That’s the question that I am putting to you. You told us that you could see the difference between those people and and “Black” people, whatevre the hell that means.
I gave you a simple challenge: prove it. You failed.
Winston Churchill and Conan Doyle considered Indians to be Black, as did pretty much everyone else prior to WWII . The consensus amongst biologists up to the 1960s ws that Tamils are Australoids, and Australoids were one of the Black races. Of course under the old “three race system”, Tamils were most definitely in the Negroid race along with Aborigines.
If you look at the distribution of skin colour, Sri Lankans are the same colour as Africans. If you look at old race maps, Sri Lankans were considered the same race as Nigerians and Kenyans.
IOW, traditionally, Sri Lankans have been considered to be Black.
So once again I issue the simple challenge: tell us what phenotypic traits you believe enable you to distinguish Sri Lankans from “Real Blacks”. You told us that you could make this distinction by simply looking. So tell us what traits you are looking for so that we can examine it and see if it is true.
Evidence!
Come on man, this is GD. When you make these claims, you need to be able to support it with evidence. I asked for you evidence for this ridiculous claim, you failed to provide it, and now your are repeating the same nonsense.
Not good enough at all.
Simple question: If a Sri Lankans or an Australian Aborigine lived in Georgia in 1930, what section of the bus would they have been forced to sit in?
That alone shows that you are posting horseshit. those people are all called black in standard American English and always have been.
Scientist: You know, we really are still learning how genes interact with all the non-genetic factors with regards to intelligence. And we don’t really have a good definition of intelligence yet. And we haven’t found any clear way to map genes to social constructs of race. So, we can’t make definitive statements about how genetic factors related to intelligence break down on socially constructed racial lines.
Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence?
Scientist: Um, I didn’t actually claim any of those things.
Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence?
Scientist: No, see, I didn’t claim any of those things. You just keep repeating that stuff as if I claimed it.
Scientaster: Why are you claiming that everybody has the exact same traits? Why are you claiming that genes don’t influence intelligence?
Repeat ad-naseum.
You can substitute “athletic ability” for “intelligence” in the above with the same results.
So since this thread has been thoroughly, hopelessly derailed, why are the wide receiver and defensive back positions in the NFL overwhelmingly African-American players?
Before someone says, “Cultural emphasis,” white Caucasians arguably love football just as much as African-Americans.
I think Kimstu gave you very clear answers as to why these claims are problematic. It’s because they are usually pseudoscience pushed by race hucksters.
But if we’re talking about some hypothetical future in which we’ve got the ability to analyze genes down to this level (and all the non-genetic factors), then I suppose it won’t matter at all. Because, by that time, whatever social constructs of race there are will have changed again, probably many times and it won’t matter whether or not people falling under some 21st Century American social construct of race exhibit certain genes.
And if our genetic knowledge is that advanced, we’ll be living in Gattaca and people will probably be able to alter their genes with modified viruses or something. And the government will be creating genetically modified super soldiers. The world will be so different, who will care about what Americans used to call “Black?”
Arguably? Arguably is the worst possible weasel word. Arguably the Earth is flat. Arguably Elvis is still alive and working in Burger King in Des Moines. Arguably tells us nothing about truth vale of a statement because literally anything is arguably true. If you want to claim that white Caucasians *actually *love football just as much as African-Americans, then provide us some evidence.
God knows how you would measure that. A good starting point would be what proportion of Black children play football at a competitive level in each year of school and what proportion play no other winter sports competitively throughout their childhood. That won’t actually measure “love” but it at least gives you jumping off point ascertaining commitment to the sport. If 90% of Black children play exclusively NFL between the ages of 6 and 18, while 90% of White children are also exposed to Soccer, Rugby, Hockey, etc. then you wouldn’t expect equal levels of performance, would you?
You can follow that up with social perceptions of football as a career. Poll Black kids and White kids about what jobs they think make adults money and what jobs they think they can do when they grow up that will make them rich. Then poll the parents on their attitude towards a child planning a career as a sportsman.
The go on and account for all other cultural factors.
You can start with parental income. Do White wide receivers and defensive backs come from a representative cross section of the White community, or do they skew heavily towards one income level. If they do skew, the you have to account for that in your “analysis”. If 90% of White players come from families with below $50, 000 income, then you will need to show evidence that Blacks outnumber Whites by a factor of at least 25 to even have a talking point.
Then you need to consider number of other sporting avenues open to Blacks versus Whites. Do Blacks and Whites have equal access to lacrosse, water polo, skiing and cycling facilities? If they don’t then you need to find a way to control for all those athletes that found preferred outlet for their skills.
The you need to control for non-sporting alternatives. Does Black 17 year old who plays competitive football have the same job opportunities as a White 17 year old? Does he *perceive *that he has the same opportunities?
Then you need to ascertain that the sporting structure introduces no bias. A good way would be to show some High School coaches and college selectors photos of White footballers, then show them footage of the same players all geared up and get them to rank their potential in various positions. Then show another group of High School coaches and college selectors photos of Black footballers, then show them the *exact *same footage that you told the first group were White footballers. See if both groups of selectors give comparable potential indicators to the players. (Spoiler: this has been tried. They don’t. The “Black” players are always ranked as having significantly higher potential in different areas to the “White” players". Coaches and selectors know where White players perform best and they know where Black players perform best, and that knowledge is confirmed every year. Even when the exact same players are being viewed, the Black players are always judged as having better potential wide receiver and defensive back positions. And because they have better potential in those positions, guess where they are played?)
Now, once you’ve controlled for all those factors and a few dozen others, then we have a working hypothesis than we can start evaluating. But until then the null hypothesis is “People in different culturally defined groups behave differently for cultural reasons”.
I always find race topics to be very interesting. Often I’m exposed to viewpoints that surprise and enlighten me. It is quite a fascinating thing to hear someone’s unique perspective or prior experiences navigating through this sub-surface scaffold of social identity/relation. Kudos especially to **monstro **for her doctor’s story.
In my opinion, when it comes to questions of race, one could take a few approaches.
[ul]
[li]You can take a scientific approach. [/li]This means studying up on the basics of human genetic diversity. The science changes yearly, but we are getting a clearer picture as more information is gathered from genetic samplings of many people scattered throughout the globe. Some basic facts:
[LIST]
[li]Genetically, all humans are closely related. [/li][li]There exists genetic patterns in the human species[/li][li]This pattern is geographically based (people are who live in an area are more genetically similar to others in the same area)[/li][li]This pattern is globally expressed as a Cline/gradient (not as set of 3/4/5 etc race categories)[/li][li]This pattern follows the expansion of humans out of Africa (genetic diversity decreases the farther from Africa).[/li][li]many, many other important rules and events[/li][/ul]
[li]You can take a scholarly approach. [/li]This approach puts science aside and embraces race as it is. In today’s society race is a real thing that we talk about and perceive. So what is it? This can includes direct testimony/experiences of how race affects people in their daily lives (both now and in the past). How does it affect politics? Education? Relations? etc.
[li]You can take a racialist/race-ologist approach. [/li]This is basically ignoring any reasoned evaluation of the topic and plowing ahead solely based on your own private mishmash of assumptions, norms, and interpretations of scientific findings. Here’s where you get a lot of “Blacks are A, Whites are B, and [insert self-defined race here] are C/D/E/F”
[/LIST]
You mean, most Americans wouldn’t call a “black-looking” Australian Aborigine, Andaman Islander or Sri Lankan Tamil “black” if they already knew that person’s geographic/ethnic origin.
But most Americans seeing a picture of a random dark-skinned, curly-haired, broad-nosed person, without knowing in advance that their ancestry is Australian or South Asian rather than African, would call that person “black”.
Which is why it’s kind of dumb to go on attempting to repurpose a vague traditional phenotype-based racial category like “black” as an identifier for a specific set of population-based ethnic groups, many of whom look very similar to other ethnic groups that you’re refusing to call “black”.
I mean, sheesh, if you’re trying to specify the fact that most of the people we call African-Americans are of mixed West African and European ancestry and thus are not closely related to Australian Aborigines or Andaman Islanders, then just call them “Americans of mixed West African and European ancestry”.
If you insist on using a traditionally vague technical term to signify a much more precise and restricted category, you’ve really got nobody to blame but yourself when it results in ambiguity and confusion.
I wouldn’t call dark-skinned Tamils or Australian Aborigines black unless I had to in theory quickly point out someone to someone else, in which case I’d say “Indian” for the first (assuming I didn’t know they were Sri Lankan) and “Black” for the second. I say “in theory” because I have the White Person’s disease of never wanting to ever refer to someone’s race and/or skin color, even in situations where it’s convenient to.
Show this pic to your typical American, and he or she is going to think these are African children. Dress them up in Western clothing and your typical American would expect them to speak with AAVE-inflected speech patterns and listen to hip hop. It would only be a tiny tiny proportion of Americans who’d say, “Well, hold up a minute. Although they look African, their attire actually suggests they are Papau New Guineans.” It’s the cultural cues that signify their grouping, not their phenotype.
Show this pic to your typical American, and he or she will say this girl is obviously black-white biracial. Maybe some kind of Hispanic. They wouldn’t notice that she’s Australian Aborigines because there are no cues to point them in that direction.
Here’s another personal story that orcenio might enjoy: A few years ago I struck up an acquaintance with a white woman. Almost immediately she told me that I looked just like one of her daughters. After a couple of months of interactions, she finally mustered up the courage to ask me about my racial background. She confessed that all that time she had believed I was “some kind of Hispanic”.
A few months later, she told me that I looked just like Michelle Obama–so much so that I should dress up like her for Halloween. Now maybe she was pulling my leg and I was just too dense to know. But I can’t understand how one moment I went from “Hispanic” to looking just like Michelle Obama (who I’d love to resemble, but alas I do not…not even a little bit!). Besides the possibility that she was just trying to be funny, the only explanation I can come up with is that having the label “black” stuck metaphorically to my forehead suddenly enhanced all of my African features and in doing so accentuated my similarity to other black people.
As Stranger On A Train pointed out, we don’t even have a solid grasp on what “being intelligent” means in the abstract. It’s not just that we don’t know how to measure it, it’s that we have no idea what we’re measuring. We can measure certain distinct phenotypes, and we can measure certain discrete traits and try to associate them with certain genetic groups, but even that is fraught with significant issues thanks to the extremely extensive social and historical biases that have been and still are attached to having a certain skin color. Case in point:
I just want to note that this is a really good post. This really nails the degree to which such issues are hard to pin down. There are so many factors involved that linking it back to race becomes absurdly difficult.
White people are conditioned by their environment to desire nothing more than to be right guard or tackle while black people from all over the country are culturally conditioned to be 100% of the last 10 years of cornerback.
One thing that I commonly notice is that even the strongest believers in racial theory will regularly refuse to offer up their own personal views/claims of (these very clear/obvious/genetically important) racial boundaries and genetic theories for rigourous scrutiny. Since you feel we are not giving your views proper consideration, perhaps you will do us the honour and give us an example of:
[ul]
[li]The racial groups of humans. [/li][li]The determining characteristics of these groups. [/li][li]On what basis you choose these characteristics as your racial marker[/li][/ul]I would love to hear and scrutinize your views. Please I’m all ears.
I don’t buy this. Football, like most sports, is a sport in which a player’s strengths and weaknesses are quickly exposed and become evident. If a white Caucasian player is lanky, can run a 40-yard dash in 4.4 seconds, can jump high enough to dunk a basketball, and has great coaching hands, coaches are not going to have him playing lineman. Most likely he’ll be playing WR or DB.
If a black player can’t block, can’t catch, can’t run, but can consistently make 60-yard field goals with 90% accuracy, he’ll be a kicker.
Culture plays almost no role. It’s almost all about merit and ability. Sports is a meritocracy at its most merciless. If a white guy can play wide receiver better than any black person, coaches bench him or play him at some other less-suitable position at their own peril.
I’m sure this has already been mentioned, but the obvious aversion from many is that once you open up the door to genetic differences in these arenas which are considered more superficial, intelligence naturally follows which is NOT seen as superficial by the masses.
We don’t see a shorter average height for asians as the same sort of handicap and terrible reality as something like a lower average iq for blacks. EVERYONE, whether they admit it or not, places greater value in greater intelligence, and the idea that one group has more or less than another would naturally lead to the conclusion from some that some groups have a greater percentage of valuable and desirable traits we all care about.
I was considering bringing up this very example myself in this thread. Very few people protest statements like, “Asians, on average, are shorter than white Caucasians.”
That’s because we’re all well aware that the largest drivers on average population height are environmental, not genetic. You just have to look at the Mayan and Dinka refugee studies to see that.
This is largely false, especially in football. Let’s just focus on one well-documented aspect of this canard: Blacks and being dissuaded from playing QB.
Like McNair, many, many Black football players are encouraged to play other positions largely because of stereotyping. Some of those people include people you may have heard of like Calvin Hill and Marcus Allen. Furthermore, the same is true for many other positions as well. That’s not to say professional sports aren’t, broadly speaking, a meritocracy, but rather that said merit is cultivated over a long period of time over which stereotypes and biases creep in to decision making and opportunity without being tempered by the market forces seen in professional leagues.
The above is why your analogy fails in the real world. The fork in the road often doesn’t come at an NFL combine when some coach with retrograde views on race tells a stud White WR that he should play OL. It starts when some coach in a peewee league sees a White kid and thinks he shouldn’t be a WR because his “experience” tells him he’d make a better TE or linemen. Then, years of training and specialization mold a completely different football player than he might have been.
Football isn’t just the manifestation of pure athleticism any more than being an engineer or doctor is the manifestation of pure intellectual gifts. Success in both pursuits is largely a matter of training, specialization, and hard work. Innate talent helps, but it’s not usually the differentiating factor between professionals and those at a near professional level. That’s why culture and opportunity matter a lot.
But the average coach will never ask a Black kid to attempt to become a kicker, and the average Black kid isn’t desirous to become one.
But people don’t have perfect information nor are they 100% rational. It’s not as if you have the opportunity to try everyone at every comparable position.
Ironic that the 100% culture camp is exclaiming “strawman!” Many in the 100% culture camp are very dishonest with the characterization of the genetics plays a role group.
Pygmies ever going to have an NBA center? Pygmy culture frowns on it? Or is it being 4’ tall a genetic impediment to playing center?
