOTE]
So, after you offered your Jewish basketball example and I dealt with that—with no attempted defense by you—you insist in making the general statement about a general ethnic group in an (generic) athletic field. This, taken in tandem with your previous post, is asking me to defend a position I do not hold (and I don’t think is held by anyone in this thread) and have specifically disavowed earlier in the thread. So, you can stop with the Argumentum ad Humongous Scarecrow.
Good? Good.