HBCUs, by and large, were established by black people to help black people. They did not discriminate. They did not harm anyone. Segregation, on the other hand, was established by the white power structure to harm black people. They did discriminate, and they harmed many people. HBCUs were a positive response to a very bad thing, and removing HBCUs would do no good to society, and would do harm to society.
And I could just as easily say it’s false about HBCUs too.
Confront your own logic instead of just denying it when I turn it around on you.
So HBCUs are inferior?
Okay, maybe not. So segregation is gone and anyone can go to any school they want. The only thing left to ask is whether you feel comfortable with a system that sustains the results of segregation after it is gone.
This is nonsensical, and akin to comparing the NAACP to Jim Crow. One was a system designed to harm black people, and one was a response to try and protect/help black people.
There are many things I’m uncomfortable with, but HBCUs are not one of them. Why would they be? Again, how do they harm anyone at all, and how would anything or anyone be better without them?
Absolutely.
They are well down the chain of schools academically.
However their matriculants are generally much weaker students academically.
“Inferior” is a rather inflammatory term, but if you are just asking where their students would rank academically on quantified standardized tests, it would be quite low as compared with most other colleges.
A majority black NFL is what nature looks like when race-based preferences are not layered on artificially in a selection process.
Of course. Culture is irrelevant when it comes to sports, and all outcomes in today’s society are perfectly reflective of some hierarchy of ability due to genetics. Wasn’t that way in the past, but now we’ve perfectly and completely gotten past all that and now there’s no possibility of any other factors playing any role whatsoever.
Why thank you! A bit exaggerated in the hope of creating a more effective strawman, but yes…when participation barriers were removed, both the NFL and the NBA began to much more accurately reflect Nature and not privilege.
Despite being only 1/5th the starting pool that whites are (12 v 65% of the population), and suffering incredible opportunity odds (rottener family life; cruddier coaching; crappier facilities; racist policing; jail-happy courts sending 25% (( ! )) of young black males to jail…on and on…), Nature–and not privilege–triumphs.
It’s good to have good genes. Real good. And in this case, no amount of white culture around achieving high-value, high-income, high-fame, high-prestige professional sports roles is going to overcome the incredible advantage genes have given the black population for these sports.
It’s not even a contest.
Hebrew League: Farewell. For good.
Got it. You believe culture plays no role. So Jamaican genes are best for sprinting - far, far better than Nigerian or Ghanaian or Ivoirian genes. Has nothing to do with the Jamaican cultural obsession with sprinting sports.
China is obsessed with medals in the Olympics. Let me know when their 1.4+ billion can beat the island of Jamaica in men’s sprinting.
It boggles my mind how, for thousands of years, everyone accepts that there were various cultural factors that influenced and affected sports performance; but we all had the fortune to be born and be alive at just the perfect time when all of these cultural factors have been eliminated.
How lucky we are! Everything is perfect now, and culture no longer plays a role in these things. We’ve finally reached a time when sports results perfectly reflect some genetic hierarchy… and just in the last few decades, apparently.
Well, I have 2 questions.
1- If we are saying people of African descent in general are better athletes, well, what about all of the countries in Africa that - don’t - win Gold Medals in track/sprinting?
2- If we are saying it is a result of North American slavery, then, how does a selection process geared at working long hours in the field translate to skills in football/basketball/track?
You do realize that’s a strawman?
No one says in general. That’s another strawman. Some subsets are disproportionately represented in certain sports or positions of certain sports. What it is in American culture that steers blacks into the cornerback position so disproportionately and whites into the center position? When I had my Caucasian son he came with an instruction manual to groom him for offensive line.
If you believe that culture probably plays a role in sports outcomes, and results today do not perfectly reflect some genetic hierarchy of ability, then I apologize.
Outcomes = genes + nurture (opportunity)
We are not saying “people of African descent in general are better athletes.”
We are saying that, in a source population of west africans (the group of africans whose source pool is about 80% of US slave-descended black genes), you will find genes that favor the kind of power/speed/coordination/unknown elements that are favorable for football and basketball (not to mention sprinting) more commonly than you will find those gene variants in non-west african populations. Therefore, given reasonably equivalent nurture, those with west african genes will outperform those from genetically disadvantaged pools.
We have studied some candidate differences as well as the associated genes, and we find differences that are beneficial in the US black population for:
- Bone mineral content/bone density/fracture resistance
- Power speed muscles
- Muscle mass
- Androgens in young males
- Maturation rates
…etc
Some of these differences are quite marked, so it does not seem unreasonable to suggest a genetic advantage.
Then when we look at nurturing (opportunity) we do not find that whites or asians lack opportunity.
Finally, if we look at cultural motivation, it is very hard to find a case that whites and asians who are skilled at football and basketball or sprinting abandon those dreams at any point for any reason before it becomes obvious they are not going to make the big leagues. Stardom and money are almost always first choices for putative careers.
So in the US, where enough opportunity exists for blacks, it’s not hard to draw a conclusion that there is a substantial genetic advantage.
In other countries, opportunity is substantially diminished, although when descendants from west african gene pools do find enough opportunity, they are overrepresented in exactly the same kind of athletic endeavors. Feel free to look around majority white nations which participate vigorously in the 100 yeard dash(for example) and take a peek at their Olympic hopefuls.
I don’t know much about football. But there is no question stereotype assumptions are made. However such assumptions are often made from broad average experience of which groups do best where. As with any stereotype, they are often incorrect, and especially so for an individual.
Most highly competitive sports are not so blindly tied to stereotyping that they will eschew real talent when it shows up, for any background group at any position. It would not surprise me if your Caucasian son came with “an instruction manual” that said he would be less likely to be a star wide receiver. And such an instruction would be highly predictive until and unless he proved otherwise.
I take it you are hoping to reduce every situation worldwide to black and white binary choices. It must be all genes or it must be all culture.
Give it up. No one buys that simplistic strawman, nor have I ever either promoted it or implied it. Nurturing and culture do play a role in outcomes, but what genes do is establish a ceiling for outcome despite maximum nurture. An individual homozygous for ACTN3 577X has a less than trivial chance of being a world class sprinter, and as I mentioned earlier, blacks of west african descent have a much lower chance of being 577XX. This is not a complete genetic story. But it’s a clear example where gene frequency variation by race for putatively important genes corresponds exactly with what we observe empirically. It’s not as if gene evidence is all over the place…with every passing year we find more and more evidence that genes influence success and that gene variants vary by frequency among self-identified race groups. The genetic science is not proceeding in the direction of a young earth creationist view where genes don’t evolved and where their has not been sufficient time for separation.
You would be better served showing there is no genetic difference for key factors such as muscle types, bone strength, resistance to fracture, muscle mass and armspan between self-identified blacks, whites and asians at various sports for which those are advantageous.
Have at it, and get back to me with the results of your research.
Well these 2 articles, supplied to me by another poster claim that biologists/evolutionists claim that a few hundred years is not time enough to substantially change the whole gene pool via selective selection. 1, 2
Culture plays a huge role. I just believe that humans are governed by physics and biology like any other organism and genetics can’t be completely discounted because it’s politically convenient.