And the definitions are . . . ?
Cau·ca·sian (kô-k zh n, -k zh n)
adj.
- Anthropology. Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India. No longer in scientific use. See Usage Note at race .
white (hw t, w t) n.
- One that is white or nearly white, as:
f. also White A member of a racial group of people having light skin coloration, especially one of European origin. See Usage Note at black.
Exactly. Thanks, Gaspode.
Ok. From m-w;
Peace,
mangeorge
Oh what a tangled web he weaves when Loonie endeavers to perceive why it seems that black people dominate certain sports. So you have a pet theory regarding environmental factors resulting in a lankier bodies for people of tropical origins? Pray tell me why your morphological explanation is free of “racialism” while my morphological explanation vis-a’-vis fast twitch muscle fibre distribution, well documented and studied warrants your outrage.
I would like to point out that your theory does not account for the forest people in the Congo, nor the bushmen in the south, or my many white male relatives in the 6 foot plus category.
Actually, I have never seen the data. Just a lot of references to opinions.
Well your morphological explanation for one. I can’t find any support for it on the Net.
You never read the book Loonie. It is full of facts.Read data. Conclusions may have been politely challenged in a very few cases but not the data.
It is rather comical to hear European describing the cultural abyss between whites and blacks in the Americas. I’m sure when you think of American blacks you think of a Chicago ghetto. I"m quite confident that there is more cultural commonality between Americans of all origins than between the English and the French. Americans share the same language, music, TV, schools, governments and schools.
He he he, but Loonie, you now have a morphological explanation !!!
Actually,if we are talking morpology in general as environmentally derived, then there is no disagreement.
To clarify once again, Elite black athletes need only a very little contribution of West African genes. After all, whatever morphological factors go into making an elite sprinter it is a matter of probability for the gene or combination of genes to manifest themselves in an individual. With 30 plus million blacks in the US,and a couple of hundred elite basketball players, Even a low probability outcome can occur.
This oft repeated statement is a red herring. Time and time again I have claimed no dispute, but you repeat this truth as a crux in arguing with me. A VAST MAJORITY OF BLACKS WILL NEVER BECOME ELITE ATHLETES!!!
This statement is quite surprising considering your past statements regarding the inability to determine the origin of black Americans, and claims for phisical similarity beween Africans and black Asians. I defy you to identify the nationality of any white man in Europe on sight alone. Your claim (by inference) to be able to do so is absurd.
“exclusion from full participation in the marketplace” ? Is this what they teach you about America in Europe ? Have you got affirmative action in Britain or France?
You just don’t get it do you Loonie! If as you assume most blacks in America are impoverished, resulting in a mental desire to be in the NBA, Then why doesn’t that incentive apply to poor whites. Do whites think differently? Now this is where your position indirectly is racist although I ascribe no intent on your part.
I’ll ignore your puerile charges in your closing, however I must add that your responses are becoming quite predictable.
For example, I predict that you cannot resist responding in this thread. In fact I’m as certain of this fact as I am of any assertion I have made so far. Oh what a tangled…
Greeny, sometimes your lack of comprehension (as well as borderline dishonesty) startles me.
I note firstly that I advanced a hypothesis as an example to you of how one approaches things scientifically, not really one which I am invested in based on the data. It’s rather simple, as I noted. Populations long resident in the tropics/sub-tropics show greater limb to trunk ratios. The inverse, populations long resident in extreme cold show lesser limb to trunk ratios. Both gross generalizations of course. Simple fact related to heat dispersion.
Why is this not racialism? Well I would suppose that the most simple minded yet open minded observers would note that race, in the classical sense, does not map unto climates, insofar as caucasiods, in the old anthropological definition inhabit tropics and sub-tropics. Secondly, of course, the observation is sipmly in accord with objective scientific data.
Now, you will also note that for the purposes of the example, that is an example hypothesis responding to scientific criteria, I noted that I was making a reasonable but unsupported assumption that lankier limb to trunk ratios were advantageous to running. I also noted this was something to be investigated (I’m sure it has actually, but I don’t read up on biomechanics in sport) rather than assumed if one was to pursue the hypothesis.
Contra your (and our drooling idiot of a sports journalist’s) “fast twitch muscle fiber” ‘hypothesis’ which contra your assertion is neither well studied nor well supported. Indeed past discussions, linked earluier but apparently ignored on your part, a rather familiar tale, rather raised doubt in regards to any supposed racial connection (West African or not) and rather laid emphasis in differntial training regimes. You prefer bad science and racial assumptions of course.
Tangled web? Hardly, as we can see.
Well, let me first point out you’re confused. The factor in question is the ratio of limb length to torso or trunk length. Height does not matter. You can be short and have a stubby limb to torso ratio and vice versa. It really helps if you pay attention greeny.
But you’re right, the hypothesis is not complete since quite clearly (I actually continually point this out) not all tropical populations show this tendency (or rather better some pops have shorter ratios than others), for various reasons not all of which are known of course. Nor do all “colder” climate populations reflect shorter ratios than warmer climate pops, largely due of course to lighter selection pressures or shorter time in place, etc.
But the hypothesis, again I emphasize I advanced it as an example of how to approach the issue not as my personal belief, regards ratios and an observation that (sub)tropical populations are likely to present larger proportions of their population with a presumably advantageous morphology.
What’s the advantage of this hypothesis? Testability, concordance with current data in the relevant realms, non-reliance on “assume” as opposed to substnatiatable categories.
On Data
Ahhhh, so you admit never having consulted any of the references cited which indeed contained current data on trait distribution etc.? Well, not particularly surprised greeny, it has rather showed.
Twisted Logic
Hoooha. I do so love this come back.
Well, I am sure if you broaden your horizons you can find reference to warmer climate adapted populations showing longer limb-trunk ratios than cold climate adapted populations. You may, of course, have to go beyond the net. Nothing particularly extreme of course, but it is but an example my dear fellow.
Data and idiot boy our sports journalist
Argument by assertion old boy. Of course the data can be challenged, above all when its not data, or when it is misconstrued or when the categorization is improper, etc. As I said, this ground was covered already. Substantive objections were noted, and citations given to in print critiques also. No need to repeat the same.
On identity of culture etc
I suppose I really should correct your entertaining misapprehension I’m English. Not sure how you have clung onto this so long, but time has come to stop laughing and correct. I’m a native New Yorker my old man, I just happen to live and work abroad.
Now, in regards to the substance, one clearly finds in the statistics a fairly important divide between white and black America in terms of aggregate socio-economic circumstances. Poverty rates, Life Expetancy, etc all show statistically significant differences, sometimes real gulfs when one controls for income. Further in re culture, I personally see important differences, above all between urban black America and white America.
If you desire to believe, contra tous, that all is the same, well I suppose there’s no stopping you.
I can only shake me head. Some folks got problems with dealing with the data.
But another item
Surprising? Shrug, not really. You’re simply refering to different things, apparently unable to keep different concepts straight. No surprise there.
Identify the nationality of any white man from Europe from sight alone, nah. Take an educated guess as to where he’s from (leaving out the great metropoles) regionally speaking, I’d give myself even odds. Sometimes a little better. Does this indicate anything besides a slight regional correlation of minor surface morphological features? Nope, the underlying genetic heritage is too diverse for me to be able to go beyond that.
Black Americans origins? Nothing to do with the same, other than my observation has been that their origins are too diverse to be reduced, simplistic verging on idiotically, to “West African.”
That of course is my argument all along.
Greeny, greeny. No assumptions made at all, fact of the data, proportionally more black americans are in poverty than whites and proportionally they are poorer and tend to have a harder time leaving poverty. That is, social mobility of black america is less than white america. Simple matter of statistics.
Now as to incentives and the like, this has been discussed ad nauseum greeny. It’s a matter of cultural emphasis, the how and why, or rather the hypothetical explanations have previously been ignored by you so I see little use in repeating.
In any case, you continue in your thinking to confuse culture and biology. Not the same greeny, not the same.
Yes, and so greeny? My responses are predictable because you’ve been unable to do anything but assert the same old same old again and again. Should I equally predict you will be unable to restrain yourself? Not much point in that, now is there greeny?
Speaking from an evolutionary science point of view, there really isn’t any reason to tackle the question. The races are only about 10,000 years old, not enough time for significant changes in brain size and/or structure. Moreover, “race” itself isn’t really that useful a concept, physiologically speaking. As other posters have pointed out, many people are of “mixed” race. As a scientific concept, race is considered (by those who haven’t dismissed it altogether) a division of subspecies, which is why there is no problem of reproduction between the races. The differences between the races are superficial and very minor; without any evidence that would suggest we hypothesize otherwise, I think it’s a useless concept to investigate.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
Hmm, in that case, I’m not generalizing to a race either. merely identifying a region in the tropics, West Africa that has spawned the best several hundred sprinters and basketball players in the world. Remember, I’m not including East Africans, which “classically” belong to the same race.
A logical clear and open minded analysis of the above statement can only presume that the correlation of height to limb/trunk ratio has been overlooked. You don’t get to be 6’6" with a long trunk and short legs. The short people that can be called lanky are more than likely children
I suppose this has gone on for at least eight months now and you failed to correct me on a simple fact. Well I’m not convinced that you are completely familiar with the culture of America as experienced by a resident. I’m a native Rotterdamer, sonny , but I wouldn’t presume to speak for the Molluccan experience.
But you also said
I can only shake me head. Some folks got problems with dealing with the data.
You just don’t get it do you kid! Your response to my assertion that your flaccid analysis regarding the black cultural emphasis towards excellence in certain sports arises from the existence of poverty, as well as the poverty of opportunity fails to address the fact that more non black s than blacks are in poverty. So what if there are 200,ooo,000 million affluent white Americans. There are still more than 40,000,000 poor whites and the fact that none of them are competing in the 100 meters at the olympics, even though they are from the richest nation on earth completely shatters the superficial logic that poverty is the prerequisite to superior athletics for anyone
I’ve endured your insults for months ,Loonie, but the above charge is about as silly as claiming I can’t add up to ten. Are you getting desparate? Does the Emporer of Race have no clothes?
AWC, I think what these capable and erudite posters have been trying to tell you for five pages (and I’m sure they’ll correct me if I’m wrong) is this:
Yes, on casual observation lots of blacks (as the term is used in general parlance) excel in various sports (running/sprinting included), but that means nothing as regards to any theories you may have about “race”, for the simple reason that any random group of blacks you care to choose have no definable genetic identification which groups them together as a separate race from “whites”.
“Ah,” you may ask, “then what’s the deal with all these blacks doing so well in sprinting and such?” *The answer is that the most obvious answer for lay folk (like me… I’m Caucasian, BTW) is that they are somehow genetically different; but that’s simply wrong. “Blacks” (as most of us bandy about the term) are not genetically defineable as a distinct race – neither are whites for that matter. *. This doesn’t in itself explain your observations, and to be honest I can’t either… I’m sure the answer is somewhere in all these posts, and that part, at the moment, is still a bit over my head.
C’bury is right about defining our terms and so forth before drawing meaningful conclusions. Go back and re-read his stuff, it’s right on the money and I’m the better for having absorbed all this.
D’oh! I posted after reading page 4, without having read page 5. Looks like AWC is out of this… sorry to interrupt your train of thought, all.
Oh no you’re not generalizing about race, you’re simply … generalizing about skin color, that is race. When you come up with some means of categorizing our runners by some means other than the rather broad standard of being a brown and curly haired fellow with at least some vague hint of African descent then we can cut your ‘hypothesis’ some slack on the racialism front. In the meantime I simply will shake me head in wonder at the selective magic of “West African genes” which just require one drop… (Can I force myself to forget that “West Africa” is a region as large as Europe and seat of among the highest diversity among human populations?)
By the way, noted a million and one times already, your runners don’t come from West Africa, greeny. (Anymore than I come from motherfucking London, given me ancestors have been in the New World for several hundred years) They’re products of North America, with diverse descent. Again that’s all ben covered in the prior pages so not much sense in repeating this. You can hand wave all you want, but the fact remains you’ve never been capable of dealing with this.
Sigh. Ratios greeny. Ratios. You do know what they are, yes?
Hey greeny, not my fault you never caught on to my frequent references to my background in diverse threads. So your reading skills leave something to be desired.
As for my ‘familiarity’ with American culture, well bud I grew up in North America, NYC, Montreal etc, an urban kid I was. Given your arguments so far, i’d put my familiarity with black america up against yours any day.
Greeny, again different concepts. I know you have some problems with this (else your taking my comment out of context is deliberate) but I was speaking to national resources in the latter. Capacity to develop an infrastructure to develop, support and identify superior athletes. I should add something of a choice rather than a pure function of wealth.
I find your inability to engage more than a single concept depressing, but let me try to map this out for you once more greeny, well, I see the same subject arising below so I’ll try a recap below.
Shatters? That does give me a chuckle greeny. Listen old boy, this is terribly tiresome, the arguments have already been made, your straw man aguments remain just a depressing as always.
Just as a resume for the odd reader sucked into this, one should consult past arguments linked earlier in this train wreck where myself and others argued a rather different argument than greeny’s tiresome strawman. The argument, developed in full, was rather less simplistic.
Rather it takes into account (a) poverty rates (b) cultural perceptions of pay offs in re different activities for gaining wealth © perceptions of racial blockages in re economic opportunities. The argument overall was that (a) the black community suffers higher poverty rates (b) due to numerous factors a large portion of the community regards sports as a prime means out of poverty (e.g. take a look at black coaches assoc position in re sports scholarship for young black men) © the much of the same segement of the community regards racism as a major barrier to advancing, sports appears to be an exception.
Rather too brief a resume to do justice and certainly there were other factors hypothesized etc. Obviously the argument was not a simplistic and mechanistic connection between poverty and going out for sports. But no matter, its all been done before. I don’t feel like going over arguments you paid no attention to previously (other than to assert as I recall that such things just can’t be explanatory cause you just don’t think so.)
Desperate? Have you been smoking crack greeny? You’ve yet to make a substantive response. I can’t ever recall getting desperate in any rgument with someone like you, depressed and tired of the whole thing? Yes. Desperate? Good lord no.
Anyway greeny, I hardly see an insult, just noting your evident inability to seperate culture and biology. Insults? Stop bloody whinging.
Simply repeating false statements Loonie is either dishonest or indicative of a stubbornly closed mind, take your pick. I repeat that my explanation for the apparent success of black sprinters basketball and more recently international soccer players may well lie in a heritage of west African genes. It is incidental that they are dark skinned, but West Africans are black are they not? If the top 200 sprinters showed no dark colour, then we could exclude West Africans. If I said the English were sexually boring, that in no way reflects on the French, and cannot be considered a comment relevant to Caucasians.
You’ve repeated that statement many times. So what. Do you recall previous discussions regarding East/North African dominance in long distance running. it turns out that Kenya dominates in that region, and a little town in Kenya called Eldoret dominates Kenya.Thanks in large part to the lack of historical influence from America, we can actually pinpoint a geographical focus for an inherent superiority of one facet in the human race. This is no longer possible for West Africa vis-a’-vis sprinting/jumping. However, it may well be that superior black athletes might share some ancestry to a more limited region within West Africa.
In any event, when you attempt to discredit my morphological explanation being tied to a region being too large and genetically diverse to make sense, then how do you justify your morphological hypothesis based on the tropics. Sorry, I mean tropics/subtropics. That is a very very large area indeed, Loonie, is it not?
Oh, and I suppose your ancesters arrived on the Mayflower. History is not irrelevant, sonny as you may one day learn.
Yes, 498 to 2 equals 249 to 1, or less than 1/2 % of the top 500 sprinters in the world are not black from a population pool representing 87.5 per cent of humanity. This is the best that the non black community can do in an elite world sport that is mostly promoted by essentially non black nations! Based on ratios of population, sonny, one would expect instead of 2, 437.5 non blacks in the top 500. This is statistically of the charts, sonny.
Loonie, I venture to say you have no black relatives or dated black like I have. You don’t seem to know much about what is going on in America. Instead of asking you who won the World Series in 1993 I’ll just ask you if you know what a forearm shiver is. Do you?
Ah yes, “sports to be an exeption”. Why is sport an exception? We know damn well the sacrifices blacks have made to get entry into professional sports. Bariers had to be knocked down, and they continue to be knocked down where culture/economics has been a disincentive rather than an incentive. Witness the increasing participation of blacks in tennis/hockey and soccer, where present day West Africans are coming to the fore. You and other have pointed out that other ethnic groups were dominant in certain sports in the past. But where are the Jewish and Irish boxers now? There is no decline evident in black dominance in any sport in the past 100 years.
In closing, I was touched by Dr Pepper’s endorsement of your position.Even though he admits that the discussion was over his head he reccomends reading you and claims he was a better person for it.Cherish it.
grienspace: less than 1/2 % of the top 500 sprinters in the world are not black from a population pool representing 87.5 per cent of humanity.
Probably about that proportion of the world’s top orienteers are not Scandinavian or of recent Scandinavian descent, from a population pool representing probably an even higher percentage of humanity. But we don’t conclude that Scandinavians therefore must have some kind of genetic advantage at map reading and compass use, do we? No, we just figure that all those years of weekly o-meets in elementary school and watching “Thomas the Orienteer” training videos must be paying off. 
Similarly, if certain communities in certain African countries have a much stronger tradition of running training than most Western societies do, why should we have to postulate some kind of “black” genetic advantage in order to explain their dominance in competitive running? It’s all very well to say that these sports are “mostly promoted by essentially non-black nations”, but you know very well that most American kids don’t get any kind of sustained strenuous physical training, never mind running ten miles to school or whatever the way some kids do in the Kenyan highlands.
I don’t think anybody’s disagreeing that if you took a large sample of people of different genetic backgrounds, and raised and trained and acculturated them identically for several generations, and over this period saw consistent evidence of significant superiority in some type of athletic performance among people who shared a particular genetic trait, you’d be justified in hypothesizing some kind of genetic basis for that superiority. But as far as I can tell, there are two problems with trying to claim such a hypothesis for “blacks” at present:
-
We don’t have anywhere near that size and stability of control group available to rule out the influence of non-genetic factors.
-
Many of the superior athletes with some morphologically “black” characteristics are not in fact more closely related to one another genetically than they are to other superior athletes without those characteristics.
Somebody please correct me if I’m missing something here, but to me, it seems evident that those two facts completely destroy all our chances of being able to identify, from the data we have at present, any meaningful correlation between athletic prowess and “blackness”. So could somebody explain to me what’s left to debate? (Note: in case somebody does respond to this query, if it’s all the same to you I would prefer not to be called “Kimmie”, “babe”, “girlie”, or any other counterpart to the, er, terms of endearment that seem to have taken root in this exchange. Those affectionate nicknames are fine for those who like them but I don’t think they’re quite my style. ;))
*Instead of asking you who won the World Series in 1993 I’ll just ask you if you know what a forearm shiver is. Do you? *
Oooh, I know, and I even found a picture of one! Now would somebody mind explaining to me what on earth this can possibly have to do with the proposition that there is a genetic relationship between athletic success and “blackness”?
*Why is sport an exception? We know damn well the sacrifices blacks have made to get entry into professional sports. Bariers had to be knocked down, and they continue to be knocked down where culture/economics has been a disincentive rather than an incentive. Witness the increasing participation of blacks in tennis/hockey and soccer, where present day West Africans are coming to the fore. You and other have pointed out that other ethnic groups were dominant in certain sports in the past. But where are the Jewish and Irish boxers now? There is no decline evident in black dominance in any sport in the past 100 years. *
Huh? In what sports have blacks been dominant for the past hundred years? In what sports, as you note, have blacks even been allowed to participate fully for the past hundred years?? Also, is there something magic about a hundred years in that if an ethnic group maintains its dominance in some sport for that long, it automatically indicates genetic superiority rather than persistent cultural factors? Or are you suggesting that Jews and Irish used to have genetic superiority in boxing (not to mention basketball) but don’t anymore? Whatever you’re trying to say, I’m not getting it.
Big old sigh. It’s like scratch that you can’t itch.
Or kids, take selection five, I have a grasp of the genetics and can look behind the smoke screen.
In short greeny, your sole method of identifying “west africanness” is skin color and some vague morphological features. (see argument below, watch for black mantra to pop up) From this, you derive rather strong (just add one drop of good old Dr greenies West Africanness folks and we gots us some runners) and unsupported by any data genetic conclusions. The entire structure of your argument, such as it is, is utterly indistinguishable from old fashioned racialism, other than you’ve religiously adopted idiotboy Eltine’s rather vague and ultimately meaningless term “West African” – simply a stand in for race to be frank since we have no objective genetic data supporting such an immense category any more than the category European makes sense as a single genetic grouping.
All this goes to the fucking fundamentals.
Yes, yes. And West African genes are whatgreeny? What are they? How do you reconcile your explanation with the non_unity of west africa per se, the genetic facts in re trait distribution. Your oft repeated mantra runs into a big fat fucking problem. The genetic data bolix da mofo up.
Nope, it’s your sole means of grouping them since we have no other traits or patterns upon which to gather the rather diverse group of North American black folks who dominate a few sports for the past three decades or so.
No but if you fucking attempt to imply genetic explanations for English behaviour when no underlying genetic unity (in contrast with other groups) can be established, thenyou’ve got the same motherfucking problem. So greeny, can you at least get your analogies right? Is that too much to ask?
Ah the greeny game. Leap to genetic conclusions.
What can I say?
I suppose I can point out the nauseating number of time I have cautioned against leaping to genetic conclusions without any such evidence in hand. We have one weeny group one folks, not a bad candidate for some genetic conclusions but not to be ASSERTED IPSO FACTO. Other factors intervene. First, short time period – as I recall the Kenyans have essentially broken onto the scene in the past 20 years and really been dominate in the past decade – although we can’t forget the Moroccans. Rather too short a period to be leaping to Ubermensch conclusions, however dear such thinking is to greeny’s heart. Second, we have issues of motivation, that is relative poverty and sudden consciousness of marathoning as a means of making it big. Third, we have isues of training for environment – relatively high altitude, long term training etc etc as noted in prior discussions.
Although I am favorably disposed to the possibility that positive group genetic advantages work into this it is both incredibly stupidly reductionist and unscientific as well as stunningly premature to leap to conclusions about “inherent superiority.” Fallacious group thinking, the classic fallacy of composition, is the culprit here and this is frankly pure racialism.
It may be greeny, it may be, but the body of evidence renders this a rather stretch. Given known population mixing I don’t see this as terribly convincing.
Sometimes I really could pound my head against the desk. Greeny, your obtuseness is stunning.
I already noted the difference. It really is SIMPLE greeny. SIMPLE. The issue of tropic subtropical populations being rather lankier is a simple observation based on the data and is related to heat diffusion. In the same manner, populations exposed to severe cold selection display stubbier limb to torso ratios, a matter of heat conservation. The factor of selection is simply heat. No particular specifial magic add one drop genetics required, just simple variation shaped by environmental selection. The fact in re that is not controversial.
My sample hypothesis, of course took a further step in making an assumption to be tested, that longer limbs are mor efficient in terms of running (or perhaps certain kinds of or distances). Testable and based on what I would assume are well known biomechanics. If true, we could expect that groups with long term and recent tropical/sub-tropical descent will produce somewhat higher incidences of individuals with a somewhat more advantageous morphology. In combination with other factors, we might find a partial explanation for some groups dominance. Or not.
The whole exercise, which rather evidently was utterly lost on you, was to demonstrate how one sets up a hypothesis, defines terms and attempts to describe testability. Assumptions are sign posted and justified.
Now, the difference from your sorry excuse for a hypothesis is that you provide no convincing reason to assume “west african heritage” has produced any coherent results given (i) the region is both genetically and environmentalyly diverse (ii) the subjects in question have highly varied “west african” heritage (iii) sole means of defining the subject rests on the tautological assumption of heritage and the equally tautological assumption that the group as so poorly defined thereby indicates there is a genetic factor. That is greeny, you assume your conclusion in order to construct your entire analysis, if I can abuse the word in this context.
Something like that greeny, something like that. It rather does teach me the importance of history, as in actually knowing it, e.g. in re black-amerindian ties, rather than relying on half-understood stereotypes.
Very good, then instead of running behind your tiresome mantra, you might then recognize how idiotic the bit about a 6’6’’ guy can’t have a short limb-trunk ratio.
Yes, here we go again. And this is not racialism? See greeny your agrument boils right down doesn’t it.
Of course we beg the question of what black means in terms of North Americans with substantial non-(recent)African heritage and we come right down to the issue of having to ditch the old skin color rule and look at genetics in order to define objective groups.
Ah but you don’t like that part do you greeny since you have to give up on the nice, simple and not containing too many non-obvious factors race explanation, cause skin color based analysis goes right easy.
And of course it begs the question in regards to whether the rest of the populations you’re throwing up against the elite are actually submitting folks to the competitive pool. Selection bias and all that.
Non-black community? I dunno, I’m more woried about the pure West African community which seems to be non-present.
Greeny, first you gotta look at what you’re comparing. Who’s in the postulant pool, are there actual reasons to expect normal distributions or are there selection biases which skew the population. I could go on but it would be rather pointless now, would’t it?
See, *greeny[/] it would help if your grasp of statistics was somewhat stronger than your grasp of genetics.
Then you venture wrong greeny on all counts greeny, but none of this is particularly enlightening now is it?
Nope. So what? I fucking hate baseball. Dumbest fucking sport in the world, I could give a fuck if its the so called national sport. Only good thing about a yankee game is the beer, and even then its too fucking expensive. But I can tell you what color cars run on which lines in NYC. Big fucking deal. None of this means very much, now does it? So, now we can play trivia games or you can focus on something useful.
Ah yes, “sports to be an exeption”. Why is sport an exception?
[/quote]
Lots of reasons. Try the good old stereotypes of blacks being more “physically endowed” than whites, oops not so old, but what the heck.
Oh boy. Greeny sees a dark face and its black dominance. Of course, I am sad to be forced to question West Africans coming to the fore in football. Improved performances to be sure in the World Cup, a handlful of stars in the European leagues, but coming to the fore? Only if one engages in willful distortion, ah but then…
Hmm, insofar as (a) the explanation of Irish and Jwish boxers was covered long ago (socio economic status dear greeny old boy, they’ve gone and moved up the ladder and don’t see much reason in aggregate to get their faces pounded to gain a dollar) and (b) I am unaware of “black” dominance in any sport for 100 years, as if this proves genetic conclusions in any case.
Why greeny, I’m still presented with your disturbing incapacity to present the semblance of a logical argument. I’m rather hoping at some point you might, just might try coming up with a logically coherent argument that does not rely on either straw men or simple argument by assertion, let alone your general tautologies.
Originally posted by grienspace:
Calm yourself, laddie. While Collounsbury has thoughtfully put forward many hypotheses and (more importantly) defined methodologies to explain the observable data, you’ve got it all figured out with some vague, unsupported notion that “all super good athletes are black and I think probably of West African descent; but not necessarily the other way around! Just prove me wrong!” While ostensibly an appealing position, I’ll take a little more time with this one, Bub.
I can’t say I’m familiar with the sport, but may I suggest that the Scandinavians might have a hell of a time interpreting their compass when the magnetic north pole is east in Canada . Your analogy fails in that orienteering is not a universal sport like soccer or sprinting, available to everyone whatever their colour.
That point has been made before, Kimstu however I submit that only in western countries do you get people participating in huge numbers in the Boston marathon and the like as a discretionary activity. Furthermore, the dominance in long distance running is also shared with many different cultures including Morroco encompassing both North and East Africa as I stated. Certainly one can surmise that their is some genetic factor allowing for the prevalence of elite long distance runners dissipating along the African seaboard both north and westward.
I do not believe you can support that statement
1.That is if you assume the “facts” are true.Your second point certainly seems in error to me.
2. I claim no relationship between athletic prowess and blackness, on several counts. My claim is that the theory that the best sprinters are predominantly black may well lie in a genetic heritage from West Africa. However the converse that a genetic heritage from west Africa guarantees superior athletic ability is not proposed.
- I agree with your distaste for these “terms of endearment”. I have politely endured these terms for months. I finally aquiesced and returned in kind, and to be quite frank, I am enjoying my new found freedom from inhibition.
None, and the fact that you show a couple of black football players is purely incidental though ironic.
- No one is proposing a relationship, genetic or otherwise, between athletic prowess and blackness
- I am very surprised that you, a woman, knows what a forearm shiver is. jCongratulations, I am truly impressed.
- On the spur of the moment I decided to test Collounsbury’s claim to be fully familiar with the American male culture. I note that in his response he failed.
Jesse Owens goes back to 1936. Blacks were showing talent in baseball even earlier in the Negro leagues. Now one is entitled to round off numbers past the half way mark within a particular power of ten. That is if the number is greater than 50, you can round off to 100.
A careful reading of what I said however is that there is no evidence of*** decline *** in black dominance. If anything, the barriers are still coming down. Only recently has the powers that be have recognized that blacks can quarterback as well.
If one accepts your logic, one would have to conclude that Greeks must be inherently superior bobsledders.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
That is all I am arguing for. The possibility. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but up until now I assumed that you regarded the possibility as outright bullshit. Even Jon Entine didn’t claim his data was conclusive.
Are you trying to get the mods to shut this discussion down? It should be ***deliberately *** obtuse.
As for the rest of your diatribe, it seems you can dish it out, but have a hard time taking it. Take it easy kid, we may be at this for a very very long time.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by grienspace *
Further
Discretionary activity.
Training, motivation.
Or one can take account of genetic data and regard such far reaching postulations as baseless, and look for more well_founded explanations.
It’s support is found in the genetics research which has been referenced and rather obviously ignored by yourself, at length.
In any case, greeny old man, I would like to note that my “diatribe” as you so charmingly if inacurately call it, contains specific, as multiple prior interventions, notes and critiques of your “hypothesis” which you continue to blithely ignore, prefering to snip away and retreat behind your mantra.
Now, in re possible group advantages, I long ago noted the possibility, indeed likelihood in terms of well defined groups based on genetic data. Nothing new there, as you should well know if you retained something from reading anything written in the past months. My critique regarding your various ubermensch hypotheses has been all along its lack of precision, and its rather dubious nature in re specifying the subjects its presumption of genetic patterns of relations which the data have clearly refuted. Your response has largely been to stick your figurative fingers in your ears and mumble on about the numbers look how big the freakin numbers are.
In short, it’s largely racialist analysis dressed up in new clothes.
I’m still here, lurking.
Although, this little tidbit was too good to pass up :
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/athletics/news/2001/08/06/world_championships_ap/
Yep, that’s right, Marion Jones (African American) was beaten by Zhanna Pintusevich-Block (Ukranian Whitey). Does this revise any theories about racial superiority?