# Fisher DeBerry and the Elephant in the Locker Room (sports and race related) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023 "2005-10-26T17:35:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/41 "2005-10-27T22:09:22Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > If Ethiopians and Kenyans are great long distance runners does that make them a seperate race from those on the west coast who are better sprinters? **Marc** makes a good point, one that seems to be overlooked by those who wish to lump together two different populations based on outward physical appearances. Either Africans (Blacks) have a genetic predisposition to being great sprinters (fast-twitch muscles), or they have a genetic disposition to being great long distance runners (slow-twitch muscles) - which is it? Where’s the logic of categorizing someone from Kenya with someone from Nigeria, when it would make more sense to put someone from Kenya with someone from Morocco? Furthermore, why categorize someone who currently resides in West Africa with someone who currently resides in the US who is of (largely) African decent? A large segment of the African-American population in the United States is of mixed heritage (good chunk of European and Amerind) - who’s to say that genetic elements from those groups haven’t contributed significantly to the African-American gene-pool allowing them to excel in sprinting (if you believe that there is a genetic component to it)? Race as a biolgical construct is untenable - Better to refer to populations that share a given genetic trait (or cluster of traits). ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/42 "2005-10-27T22:09:25Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > What statistics would these be? Can we see them? And can we see the level of significance of these statistics. > > > [@](#): > > > > [Here](http://kenya.com/runners.html) is an interesting article that goes into it. I suggest reading the whole article, but here are some extracts:… You have totally avoided the question and introduced a Red Herring. I asked for statistics, and the significance levels of those statistics. You have provided no statistics at all, and no significance levels. All you have done is produced a lot of anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not data. > [@](#): > > But this “implication” [that white people can never be as fast as halfbacks] is not rooted in logic. Just because Icelanders tend to be taller than Japanese, doesn’t mean that a aprticular Japanese person couldn’t be taller than all Icelanders. And if that was the case, that doesn’t mean that the general proposition that Icelanders are taller than Japanese is true. That’s perfectly correct. Which is exactly my point. De Berry’s claims that whites can never be as fast as Blacks is not rooted in logic. Hence it’s a baseless racist stereotype. > [@](#): > > No. The larger difference is that one goes the the limitations of the human body, the other goes to behavior (and socail conditions). That’s a blatant false dichotomy magellan01. You have two choices here. Either you are claiming that running ability is not in any way linked to behaviour and social conditions or you are claiming that criminality is not in any way linked to the limitations of the human body. Either contention is demonstrably bollocks and once you yell me which position you are arguing for I wil provide countless references proving it to be bollocks. > [@](#): > > Even if it’s true? Exactly how many facts are you willing to quash in the name of political correctness? Congratulations. I have my own version of Godwin’s Law that I apply in these race debates. Instead of Hitler I measure how long it takes for someone to accuse their opposition of being either PC or racist depending on the position they adopt. You’ve managed it on your second post. Now lets; abandon the strawman shall we? Nobody is saying that we quash facts in the name of anything. Of course if you wish to contend that De Berry’s claims are facts then role out the references. Not that Blacks “tend to be faster’ not ‘are usually faster’. Show your references that they are faster. And then trot out your references that show that a team needs a minimum number of Black players to be successful. Can’t do it? Then these aren’t facts we are quashing are they? They are just racist stereotypes aren’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/43 "2005-10-27T22:34:22Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > How is saying that blacks are better runners claiming that blacks are superior to other races? How can you possibly contend that it it not. You are claiming that Blacks have superior speed. I really don’t see how anyone can even ask this question. You really need to clarify what you don’t get when I say that a claim of “Blacks are better runners than Whites” is a claim that “blacks are superior runners to Whites.” I just don’t understand how anyone could dispute this point. > [@](#): > > Leg speed is a measurable physical phenomenon, just like height. If African-Americans, on average, are taller than Asian-Americans, is it racist to say so? No. But nobody has said that Blacks are faster on average than whites. I made that point repeatedly and clearly in the post you just quoted from. De Berry has said that Blacks are faster than White. Not faster on average, Simply faster. Period. > [@](#): > > Saying that black athletes are faster is indeed racist. It is quite clearly based on a belief that race accounts for a difference in the ability to run fast, and that Negroes are superior to other races in this regard. > > > [@](#): > > > > You are assuming causation where none is required. No, I am not. I am pointing out a fact. Saying that Blacks are faster runners is saying that Blacks are superior runners. It is claiming that one race is superior to others. What part of that simple chain of reasoning do you dispute? > [@](#): > > That blacks are superior **runners**. Why can’t that be truer? Truer than what? Truer than saying “The moon is made of cheese”? This is the Straight Dope. We don’t pander to ignorance. Either something is true or it ain’t. That something is less completely ignorant than something else does not permit us to encourage it. It’s still ignorance. > [@](#): > > Why is saying that one race is superior in one thing the same as saying that it is superior overall? It isn’t. Of course the definition of racism doesn’t require that a claim be made that a race is superior in all things in order for the claim tpo be racist. So this is a total Straw Man. Nobody in the entire history of the world has ever said that any race was superior in all ways. Therefore by your bizarre standard nobody has ever been racist. Adolph Hitler believed that Jews were superior thieves. The KKK believes that black people are superior dancers and better at eating Fried Chicken. So according to your ‘reasoning’ those two entities were/are not racist. That’s utter nonsense of course. > [@](#): > > It justifies making generalizations about blacks with respect to sports where speed is a key element. No, no it doesn’t. No more than the fact that most New Orleans looters were Black justifies making generalizations about blacks with respect to social behaviour where criminality is a key element. Simple gainsaying is not constructing an argument. You can’t simply say that A justifies B. You need to explain what your justification is. > [@Brickbacon](#): > > DeBerry was talking about black athletes, not all black people. Clearly, all evidence leads us to believe he is factually correct. Does it really? Can we see this evidence that allows us to conclude that Blacks athletes are faster than White athletes? Not that they tend to be faster, not that they are faster on average. I want to see this evidence that led you to believe that DeBerry is factually correct when he claims that “black athletes … are faster”. IOW… CITE! > [@](#): > > What he said was not racist because he was talking about athletes, and not the general population. CITE. Can we please see the definition of ‘racist’ that precludes a statement if it refers to only a limited subsection of the population? By this reasoning if I claim that “Black Californians are criminals” or “Black college students are cheats” what I say is not racist because I am not talking about the general population. I want to see a good reference or some compelling argument to support that assertion. > [@](#): > > He didn’t say whites (or anyone else) couldn’t be as fast, just that they usually aren’t when it comes to football (which is true). No, that’s completely untrue. He said that ““ he wanted to recruit more black athletes because they are faster.” Simple as that. Nothing about usually being faster. He made the blanket statement that they are faster. > [@](#): > > For every Don Beebe, there are ten faster black athletes. And if I’m looking for speed, I not trying to find the next Don Beebe. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/44 "2005-10-27T22:50:20Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, that’s completely untrue. He said that ““ he wanted to recruit more black athletes because they are faster.” Simple as that. Nothing about usually being faster. He made the blanket statement that they are faster. The guy was speaking off the cuff, not writing a thesis on the subject. I don’t think it’s fair to take someone’s comments that literally when the person doesn’t have the ability to answer back. It would be inconceivable that he thought all black athletes are faster than all white athletes. If he was debating the subject and kept coming back to the same line over and over again I’d not only say he was racist, but off his rocker to boot. Cut the guy some slack-- not everyone can speak in perfectly formed paragraphs, describing well thought out positions like John Roberts. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/45 "2005-10-27T22:51:15Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > as the number of visible black baseball stars declines Do you really think this is happening, or that there have just never been that many in the first place? > [@Blake](#): > > I’m assuming here that we can find statistical evidence showing that Blacks are overwhelmingly more likely to be in those categories than whites. And now we’re back to Square One: Assuming that commonly held beliefs must be true because they’re commonly held, and further assuming that statistics _must_ bear them out because, well, “everyone knows it’s true”. You’ve sabotaged your own point. I don’t know anything about welfare, but I know from research I did about high school drug use a few years back (sorry, I don’t have the access to the cite anymore, and if I did I wouldn’t know where to start looking for it again) that white kids are more likely to use drugs. Mileage tends to vary for specific drugs, but if you lump them all into one category (which is, by the way, a dangerous practice on many levels), the “fact” that more black kids do drugs isn’t borne out by the reality. I found this to be true at my high school, too, which was highly diverse and had a lot of kids from very different socioeconomic backgrounds. > [@Blake](#): > > The real issue IMO is far more complex than that. Then is it as easy as saying yes to one and no to the other, as you said just a sentence before? > [@Blake](#): > > What statistics would these be? Can we see them? Let’s play fair, here. You said that “Negro women are welfare Moms” [sic] and “Negro boys sell drugs” and “a majority of black children are now born to welfare mothers” and “a majority of black men have (a) criminal history” and didn’t even pretend for a second that you had looked any of those “facts” up. You assumed they were true because they’re all widely held beliefs. Notice how I made a claim above that I couldn’t back up with a cite: therefore, by the principles of fair play, I don’t demand that you come up with a cite for your generalizations. But I do ask that you either (a) live up to the standard you demand from others–back up your own claims before you demand that others do it–or (b) don’t ask others to give citations at all. > [@Blake](#): > > One is that most fast halfbacks/heavyweight champions/top selling rap artists/crack dealers/N.O. looters are Black. Those are all undeniable statements of fact. Blacks dominate in all those fields. End of discussion.I don’t know anybody who disputes any of those things. You’ve just made five wide, sweeping claims completely devoid of any sociological backing whatsoever, immediately after demanding cites. Your cite is “End of discussion. I don’t know anybody who disputes any of those things”. Which matters more: who you know, or what the real facts are? Please play on the same level you expect others to. I find it boggling that you argue against the generalization of blacks as faster runners, and then rapidly spit off four other sweeping generalizations and declared them unquestionable as facts without any evidence. > [@John Mace](#): > > And I don’t think you know much about hockey if you think it it doesn’t reward certain physical attributes. I think what he meant to say was that it doesn’t select for _one specific_ physical attribute, but rather that hockey selects for _a range_ of certain physical attributes: for example, weight, height, speed, agility, balance, ability to maximize momentum on skates, hand and arm strength, leg strength…as opposed to the sport of running, which cares about one thing only: “How fast are you?”. > [@MGibson](#): > > IF this is the case then we must have a lot more races then the 5 or 6 they used to teach us about years ago. We do. I could start with specific ethnic divisions commonly accepted within ethnic Judaism _alone_ and almost reach your “5 or 6”: [Sephardic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardic) or Iberian Jews, [Ashkenazic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews), [Mizrahic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews) or Oriental Jews, [Beta Israel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel) or Ethiopian Jews. Each of these populations is a different ethnic group, as evidenced by the seperate lists of diseases that are either specific to or highly selective of the Sephardim and Ashkenazim in the linked articles. What you were taught in school is irrelevant as it’s easily proven false. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/46 "2005-10-27T22:56:37Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No. But nobody has said that Blacks are faster on average than whites. I made that point repeatedly and clearly in the post you just quoted from. De Berry has said that Blacks are faster than White. Not faster on average, Simply faster. Period. The only problem is Fisher DeBerry never said “Blacks are faster than White(s).” From the article that Diogenes started this discussion with we have the following quotes: > [@](#): > > “I just want to recruit speed; we need to find speed as much as anything,” DeBerry, 67, said when asked if he believed there was anything wrong in saying he wanted to recruit more black athletes because they are faster. Notice the placing of the quotation marks there. DeBerry was asked if there was anything wrong in saying he wanted to recruit more black athletes because they are faster, he never said whether it was right or wrong and never even addressed that part of the question. He sidestepped it there and replied that he wanted to recruit “speed.” It was the words of whoever was questioning him that black athletes are faster, I’ve seen no evidence that DeBerry ever said that directly. > [@](#): > > “The black athlete, statistically, from program to program, seems to have an edge as far as speed is concerned.” > [@](#): > > “It was very obvious to me the other day that the other team (TCU) had a lot more African-American players than we did and they ran a lot faster than we did,” DeBerry said Tuesday. "It just seems to be that way. African-American kids can run very well. That doesn’t mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can’t run, but it’s very obvious to me that they run extremely well. Then these two quotes make it obvious that while Fisher DeBerry feels _in general_ that black athletes are faster than white athletes, he certainly didn’t make the sweeping statement that “blacks are faster than whites” and it’s obvious that’s not how he feels or he would qualify his statements and he wouldn’t say they run “well” he’d say they run “better.” ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/47 "2005-10-27T23:07:05Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > This is the Straight Dope. We don’t pander to ignorance. Either something is true or it ain’t. As quick as you are to dismiss everyone else’s claims offhand as unfair generalizations, you don’t waste any time in claiming to speak for everyone else and throwing around your own sweeping brush. I certainly don’t believe that anything either “is true or it ain’t”. I don’t think that anything exists on this digital zero-or-one scale. And anyway, it looks like the “R” at the end of “truer” was hit accidentally. Look at your keyboard: the R is right next to the E. Look at the context: the word “truer” wouldn’t make sense there as something he would say, but “true” would. The speed with which you leap to the conclusion that he’s comparing things on a sliding scale, therefore suggests to me that you’re not taking the time to comprehend what you’re reading. > [@Blake](#): > > Nobody in the entire history of the world has ever said that any race was superior in all ways. Therefore by your bizarre standard nobody has ever been racist. Adolph Hitler believed that Jews were superior thieves…So according to your ‘reasoning’ those two entities were/are not racist. That depends on your definition of ‘superior’. If you consider an excellently-executed crime to be inferior to a poorly-executed but benevolent act of kindness, then you would consider the claims of the Nazi Party and the KKK to amount to “we are superior to them”. > [@Blake](#): > > The KKK believes that black people are superior dancers and better at eating Fried Chicken. Which official Grand Wizard issued a statement claiming that the KKK views African-Americans to be superior dancers and chicken-eaters? Have you ever heard the KKK officially endorse these views, or did you pull them out of your rear? Does the KKK believe these things, or do you? > [@Blake](#): > > most New Orleans looters were Black Here is _yet another_ generalization, and the facts and cites are nowhere to be seen. Meanwhile, you continue to demand cites for every statement which signals disagreement with your opinion. > [@Blake](#): > > Simple gainsaying is not constructing an argument. You can’t simply say that A justifies B. You need to explain what your justification is. Let’s try that. What justifies your claims that African-Americans (1) are usually born to mothers on welfare, (2) are more likely to sell drugs, (3) make up the majority of New Orleans looters, (4) are ‘superior dancers’ or (5) are ‘better at eating Fried Chicken’ [sic]? It’s easy to lob the terms “straw man” and “red herring” at everyone who opposes your views, but can you back up your own blatantly simplified claims? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/48 "2005-10-27T23:17:49Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > Just for the record, the most recent gold medalist and current outdoor world champion in the 400m is a white guy, Jeremy Wariner. And thus you miss the essential point. No NFL running back or corner linebacker is going to run for 400 yards in one stretch. For the record, no white man has broken the 10 second 100 metre sprint barrier. See [Jon Entine](http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/quokka_01.htm) > [@](#): > > Sprints > To better understand the complex story behind this dramatic map, let’s deconstruct the record book. Remember the last time a non-black set the men’s world record in the 100-meter sprint? One has to go back to 1960, when German Armin Hary won the Olympic gold medal in 10.2 seconds. Today, the 100 meter distance is totally monopolized by blacks with West African roots. They are quicker out of the starting blocks and demonstrate blazing speed over short distances. Former “world’s fastest human” Donovan Bailey clocked a mind-bending 27 miles per hour at the mid-point of his record-breaking race at the Atlanta Olympics. > > There are no sprinters of note from Asia, even with more than 50 percent of the world’s population, a Confucian and Tao tradition of discipline, and an authoritarian sports system in place in the most populous country, China. No white sprinter can be found on the list of 100-meter sprinters; the best time by a white, 10 seconds, ranks more than 200th on the all-time list. **Dozens of blacks, every one with a West African ancestry, have cracked the 10-second barrier, but no sprinter of any other race. For top black sprinters, it’s an every-meet occurrence.** > > All of the 32 finalists in the last four Olympic men’s 100-meter races are of West African descent. The likelihood of that happening based on population numbers alone-blacks from that region, now living around the globe, represent approximately 8 percent of the world’s population-is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 percent. Quite frankly, I think DeBerry’s apology is what is insulting to black Americans. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/49 "2005-10-27T23:30:41Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > You have totally avoided the question and introduced a Red Herring. > > I asked for statistics, and the significance levels of those statistics. You have provided no statistics at all, and no significance levels. All you have done is produced a lot of anecdotes. What are you talking about? I found an article that had some interesting statistics in it, I supplied it. Chill out. The informnation wasn’t even asked of me. You confuse me with your assisstant. > [@Blake](#): > > That’s perfectly correct. Which is exactly my point. De Berry’s claims that whites can never be as fast as Blacks is not rooted in logic. Hence it’s a baseless racist stereotype. To my knowledge, that’s not De Barry’s claim, he never said never. You did. And that is what I was responding to. If I am wrong, please show me. > [@Blake](#): > > That’s a blatant false dichotomy magellan01. > > You have two choices here. Either you are claiming that running ability is not in any way linked to behaviour and social conditions or you are claiming that criminality is not in any way linked to the limitations of the human body. Either contention is demonstrably bollocks and once you yell me which position you are arguing for I wil provide countless references proving it to be bollocks. First of all it’s not a dichotomy. Second, you’re confusing the shit out of me. Just because running ability may be linked to environment or behavior does NOT mean that it has a genetic component as well. How can you possibly deny this? I could have trained every day since I could walk to be a world class sprinter, know what, I would have wasted my time. People can get faster and stronger, but there is a genetic limit to what their body can do. Look what the Russins and East Germans do/did with their gymnasts. They identify them very young, give them the best training, and guess what, some wind up better than others. Why mightn’t that apply to larger populations or races. Fact: there are physical differences between races. Do you deny that? Are they all equally tall? Or stock? Or thin? Do you read the link? It talks about contributing factors, but they can’t explain away such strong STATISTICS. I you want the methodology, etc., consult yor assisstant. > [@Blake](#): > > Congratulations. I have my own version of Godwin’s Law that I apply in these race debates. Instead of Hitler I measure how long it takes for someone to accuse their opposition of being either PC or racist depending on the position they adopt. You’ve managed it on your second post. Congratulations on creating your own law. I take it that you’re now working on your own rules of logic. Enjoy the world you are creating in your own head. > [@Blake](#): > > Now lets; abandon the strawman shall we? Nobody is saying that we quash facts in the name of anything. > > Of course if you wish to contend that De Berry’s claims are facts then role out the references. Not that Blacks “tend to be faster’ not ‘are usually faster’. Show your references that they are faster. And then trot out your references that show that a team needs a minimum number of Black players to be successful. Read the link I supplied. I imagine the book they mention there, Taboo, has more STATISTICS. And all anyone is saying is that they tend to be faster, not that they are faster in all cases. Are we in the same thread? > [@Blake](#): > > Can’t do it? Then these aren’t facts we are quashing are they? They are just racist stereotypes aren’t they? Huh? I don’t know what your talking about, but maybe this will help clarify the issue. If I were to conclude that you are not very bright, that’s just me talking about one individual. Right? If I then jumped to the conclusion that all, or most, of those who are the same race of you (whatever it happens to be) are equally dim, that would be a racial stereotype. And be terribly unfair of me. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/50 "2005-10-27T23:42:31Z")
The greatest genetic diversity is in the population with recent African origins. Therefore, for any particular trait subject to a genetic influence one might expect the greatest diversity in that population. Not on average better but more of a spread at the far statistical tails. Given the same opportunities, and same interests, and the same size group, the very best of most everything should be someone Black. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/51 "2005-10-27T23:47:20Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > Even restricting ourselves to non physical gene expressions, the notion of race, as conventionally defined is a useful and valid one. No, it isn’t. It is universally accepted that when it comes to any gene expressions the notion of race, as conventionally defined is a useless and totally lacking in all scientific validity? > [@](#): > > We found that we needed 60 Alu polymorphisms to assign individuals to their continent of origin with 90 percent accuracy. And what precisely do you see this bolded quotation as supporting? You do realise that “continent of origin” does not equal “race”. Lucy Liu, Jesus Christ and Mahatma Ghandi all share a “continent of origin”. Nelson Mandela, Mike Tyson and Muammar Ghadaffi all share a “continent of origin”. And we can map them to that continent with 90% accuracy using this technique. But surely you aren’t claiming that Lucy Liu, Jesus Christ and Mahatma Ghandi are all the same _race_? Or that Nelson Mandela, Mike Tyson and Muammar Ghadaffi are the same _race_? > [@](#): > > The insistance that race plays no factor in a whole host of different behaviours has always seemed incredibly bizarre to me. The idea that the Earth orbited the sun no doubt sounded bizarre to many people as well. Science often produces facts that seem bizarre. That doesn’t mean they aren’t facts. > [@](#): > > On the one hand, we readily concede that race has a very strong correlation with certain genetic expressions related to physical appearance: skin colour, hair colour, hair curliness, hair density, height, etc. Yes. That’s what we call “circular reasoning. First we define a race based on certain genetic expressions leading to specific characteristics of skin colour, hair colour, hair curliness, hair density, etc. Then we argue that race has a very strong correlation with certain genetic expressions related to physical appearance: skin colour, hair colour, hair curliness, hair density, , etc. Circulus in demonstrando > [@](#): > > On the other hand, we dogmatically insist that race has absolutely no correlation with a whole host of other factors: intellectual aptitude, agility, propensity towards violence etc. I don’t think anyone has ever argued that race has no correlation to those things, so it appears to be a strawman. But that doesn’t give the concept any scientific validity. For example we could find correlations between those things and internet use, or residential address, or type of shoes worn. That doesn’t mean that there is a scientifically valid “uses the internet more than 3 hours a week” race. It simply means that correlations exists between a great many things, and those things don’t need to have any scientific validity even if they are culturally or socially significant. > [@](#): > > In order for such a situation to occur, you would have to posit a **magic dividing wall** which allows a certain range of arbitrary factors to remain closely cross-correlated while at the same time allowing for a similar set of equally arbitrary charecters to achieve the complete opposite and become completely uncorrelated. Yes, but since the whole contention is a strawman, a position that literally nobody supports, it’s rather irrelevant. Nobody has ever said that race doesn’t correlate to those things. Just has nobody has ever said that internet use doesn’t correlate to those things. [/quote] Unless you can posit a specific, quantative difference in the selection of two different factors, it seems equally “racist” to me to claim that “There exists a reasonable correlation between dark skin colour and speed over 100m” as it is to claim “There exists a reasonable correlation between dark skin colour and tightly curled hair”. That is to say, none at all. [/QUOTE] The problem is that you have proceeded form the logical fallacy of a circular argument and reached hasty conclusion, which is doubly invalid logically. Of course a correlation exists between race and skin colour, because race is defined in large part by the type of skin colour and hair a person has. If we defined race by the number of fillings a person has and the amount of soda they drank as a child then what correlations would we see? Not surprisingly we would see that "There exists a reasonable correlation between number of fillings and the amount of soda they drank.” Does that demonstrate the existence of a scientifically valid “soda drinking, filling having” race? No, it simply demonstrates that if you classify anything based on arbitrary factors then the groups produced will correlate to those arbitrary factors. In the case of race we have chosen skin colour and tightness of hair curls as one category. All those with dark skin and tightly curled hair are in one group. Those with tightly curled hair and light skin in another group, those with dark skin and loosely curled or straight hair in a third group, and in the fourth group we place all the people with light skin and loosely curled or straight hair. Unsurprisingly we then look at those groups and find a correlation between skin colour and tightness of hair curls and race. That doesn’t demonstrate anything about the validity of race. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/52 "2005-10-28T00:04:15Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > “Black athletes”, not “Blacks”. IOW, the pool that he can recruit from is “athletes” of whatever race. Presumably, these would be high school football players for the most part. If that pool tends to select Blacks over Whites (for whatever reason), then he isn’t being racist, per se. Yes, it is racist. It is making the assertion that Black athletes are superior to white athletes at running. We haven’t yet seen a shred of evidence to support that assertion. > [@](#): > > Would you be able to put together a competitive team? No, you could not. Does that mean that Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites when it comes to palying hockey? No, it does not. I don’t follow hockey at all so I’ll take your word that I couldn’t construct a competitive team. But you are quite right that if it is a [I[fact\* that I couldn’t construct a racially balanced team than that _fact_ couldn’t be racist. However if I made the comment that Black atheletes can’t play hockey as well as Whites, that would be racist. Clearly some Blacks can play hockey, and far better than most white Whites. Just as it is racist to say that Whites can’t run as well as Blacks. Quite clearly some Whites can run, and far better most Blacks. If I asked you to put together an assembly of crack dealers for a team, would you be able to make a racially balanced team? No, you wouldn’t. But that does not enable me to claim that “Blacks are crack dealers”. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/53 "2005-10-28T00:15:08Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, it isn’t. It is universally accepted that when it comes to any gene expressions the notion of race, as conventionally defined is a useless and totally lacking in all scientific validity? Is that a question or a statement? You lost your credibility, and I don’t believe you when you say something is “universally accepted”, because you’ve repeatedly claimed that it’s “universally accepted” that the majority of black mothers are on welfare, the majority of drug dealers are black, etc. etc., which are stunning claims (especially the welfare one!) with no backing whatsoever. Cite? > [@Blake](#): > > The idea that the Earth orbited the sun no doubt sounded bizarre to many people as well. Science often produces facts that seem bizarre. That doesn’t mean they aren’t facts. What are the scientific facts that you claim to be true? I have not seen ONE SINGLE CITE from you, but you pepper your posts with sweeping generalizations and demands of cites from others. Where is this science you speak of? > [@Blake](#): > > First we define a race based on certain genetic expressions leading to specific characteristics of skin colour, hair colour, hair curliness, hair density, etc. > > Then we argue that race has a very strong correlation with certain genetic expressions related to physical appearance: skin colour, hair colour, hair curliness, hair density, , etc. > Circulus in demonstrando In a desire to impress us with your linguistic ability, you’ve managed to miss the point entirely. You took a straight line–no, a single point-- and bent it into a circle, and then claimed that it was a circle all along. > [@Blake](#): > > I don’t think anyone has ever argued that race has no correlation to those things Here’s another sweeping generalization. After warning us about the deviousness of the concepts of “never” and “always”, you’ve employed the same concepts yet again in your hypocritical analysis of opposing views. Are you saying that no person in the history of the world has ever argued that race is irrelevant to intellectual aptitude, aligity or propensity towards violence? > [@Blake](#): > > so it appears to be a strawman. But that doesn’t give the concept any scientific validity. Isn’t that part of the definition of “strawman”? You’ve thoroughly confused me. > [@Blake](#): > > For example we could find correlations between those things and internet use, or residential address, or type of shoes worn. That doesn’t mean that there is a scientifically valid “uses the internet more than 3 hours a week” race. If we can find correlations (which you don’t prove, BTW), wouldn’t we be able to declare such a race? If not, why not? > [@Blake](#): > > It simply means that correlations exists between a great many things, and those things don’t need to have any scientific validity even if they are culturally or socially significant. How can a significant correlation be dismissed as invalid offhand? I’m confused again. > [@Blake](#): > > Yes, but since the whole contention is a strawman, a position that literally nobody supports It’s easy to say so, but I don’t follow the logic that convinces you that nobody in the world has ever supported same contention. > [@Blake](#): > > Of course a correlation exists between race and skin colour, because race is defined in large part by the type of skin colour and hair a person has. If we defined race by the number of fillings a person has and the amount of soda they drank as a child then what correlations would we see? Not surprisingly we would see that "There exists a reasonable correlation between number of fillings and the amount of soda they drank.” > > Does that demonstrate the existence of a scientifically valid “soda drinking, filling having” race? No, it simply demonstrates that if you classify anything based on arbitrary factors then the groups produced will correlate to those arbitrary factors. This is actually a great point–but it misses the point of the whole argument. What’s argued is not the relevance of hair curliness to race, but of our ability to link physical speed and other talents and skills to race. Meanwhile, you’ve been throwing around broad generalizations like “most black children are born to welfare moms” and “black kids sell drugs” and claimed that blacks are better dancers and crack dealers and chicken-eaters, and a whole host of other things, without a shred of scientific evidence, all the while claiming the infallibility of scientific backing which doesn’t appear to exist. I’m not even sure who’s Quixote and who’s the windmill anymore. My head is spinning in circles trying to follow your logic. > [@Blake](#): > > We haven’t yet seen a shred of evidence to support that assertion. You must have it backwards. We haven’t seen a shred of evidence to support _your_ assertion, but we _have_ seen evidence to support that specific African ethnicities dominate specific athletic endeavors. That sounds like it at least points in the general direction of DeBerry’s original contention, which was that his football team would supposedly be better off if they spent more time recruiting skill players of African-American descent. > [@Blake](#): > > If I asked you to put together an assembly of crack dealers for a team, would you be able to make a racially balanced team? No, you wouldn’t. You keep going back to this analogy, with _no scientific support whatsoever_. You’ve taken your own blatantly race-based belief–that crack dealers are overwhelmingly African-American–and used it to justify unrelated contentions. There’s some circular logic if I’ve ever seen it. Please prove to me that you can’t make a racially balanced competitive crack team. You’ve stated a standard which proclaims that personal beliefs are irrelevant and that scientific evidence is all that matters. Now please live up to that standard and prove the outrageous things you claim. > [@Blake](#): > > But that does not enable me to claim that “Blacks are crack dealers”. It doesn’t? Then what enables you to say this: > [@Blake](#): > > “Negro boys sell drugs”…(this is) supported by the statistics…a majority of black men have ac criminal history… > > most…crack dealers…are Black. These are undeniable statements of fact. Blacks dominate…End of discussion. I don’t know anybody who disputes (this). > [@Blake](#): > > One is that most fast halfbacks/heavyweight champions/top selling rap artists/crack dealers/ **N.O. looters are Black**. Those are all undeniable statements of fact. **Blacks dominate** … > > What would you think if a White person said that Black people were criminals and prone to criminal rampage as soon as the police could no longer act to stop them? Yet both those statements have the same amount of ‘statistical’ support. And both are blatant racist stereotypes. How can you make the statement that blacks dominate in the field of New Orleans looting, claiming such as an undisputed “undeniable statement of fact” and then turn around and rebut it because of a lack of scientific evidence? Am I the only one who sees this as strange? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/54 "2005-10-28T00:39:30Z")
> [@yBeayf](#): > > And I never said sickle-cell anemia wasn’t found in groups outside of Africa, only that it is rare among those not of African descent. It is perishingly rare in those who are of African descent as well, so what exactly does that tell us? It is extremely rare amongst those of African descent and even rarer amongst those who aren’t. That doesn’t support any argument regarding racial coherence. > [@Shalmanese](#): > > I think the “popularity” argument just doesn’t fit the data well. [This page](http://www.science.smith.edu/exer_sci/ESS200/Raceh/Raceh.htm) has an interesting discussion on blacks in sport. Blacks seemed to dominate certain sports so quickly and so completely that it even if you take into account selection bias, it still is astounding. Also, you would have to account for why blacks seem to dominate in such a wide variety of circumstances. It’s not just lower-middle class urban, black americans which have taken over sports. Kenyans and other East Africans have taken over long distance running, West Africans have dominated sprinting which requires a diametrically different physiological makeup. In both cases, I don’t see popularity playing much of a factor. Several points. 1. Why don’t you see popularity playing a role? Are you saying that sprinting isn’t more popular in West Africa than in the US? OR distance running in Kenya? Anything to support that claim. 2. Popularity is clearly only part of the picture. What opportunities does the average Nigerian have for becoming successful beyond sporting achievement? How about in the US? Are the college education rates and average salaries comparable? If not then economic motivators will be a huge distinguishing feature. 3. Are you implying that “West African” or “East African” is a race? If not then how do these examples in any way support arguments concerning race? > [@John Mace](#): > > The guy was speaking off the cuff, not writing a thesis on the subject. I don’t think it’s fair to take someone’s comments that literally when the person doesn’t have the ability to answer back. It would be inconceivable that he thought all black athletes are faster than all white athletes. I can’t read his mind. I am only responding to what is there in black and white. You may choose to believe that he menat something different to what he actually said. I really don’t care to speculate. The problem is that no matter what he truly believes, the comment itself is indisputably racist. This is no different form someone saying “Blacks are deadbeat welfare cheats and crack hos”. I’m sure such a person knows of the existence of Condoleeza Rice, who is demonstrably not a deadbeat welfare cheats or a crack ho. You appear to be arguing that such a statement wouldn’t be racist because: 1. The person is speaking off the cuff. 2. The person doesn’t have the ability to answer back. 3. A greater proportion of Blacks are deadbeat welfare cheats or crack hos 4. It would be inconceivable that he thought all Blacks are welfare cheats or crack hos. That seems to be the inevitable conclusion to your argunment. I reject that out of hand. What was said was racist, and it deserves to be called racist. I’m nit suggesting flaying the man alive, nor am I suggesting that we pussy foot around because the person can’t answer back and couldn’t really believe it applies to all Blacks. Let’s call a spade a spade here. The comment he made was racist. I don’t intend to comment on what might have been meant since there is simply no scope for debate there. I only comment on the facts as presented in that article. > [@fetus](#): > > And now we’re back to Square One: Assuming that commonly held beliefs must be true because they’re commonly held, and further assuming that statistics _must_ bear them out because, well, “everyone knows it’s true”. No, you have simply refused to address the analogy. I gave you permission to substitute any negative racial trait that you knew or believed to be true and move in. Instead you refused to do this and sought to imply that those specific analogies have to be true for the point to work. They don’t;. Now can we get back to the point at hand. > [@](#): > > . Mileage tends to vary for specific drugs, but if you lump them all into one category … Which, of course, I never did. But once again, would you care to accept my offer to substitute any racial trait you know or believe to be true, and then address my actual point, rather than spending much time debating a point that is irrelevant to this discussion? Unless you believe that no negative characteristics at all are racially correlated then you are achieving nothing here. It’s a total red herring. > [@](#): > > Then is it as easy as saying yes to one and no to the other, as you said just a sentence before? I never said that in my previous sentence. > [@](#): > > Let’s play fair, here. You said that “Negro women are welfare Moms” [sic] and “Negro boys sell drugs” and “a majority of black children are now born to welfare mothers” and “a majority of black men have (a) criminal history” and didn’t even pretend for a second that you had looked any of those “facts” up. Oh FFS stop being disingenuous. I never even pretended those points were important. I specifically gave anyone Carte Blanche to substitute any negative racially correlated trait they chose. Of course I didn’t look them up. The specific examples are quite irrelevant unless you wish to contend that no negative traits are correlated with race. > [@](#): > > You assumed they were true because they’re all widely held beliefs. No, I explicitely stated that I assumed they were true because the analogy required that assumption. I also gave you carte blanche to substitute any characteristics you thought were true. The specific characteristics are totally irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Notice how I made a claim above that I couldn’t back up with a cite No. I see no such claim associated with that specific claim. Are you now saying that you can provide no evidence for [I[any\* of your assertions? How do I know which ones you can provide no evidence for? You’ve just made five wide, sweeping claims completely devoid of any sociological backing whatsoever, immediately after demanding cites. Your cite is “End of discussion. I don’t know anybody who disputes any of those things”. Which matters more: who you know, or what the real facts are? Please play on the same level you expect others to. I find it boggling that you argue against the generalization of blacks as faster runners, and then rapidly spit off four other sweeping generalizations and declared them unquestionable as facts without any evidence. > [@](#): > > You’ve just made five wide, sweeping claims completely devoid of any sociological backing whatsoever, immediately after demanding cites. Your cite is “End of discussion. I don’t know anybody who disputes any of those things”. Which matters more: who you know, or what the real facts are? Please play on the same level you expect others to. I find it boggling that you argue against the generalization of blacks as faster runners, and then rapidly spit off four other sweeping generalizations and declared them unquestionable as facts without any evidence. Dude, this is GD. If you want to ask for a reference that most fast halfbacks/heavyweight champions/top selling rap artists/crack dealers/N.O. looters are Black then simply do so. You don’t need to rant. It really won’t be hard to provide references for those claims, as you well know. So are you really saying that you dispute all those things? Are you calling me out? If so I will happily provide references but be aware I and everyone else will take it as evidence that you really don’t know those things. That will go a long way to judging how much weight to give your contributions. You clearly have little knowledge of this subject. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/55 "2005-10-28T01:02:56Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > The only problem is Fisher DeBerry never said “Blacks are faster than White(s).” "It just seems to be that way. African-American kids can run very well. That doesn’t mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can’t run, but it’s very obvious to me that they run extremely well.” Now you apparently choose to read that as meaning that Caucasion kids run extremely well, and so do Black kids. If so then that is your prerogative. I choose to read it as a case of the exception proving the rule, which seems more obvious and less complicated. By saying that other kids can run, but that Black kids run extremely well it is quite clearly saying that Black kids run extremely well and others do not. “Cheetahs run extremely fast. That doesn’t mean that lions can’t run, but it’s very obvious to me that cheetahs run extremely fast.” How would you interpret that sentence? I would interpret it to mean that cheetahs are faster than lions, that cheetahs are extremely fast whereas lions are only fast. Do you find that an unreasonable reading? You apparently would read it to mean that lions and cheetahs were both equally fast. That is also a reasonable reading I guess, but not the obvious one. But if this is all our dispute is then it is purely semantic. > [@fetus](#): > > That depends on your definition of ‘superior’. If you consider an excellently-executed crime to be inferior to a poorly-executed but benevolent act of kindness, then you would consider the claims of the Nazi Party and the KKK to amount to “we are superior to them”. Semantic twaddle. If being slower is not being inferior then being poorly executing a crime is not inferior. If one is inferior then so is the other. Either way either racism applies when a statement is made that one race is superior in any area, or it simply doesn’t exist at all. This sematic twisting does not in any way address the point. > [@](#): > > Which official Grand Wizard issued a statement claiming that the KKK views African-Americans to be superior dancers and chicken-eaters? Have you ever heard the KKK officially endorse these views, or did you pull them out of your rear? Does the KKK believe these things, or do you? Fetus can I suggest you tidy up your act and start inserting some argument and facts into your posts, rather than these pointless snipes? If you want a reference simply ask. Otherwise you shall be ignored. You are not contributing enough of substance to this thread for me to bother with you otherwise. > [@](#): > > What justifies your claims that African-Americans (1) are usually born to mothers on welfare Straw man. I never made any such claim. > [@](#): > > (2) are more likely to sell drugs, Straw man. I never made any such claim. > [@](#): > > make up the majority of New Orleans looters, Is that a request for a reference? Are you saying that you are not aware of that fact? > [@](#): > > (4) are ‘superior dancers’ Straw man. I never made any such claim. > [@](#): > > (5) are ‘better at eating Fried Chicken’ Straw man. I never made any such claim. > [@](#): > > It’s easy to lob the terms “straw man” and “red herring” at everyone who opposes your views, but can you back up your own blatantly simplified claims? What is even easier apparently is to utilise endless starwman and attribute claims to me that I quite simply never made. Anyway as I said, if you don’t either start contributing some substance to this thread, or else start being a lot more polite you will be ignored at my discretion. You simply do not contribute enough in your current state to warrant anything else. You don’t appear to be able to support anything you say with fats or argument. Nothing but gainsaying and misrepresentation. I’m not playing the game of being dragged into irrelevant reference searches and strawman demolition by someone who is simply being wilfully ignorant and has no desire to resolve or discuss the issue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/56 "2005-10-28T01:08:45Z")
**Blake** : I would agree that if all we have to judge this by is his one statement, we would have to conclude that it’s a racists statement. My point is that that’s a silly proposition-- that we take one statement and declare it racist or not racist. I would want to see the guy discuss the subject, answer questions, and probe deeper into what he’s trying to say before making that decision. I’m not so much disagreeing with you as suggesting that it would make more sense to let the guy speak more expansively before passing judgement. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/57 "2005-10-28T01:11:27Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > "It just seems to be that way. African-American kids can run very well. That doesn’t mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can’t run, but it’s very obvious to me that they run extremely well.” > > Now you apparently choose to read that as meaning that Caucasion kids run extremely well, and so do Black kids. If so then that is your prerogative. I choose to read it as a case of the exception proving the rule, which seems more obvious and less complicated. By saying that other kids can run, but that Black kids run extremely well it is quite clearly saying that Black kids run extremely well and others do not. The problem is you made the carte blanche statement that DeBerry explicitly said black players are faster than white players, you even used quotation marks trying to ascribe a direct quot to him. And he never said that, I think you owe Fisher DeBerry an apology. We may be able to rehash the above statement a dozen different ways, personally I think it’s quite reasonable to say it means “Blacks tend to be very fast runners” he isn’t specifically saying that whites CAN’T be fast runners. And the statement certainly doesn’t = whites are slower than blacks. And it certainly isn’t appropriate to claim something is a quote when it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/58 "2005-10-28T01:20:28Z")
You do indeed appear to have given the option to substitute another negative trait: > [@Blake](#): > > I’m assuming here that we can find statistical evidence showing that Blacks are overwhelmingly more likely to be in those categories than whites. **If we can’t then substitute in any other uncontroversial yet negative racial generalisation you like.** I, in a fashion reminiscent of a Houston Astros batter, completely whiffed at this one, missing that statement entirely. How I didn’t read it at first, I can’t explain. But you’re right, and I apologize. > [@Blake](#): > > Straw man. I never made any such claim…What is even easier apparently is to utilise endless starwman and attribute claims to me that I quite simply never made. When I wrote that, I believed that you had. Upon closer reading, I discovered that you hadn’t. Unintentional strawmen withdrawn; see earlier apology. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/59 "2005-10-28T01:32:34Z")
Last chance Fetus. I’ll let this post through on your current standards because you didn’t receive my request yet. But after this it’s either produce susbstance, be polite or be ignored. > [@fetus](#): > > Is that a question or a statement? It’s a statement. Want a reference? I’ve got dozens. > [@](#): > > For some time, biologists and anthropologists have overwhelmingly rejected the partitioning of modern humans into biological “races.” An examination of recent human evolutionary history suggests that the zoological definition of race, based on significant genetic differences, cannot be legitimately applied to contemporary humans. Extensive past hybridization, plasticity of the human phenotype, the presence of ecotypes, the lack of extensive molecular information, and the lack of longitudinal multigenerational evaluations of diverse groups contribute to ambiguity in taxonomic assignment. Although biological aggregates do exist, they represent variation below the subspecies level, and, as such, are much more tenuous over evolutionary time. Jackson, F L; Race and ethnicity as biological constructs Ethnicity & Disease 2:2 > [@](#): > > The possibility that human history has been characterized by genetically relatively homogeneous groups (“races”), distinguished by major biological differences, is not consistent with genetic evidence. Owens, K & King, M. 1999 Genomic Views of Human History. SCIENCE 286 > [@](#): > > By partitioning genetic variances at three hierarchical levels of population subdivision, we found that differences between members of the same population account for 84.4% of the total, which is in excellent agreement with estimates based on allele frequencies of classic, protein polymorphisms. Genetic variation remains high even within small population groups. On the average, microsatellite and restriction fragment length polymorphism loci yield identical estimates. Differences among continents represent roughly 1/10 of human molecular diversity, which does not suggest that the racial subdivision of our species reflects any major discontinuity in our genome. Barbujani, G. Arianna, M. et al. 1997. An apportionment of human DNA diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 94 And so on and so forth. > [@](#): > > you’ve repeatedly claimed that it’s “universally accepted” that the majority of black mothers are on welfare, the majority of drug dealers are black, etc. etc. I have never made any such claims, much less made them repeatedly. But as I said, either you start contributing something ,ore than simple than gainsaying and calling me for references. Or you stop this mispresentation, or you get ignored. It’s that simple. > [@](#): > > What are the scientific facts that you claim to be true? I have not seen ONE SINGLE CITE from you, but you pepper your posts with sweeping generalizations and demands of cites from others. Where is this science you speak of? You simply have to ask. And start contributing facts of your own, or at least some sort of substantive argument. Failing that you can ask very, very politely ad I might acknowledge you. Rets assured I have the facts and I have the references in abundance. I just don’t; waste my time on those who make no contributions. > [@](#): > > If we can find correlations (which you don’t prove, BTW), wouldn’t we be able to declare such a race? If not, why not? We could indeed declare “Wearer of black shoes” to be a race. Or “Uses the internet more than 3 hours a week” to be a race. I never said otherwise. Indeed, that was my point. We could make a race out of anything if all it had to do was correlate to something else. That doesn’t give it any genetic or scientific validity. > [@](#): > > How can a significant correlation be dismissed as invalid offhand? I’m confused again. Yes, that doesn’t surprise me. You appear to be easily confused. You see, you spend to much time reading _into_ my posts and not enough actually reading what is _in_ my posts. I never suggested that we dismiss a significant correlation out of hand. Indeed prior to this I don’t believe I ever used the word dismiss in this thread. You just made that up because you wanted to read into what I wrote. Now go back and read what I actually wrote and see if you are still confused. > [@](#): > > It’s easy to say so, but I don’t follow the logic that convinces you that nobody in the world has ever supported same contention. It’s quite simple really. There is no evidence that anyone has ever supported such a contention. That’s not so hard to follow is it? If you have an example of someone supporting that contention then by all means show us. But if no such evidence exists then it is a starwman by definition. Seems pretty damn simple to me. If there is no evidence that something exists then logically we conclude that it does not exist. What part of that logic are you having difficulty following? > [@](#): > > . What’s argued is not the relevance of hair curliness to race, but of our ability to link physical speed and other talents and skills to race. And as I pointed out the whole argument is a non sequitur. Just because we can link physical speed and other talents and skills to a “Black” race or a “internet using” race that does not mean that such races are scientifically valid. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, you’ve been throwing around broad generalizations like “most black children are born to welfare moms” and “black kids sell drugs” and claimed that blacks are better dancers and crack dealers and chicken-eaters Sigh. Who else is sick of this strawman? For the final time, I never made any such claims. Everyone reading this thread knows it. Mention them again and you will be ignored at my discretion. You don’t contribute enough of substance to make it worth even acknowledging you otherwise. > [@](#): > > we _have_ seen evidence to support that specific African ethnicities dominate specific athletic endeavors. But that wasn’t the evidence I asked for. Now runout and find the evidence I asked for. > [@](#): > > That sounds like it at least points in the general direction of DeBerry’s original contention, which was that his football team would supposedly be better off if they spent more time recruiting skill players of African-American descent. No, it doesn’t point in that direction at all. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/60 "2005-10-28T01:36:54Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **Blake** : I would agree that if all we have to judge this by is his one statement, we would have to conclude that it’s a racists statement. My point is that that’s a silly proposition-- that we take one statement and declare it racist or not racist. I would want to see the guy discuss the subject, answer questions, and probe deeper into what he’s trying to say before making that decision. I’m not so much disagreeing with you as suggesting that it would make more sense to let the guy speak more expansively before passing judgement. Meh. I don’t strongly disagree with that. It;s simply that The OP asked for input on what he has said to date. Thats; what I;m commenting on. And what he has said to date has been racist. Maybe he didn;t mean it that way, maybe he did. We can’t know for sure. What we can say for sure is that the commenst are racist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023.md?page=4)