You’ve managed to confuse me, I’ll admit.
If you’re going to make comments like the above then you shouldn’t follow it up by responding to another comment like you were an 11-year-old.
Now, please explain what was wrong with my comment. Also, I’d recommend looking up both “Political correctness” and “honest scientific inquiry” since your last comment doesn’t inspire confidence in your knowledge of or ability to analyze either.
Thanks
If you were talking about sports that required the acquisition of skill, like baseball and hockey, I’d say you were right. Hell, that was even true, bout to a lesser extent, of basketball. But speed isn’t a thing you need to be taught. You are either fast or you aren’t. Training, coaching nutrition, etc, can help you improve among the set of people born with abilities near your own, but it really can’t move you from a B+ runner to an A+ runner. Assuming those others are getting coached/trained, as well.
Yeah, but science is not to supposed be concerned with that. Something either true or it isn’t. But I see your point about people worrying about the worst. But I think it’s dumb. Races are different. This shouldn’t be surprising. We see outward manifestations of this with height, stature, hair type, skin color, facial features. It should be not surprising at all if there were differences that become evident through performance.
I see. And Brazilians go around conducting genetic tests to determine this? What genetic markers do they use?
My definition of black: Most Americans would say “Hey, that’s a black guy”.
My definition of white: Most Americans would say “Hey, that’s a white guy”.
I understand that some people won’t fall into either category as they are or appear mixed, I understand that there won’t be 100% agreement, but I think it is good enough.
Yes, I am aware of the racist mess in the Pit. I PARTICIPATED in it.
However, it’s patently silly to ask for definitions of white/black in this context.
Until a few hundred years ago, West Africa, East Africa, and Europe were very genetically-distinct places. Distinct to a VERY statistically-significant degree, in terms of morphology. That’s mathematically verifiable, feel free to research it.
Even today, there are literally hundreds of millions of people who are still either pure Northern European, pure West African, or pure East African.
My very scientifically-verifiable point is that there are statistically-significant differences in morphology that track VERY well with geography. Any good physical anthropologist has done multiple papers on this very fact.
Really, it’s not all that different than the variations in morphology between the big cats. Cheetahs can run 70 MPH. Lions can barely do 50 MPH. However, a cheetah could never beat a full-grown lion in a one-on-one fight-to-the-death. They’re both big cats, but they have very different prey and hunting strategies. Speed versus strength.
Sorry for that.
Anyway, Treis seems to think that it’s obvious who is “black” and who is “white”.
He also seems to feel that the Brazilian understandings of those terms, or at least that of “white” is correct.
I’m asking him to explain how he defines “black” and “white” since by Brazilian logic there are very few “blacks” in the NFL and the “blacks” in the NFL are dramatically outnumbered by “whites”.
Anyway, hopefully, he’ll respond and explain what he meant when he referred to some people as “black” and others as “white”.
Clearly we don’t have any physical anthropologists on the board. They would set you people straight in a heartbeat.
I guess where it becomes confusing for me is you said that Brazilian definitions of “white” are very restrictive, more restrictive even than American definitions, so by Brazilian reckoning, aren’t there fewer whites in the NFL?
Thank you for admitting then that your definitions are illogical and based on pseudo-scientific bullshit rather than anything that could be described as logical or objective as well as being hopeless provincial and based on a rather narrow-minded, ignorant, Americo-centric view of the world.
I also think it’s hysterically funny when you say “I understand that some people won’t fall into either category or appear mixed” when the overwhelming majority of African-Americans “appear mixed” and to the people of virtually all countries where the majority of the population is of Sub-Saharran descent “won’t fall into either category”.
Now, by your rather sulkily quoting my comment regarding Brazil you seem to be implying that you agree with the Brazilian definition of “white”.
So, why do you disagree with the Brazilian definition of “black”?
I’m in agreement with the last part of this, but not the first. As I just said in my previous post, culture matters not when it comes to skills that require no training to acquire.
If that was all that goes on in these threads I’d be in agreement. What gets me is that people have such an intense desire to not have it be the case that something like speed can have a genetic component, and then it may correlate along racial lines. And there’s always the old stand-by, “Well, that might be true, but you’re assuming there are things called “races”.” Yeesh. Talking about speed really is a perfect example for the discussion, because as I mentioned, it’s really not an acquired skill. And it’s something kids of all backgrounds and cultures engage in. And the fact is, you’re either fast or your not. Period.
What makes you think that Brazilian definitions of white are “more restrictive” than “American definitions”?
By Brazilian standards, Adolph Plessy or Plessy V. Ferguson fame was a white or “Blanc” while by American standards he was a negro.
Anyway, by Brazilian standards, “whites” are people of 100% European descent and people who are of 100% European descent vastly outnumber people of 100% African descent in the NFL.
Reposting, in case it got lost in the shuffle.
You participated in it and still don’t actually understand the difference between the cultural meaning of races and the genetic meaning?
Because people Americans would call “white” often have some non-European heritage. You didn’t define what Brazilians would call “black,” unless I missed it.
But Plessy was not 100% of European descent. This is where my confusion lies.
Basketball, baseball, and hockey all acquire the acquisition of skills. Speed is important in all of those sports. Basketball is dominated by black players; hockey and baseball are not. Do you think there are genetic explanations for that?
We were discussing why people are uncomfortable with these sorts of theories. The answer is that they’re not well supported by science, the implications are ugly, and whenever they’re brought up, racial stereotypes never seem to be far behind.
No, they aren’t.
I would actually find that very surprising. But that’s another way in which this thread is typical: the title says “blacks run faster,” but as the discussion went on, it was narrowed to “black descendants of slaves run faster,” then “West African blacks run faster” and “maybe people whose descendants come from a particular region in Senegal run faster.” It starts off as a racial generalization that isn’t supported by evidence, then gets repeatedly narrowed down to an more plausible idea that is supported by some anecdotes but not by real hard evidence Then people start using it as an example of racial differences even though it’s no longer a generalization about races. So when you impugn the motives and reasonability of people who are uncomfortable with these theories and unpersuaded of their validity, I consider that a bluff.
I doubt it. Ted Williams had exceptionally acute eyesight, considerably better than 20-20. He claimed that this was a large contributing factor to his hitting. And the fact is that being tall is a real disadvantage for a good batting average. Winfield was unusual in this regard. Whereas a good majority of the players who do at least as well in the NBA are over 6’6".
You seem desperate to ignore the fact that different sports align with different physical gifts. And within each sport, different positions align with different physical gifts. Look at the breakdown of the NFL that’s been provided. Look at sprinters in the Olympics.
You can’t start playing professional baseball at 30 and expect much no matter how tall you are. Dave Winfield was just as tall as Jordan and seems to have worked out okay.
Do you just not have the time to read post I just made about morphology and geography? I even reposted it.
If you don’t think geography tracks with morphology, look at Usain Bolt, Carl Lewis, and Michael Johnson. All West-African-descended, all thin guys, but they definitely have some muscles.
Then compare them to the Kenyan steeplechase and marathon winners. Those guys barely have enough flesh to cover their bones. They have enough muscle to move around at a decent speed, and not a bit more.
Then take a look at the average Russian powerlifter. Slab-muscled, with a sizeable gut, and strong as a fucking ox, so to speak.
Yes, some of these differences are due to training.
However, nobody on this thread is stupid enough to think there’ll ever be an East-African-descended world champion powerlifter.
Whatever. You asked for my definition of black. I gave it, and I can only assume the writer used the same standard. If you want to say the facts I gave are wrong because the author doesn’t know how to identify a black person, just say so and we will all think you are being ridiculously obtuse. No reason for all of this rigmarole.
Yep.