Well, you wanted a list. I think the tribes keep records of members. I think that we have a pretty good idea of who is a descendant of slaves and who is not. The ivy league schools have something approaching proportionality for black students. The percentage of those black students that are the descendants of American slaves is significantly smaller.
Do we really think that the ongoing discrimination that we see in society today is sufficient to skew the admissions process in favor of mostly immigrant (and the children of immigrant) black students?
By that reckoning, most of the world can make a claim to affirmative action. Why not continue to have affirmative action for Asians and Jews? We basically stopped affirmative action for Asians and jews as soon as they were able to achieve proportional parity without the aid of affirmative action. Who is to say that they would only have achieved parity if the playing field was level? The way we see affirmative action being implemented today seems to be trying to achieve an equality of results rather than an equality of opportunity.
I would submit that the playing field is relatively level for women and model minorities and these groups would be best served by a gender/color blind system while blacks and American Indians have not achieved a level playing field and are still shackled by a legacy of slavery and genocide.
What crippling historical discrimination have the latinos suffered that affirmative action is an appropriate remedy?
For individuals, it certainly plays a role. For group disparities? I don’t know, but I’m not convinced simply because the disparities exist. There might be other explanations.
What genes do is establish a ceiling of performance, because (among other things) they govern things like muscle power, hand-eye coordination and so on–along with things like stronger bones for fewer injuries. You cannot beat out good genes with crummy genes by practicing harder, and it’s difficult to practice hard when your genes constrain you to a performance ceiling–and you are still crappy. If practice made you good enough, I’d be on the PGA Tour.
Practicing helps. Focused practicing helps even more. In team sports like football or basketball, focused team practice with coached skills helps even even more. You could never become a star at football by working your ass off after school in pickup games. What a large proportion of black kids never get is focused practicing in team sports with the best coaches. Yet they still succeed.
You seem to have this idea that some handful of blacks who make it to the pros gets there because they work the hardest.
Yet the data is that they are physiologically more apt for these sports, on average, and that they have a much rougher start for team sports in good facilities with the best coaches. Not only that, but I think it’s an average observation that it is not just the top tier who are the best. Like Charlie Telfie said when Dre tried to butt in on his pickup league: “Get your own white guys. These are mine.” Because he could be the star.
No average speaks to an individual. No sterotype defines a prediction for one person. But I think the average conclusion is that what we observe for power sports such as sprinting, the NFL and the NBA exactly parallels what quantified studies show us: As an average, white males are inferior to black males because the nurturing advantages that whites have are not sufficient to overcome their genetic disadvantage.
That makes it a lot easier for a black kid to practice. The white kid can work his ass off and still get outperformed.
I think you live in a fantasy world if you think the principle reason blacks are successful in sprinting, the NBA and the NFL because whites have lower motivation and/or are lazier, or that whites are disadvantaged for nurturing.
Again, you spout unconfirmed opinions as if they are facts. No, I don’t believe whites have “lower motivation and/or are lazier”. I think it’s possible that, for some sports, black kids might play and practice more for various reasons, just like, for some sports, white kids might play and practice more. That might translate to a “nurturing” advantage – if black kids play a lot more basketball than white kids, then black kids might be more likely to have success. I don’t know if this is so – but it’s entirely possible, especially considering that black kids are more likely to live in urban areas with lots of basketball courts than white kids.
I don’t believe it’s established conclusively that black people have inherent advantages in coordination, strength, power, or other physical attributes. It’s possible, but until we know all the genes involved in these characteristics, we can’t know for sure whether there are differences in their “ceilings” between population groups (or races).
And there could be plenty of other explanations besides anything related to “laziness” or “motivation”.
Who are you comparing? The best 500 black basketball players against the best 500 white basketball players? I bet they all have amazing genes for basketball! Average 500 black kids and white kids? How much time does each group, on average, spend on the basketball court? That probably tells you who will win games more often more than any genetic info.
What makes me laugh is certainty about genetic differences when we don’t even know what genes are involved.
Let’s turn that question around. What, precisely, are the cultural influences that determine the disparity? And how much do each of these precise cultural influences contribute? You ought to be able to supply the burden of proof you demand.
I’m quite certain I’ve never said that, just that I don’t accept that genes are responsible for these disparities without knowing what these genes are, and their prevalence in different groups. Genes may well be involved, but I don’t think we can conclude this with certainty based on current data.
Those two groups will have remarkably different genetically-determined physiology, well studied and well documented.
And actually, in these case we do know some of the genes involved. We know that frequencies for gene variants driving muscle mass, bone density and bone fracture resistance, muscle type, androgen level and physical proportions (armspan to height) are all different.
You can spend all the time you want on a BB court; if you are not in high school through at least your junior year, you are not a candidate for the Pros.
And you can spend all the time you want on a playing field for pickup football, but if it’s not the right coaching within a team context, it means nothing.
So the relative pool size between blacks and whites is huge when you factor in that only black kids in school with free time to practice make up your practice pool.
And then you want to postulate that whites are too lazy to practice as compared with these black kids of yours who are out there just practicing hours a day.
You have this determination that mother nature doles out genes equally. Well, she don’t.
Why must you always put words into my mouth? I’ve never said anyone was lazy. There could be a million reason one group plays more than the other, including proximity to courts. And when have I ever said anything about nature doling out genes equally? Why is it so damn hard to just argue with my actual words?
From my understanding, the frequency different groups have some of these genes, and their function with regards to athleticism, is not widely accepted. Didn’t one of those genes have one of the highest presence among Chinese?
For the playing time, though, without numbers, it’s entirely possible that one group plays more. Whether with a formal coach or not, that really could be a nurturing advantage. Playing pickup games is not “nothing” when it comes to basketball skill.
You are arguing that there is greater motivation. When comparing two groups, this is a kind way of saying the other group is less motivated. Since the prize here is fame and fortune, I submit you are saying whites are too lazy to go out and practice more.
I am not aware of any studies at odds with the general conclusions that west africans have superior genetic-based physiology for (power) muscle, bone strength armspan ratios. I would be happy to look at any data you have.
I have the general impression that, having been confronted with “the genes” you STILL are determined to find a nurturing explanation that overrides them to such a degree that a starting pool of 5:1 switches to an outcome pool of 1:5. ( ! )
And one of those “possible” explanations is that there is a proximate basketball court? LOL. What about football? Practice in general won’t make a guy faster or stronger than an individual whose genes program him that way. I cannot practice myself into a 40 yard dash that’s faster than a guy with better muscles and stronger bones. The sprint results for football screens, as well as power sprinting in general, are proof cases that we find those genes way overrepresented among blacks. And with team sports in particular, individual practice does nothing for the kind of skills that need to be developed beyond baseline power, strength and speed (the genetic blueprint).
We don’t have all the genes. But the ones we have have jibe exactly with our empiric observations. And the group average data we have always diverges among historically separated groups of humans, because evolution diverges. It’s not as if we postulate genetic differences but are stumbling around to find any genetic proof. Practically every study for genes finds differences among self-identified genes. The genetic thrust is ALL in the direction of diverged pools for diverged populations.
Against that is your observation that you see (?) a lot of young black kids playing basketball on neighborhood courts. Alrighty then…
The million reasons to practice are the million dollars you get for a first year NBA salary. I’m interested in which white kid is so stupid he gives up that salary for a more promising one. I hold that what happens in real life is that almost no kid gives up that dream until he is outcompeted. So there may be white kids who gave up sooner, but none gave up until they observed they could no longer compete. So it’s still genes that drive this equation.
Given the odds involved, that’s a lot like saying people that don’t play the lottery are too lazy to buy tickets - if it took thousands of hours of work to buy a lottery ticket, that is.
White people, on average, had greater opportunities available to them. Why would they, or their parents, stake so much on getting one of the handful of jobs out there for a pro athlete?
The “prize” is a very, very slim shot at “fame and fortune”. If some kids think their only chance at prosperity is this very, very slim shot, then they might treat it differently than kids who believe they have many chances, most of the not so slim.
I’m not aware of any studies that make this conclusion, but I’m willing to look at any you have.
Individual practice can develop strength, power and speed. I’m sure you’re aware of the practice of lifting heavy objects and putting them down again and similar exercises.
I’m not trying to find anything – I’m just very skeptical of these claims, especially when they are (usually) paired with claims that match the pseudo-science of slavery-justifiers and other historical racists, when there’s so little evidence for them.
Why not find all the genes involved with muscles? See how they’re laid out in various populations. Without that, why would anyone be so eager to jump to a conclusion, especially when, historically, the ones who’ve been shouting it the loudest have been some of the worst humans in history?
Are you serious? You really think kids who believe they have multiple chances at prosperity that don’t involve harsh physical training would be “stupid” to focus on something else? It’s entirely possible that these disparities could be explained by culture and society, since there are still massive disparities in opportunity. When these massive disparities are eliminated, then maybe we won’t need to know all the facts of all the genes to make conclusions about the genes. But since they still exist, and are still so significant, then we need the genes.
Another way to say it – when society is profoundly equal in opportunity and other factors, group disparities in outcomes (whether athletic, educational, economic, or otherwise) cannot tell us anything at all about inherent genetic potentials. They told us nothing 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and they tell us nothing now. Maybe one day things will be equal, and outcome disparities will actually tell us something that we don’t already know.
They wouldn’t. That’s why sports are often dominated or over represented by marginalized groups with fewer better options: Jews in the early days of basketball, Dominicans in baseball today, Serbs/Croatians in the NBA in the 90’s, African-Americans in many other sports. It also explains why the AA percentage of baseball players dropped precipitously. Genes didn’t half the percentage of Black baseball players, other opportunities did. But you can be sure that some here are still gonna deny this basic fact.
American black guy
Irish Traveller British white guy
American black guy
Uzbekistani white guy
Haitian-born Canadian black guy
Russian white guy
Ukrainian white guy
British black guy
Ukrainian white guy
Russian white guy
Nigerian black guy
Russian white guy
American black guy
Russian white guy
Belarusian white guy
Russian white guy
Clearly, white guys are capable of being champion heavyweight boxers. So where are all the American white heavyweight champions? There’s none. Are American white guys genetically disadvantaged relative to other white guys, or do they not want to get beaten in the face for a living for a small chance at a fortune for their manager to swindle away from them, when they have plenty of other opportunities to do well in life? My money’s on the latter.