Thanks for the interpretation. My response then is to deny that I ever implied * wholly * west African descent. This misrepresentation of my statement is a typical Collounsbury ploy.However any present day African American would be hard pressed to believe that after more than 5 generations they escaped any genetic input from west Africa, unless he/she recently emigrated from somewhere else than West Africa.
The answer is no, as no one has actually said that chimpanzees are more like us than gorillas. I take the scientists at there word that chimpanzees are closer related to us than gorillas. But that only proves to me the limitations of the science in projecting or predicting values such as the characterization of one species relative to another. Whenever I discuss the awesome athletic statistics of a people who have no trouble identifying a brother on sight alone, I read the refrain that genetics can’t find evidence of races. Perhaps the science of genetics has limitations and our eyes can provide us the more relevant observations.
As I was typing the previous replys, A news report on the emergence of sickle cell anemia in Canada was in progress. Apparently, Canada’s population of African and Mediteranean people is increasing and suggestions are being made that Canada should start testing for Sickle Cell Anemia like they do in the States.
I bring this up, because on more than one occasion I’ve heard that sickle cell anemia is the genetic result of historical association with malaria. However I was unaware that malaria existed in the Mediteranean. Comments anyone?
Glee…
What race, then, is Colin Powell? Or Michael Jackson?
grienspace: Re: Sickle Cell Anemia: Yes, as I understand it, in historical times malaria was a scourge throughout the Mediterranean basin, which is one finds sickle cell disease today in populations from North Africa and Southern Europe. For that matter I believe there was once a problem with malaria in Florida and the Gulf region of the U.S. . Of course malaria in the New World was an introduced pest, so human populations here haven’t had the time to develop genetic resistance that Old World populations did.
Re: Chimpanzees, gorillas, and us: Ah, I think I see the difficulty. You think it a bit counterintuitive given external appearance that a chimpanzee would be more closely related to us than a gorilla. Am I correct? If so, I understand the difficulty. But what you have to understand is that most modern systematic biologists now adhere to a philosophy/system of classification known as cladistics. Cladistic theory propounds that for sound philosophical and mechanical reasons that evolutionary relatedness should only be based on shared, derived characters, or synapomorphies. Shared ancestral characters, symplesiomorphies, are not useful because they can’t be used to track evolutionary history. In otherwords, overall similarity doesn’t really count in terms of classification.
So for example - Given a shark, a tuna, and a human, the tuna is considered more closely related to the human than the shark. This despite the fact that the tuna and the shark are much closer in overall similarity ( they’re both aquatic for one thing 
). Why is this? It’s because the tuna and the human both posses bony skeletons, a derived evolutionary refinement ( a synapomorphy ) the shark lacks. Actually there are other characters too, but that’s the big one.
So a gorilla and a chimpanzee may seem superficially more similar than a chimp and a human, but that doesn’t count for diddly . Seems counterintuitive and confusing, but it does make sense when you start looking at it closely enough.
Now there are other schools of classification. Numerical phenetics for example, is based on overall similarity. Characters are simply added up without regards to polarity ( i.e. whether they are ancestral or derived ) and those that share the most are lumped together. But this method is universally regarded as largely ahistorical and most modern systematists prefer that classification schemes actually reflect evolutionary history. To the extent numerical phenetics has its place, it is largely in alpha-level taxonomy ( i.e.species description ), where it can sometimes be difficult or impossible to determine character polarity. This methpod is virtually never used in higher-level classifications.
Oh, but they have - And it’s a fact 
. Of course they meant it partly in the sense I described above. But also if you look at chimpanzee behavior and some facets of their biology, there are in fact quite a few “superficial” ( that’s in quotes because they may not all be so superficial - I’m not a primatologist ) similarities between humans and chimps. Similarities that chimps do not share with gorillas. Diet is just one of those.
- Tamerlane
I would recommend an interesting book ‘Guns Germs and Steel’ by JAHRED DIAMOND.
From a minority race himself, he set out to prove that genetic differences did not mean ‘inferior’ and got more than he bargained for.
For those who won’t read it, I will say that the things I remember most are:
- Racial superiority is based on geographic advantages; the Golden Crescent in Mesopotamia was a good place to start from since it had fertile soil, mutant high-protein cereal crops that did not drop their seeds like grasses should do, and east-west expansion routes ( same climate so they took their crops with them)
- There are only 9 domesticable animals and 14 plants in the ENTIRE world fauna/flora. The rest have been tried, believe me. Only a few races got enough species to survive on.
- ‘Backward’ races accelerate rapidly when their geographic disadvantages are removed if disease (including alcohol, doesn’t get them first; see how quickly native Americans acquired horse skills.
- Most Australian aborigines did not live in the outback wastes - they lived in the lush, green bits now occupied by immigrants.
- The Andeans didn’t need the wheel since the llama can’t be trained to drag anything.
Damn, I’m going to read the thing again…
Not for long it will.
I got my teams of university students, retired professionals, thirteen year old girls and everybody laid off from Silicon Valley making webpages on various servers with the words “white” “iq” and “low”. As soon as Google reindexes, that shall be my evidence that whites have lower I.Q’s than blacks.
We are also working on a project to prove Pat Buchanan is currently the President of the United States in the same manner.
…there was a germane cover piece in The Washington Post Magazine by Steve Coll entitled “The Body in Question” (or click here)
The article lays bare the fight over the bones of “Kennewick Man” who at one point was believed to be Caucasoid, because he “looked like Patrick Stewart.” Yep, the racial sciences have come a long way :rolleyes:
Whatever race is it isn’t in the genes.
I’m looking at the print copy of the article (I never throw WP Magazines away) and there are these cool charts in here, like the one that shows that there are greater genetic diversity in African Elephants than in people. I dunno. . . all them Africans look alike to me.
Anyway, this is just a little diversion for y’all.
Also, check out the Steve Coll chat transcript
Bloody hell, this never ceases to annoy me.
Scary? In no way is it scary, it’s a simple fact of information lag plus short-cuts, plus incomplete information. And insofar as NEJM is among the most widely read medical journal, I would hazard the opinion that two weighty editorials on the subject qualify as raising consciousness in re inappropriate assumptions of inherent biological(meaning non-environmetnally determined) differences between the broad groups “white” and “black”.
By the way in re an earlier comment somewhere in the thread on the utility or not of race as a clinical marker for something like sickle cell and typical North American assumptions, what do we say in re my ex apartment mate the Lebanese alcoholic? The relevance here is his family – in fact apparently his region in Lebland – are heavy sickle cell carriers, relying on his reporting. He complained to me his American relatives, and they are many it appears, living in the South run into constant diagnosis problems as well as peculiar assumptions (for him at least, coming from a white as snow family).
This of course goes to your question in re sickle cell in the Med, as well as rather clearly indicating that in our past discussion you never bothered to read the citations and linked I rather laborously provided as the very motherfucking issue was discussed, multiple times. The answer is yes, malaria was found in the mediterreanean and through the sub-continent until quite recent times and those areas can in fact be mapped through the appearance of sickle cell traits. I have little patience for deliberate denseness and blindness.
The problem is my dear fellow that you do not appear to understand your own position, or rather the genetic implications. Your position requires West Africans to be an coherent group and for Af Am to be coherently descended from the same. In terms of the factual errors and problems, you have returned to the same issue of essential coherence.
So in regards to your accusation of a typical “collounsbury ply” I’m afraid I have to take exception, for it is hardly my fault that your skills in logical analysis are not such that you can percieve the inherent problems and underlying requirements of your position. I can assure you I will continue to strip away your fuzzy misconceptions, false analogies and otherwise slipshod analysis to get to the rigorous meat of the issue. You may refer to this as a ploy or you may attempt to grapple with data or you may simply wonder oh so wonderingly if subjective casual visual observation is not in fact a more powerful scientific tool than rigorous objective scientific analysis based on reproducable results.
I shall address the deceptive and fallacious nature of your harping on “any West African” genetic input – although I will add here in advance that I already pointed out how bankrpt of precision this little mantra is, despite it being the flag phrase of a certain sports journalist.
Very simple, Af Am have substantial, regionally varying inputs of (a) European (b) Amer-Ind © Asian genetic heritages. Your description of Af Am as being West African descended makes as much sense as saying Tiger Woods is West African. It is grossly, I repeat grossly distortive.
You’re privlidging some superficial surface features associated with Africans (darker skin of some highly varying degree, some varying degree of curliness to hair etc) and through extreme reductionism concluding dominance of one (itself highly diverse) lineage.
But I’ve pointed this out ad nauseum previously have I not?
I prefer to do without presumptions which appear to run into serious historical issues. We know from sources I have ref’d that a significant portion of Af Am ancestry will derive from non-W Af sources, and further that the desrcriptor West African is itself impossibly broad. To ignore this issue is to bury one’s head in comforting ignorance.
I see you simply ignore this. Speaks volumes about your a priori conclusions.
(a) as noted repeatedly, I have not seen any West African dominance in sport recently, perhaps you could clarify which West African countries are presently dominant? Please do be precise and provide me with citations, I am keen to read up on this area which I have hitherto neglected.
(b) My entire commentary has revolved around the fundamental fallaciousness of your assumption, again a priori position without apparent rationale other than (i) the folks in question look alike to some vague extent (ii) you appear to have taken an a priori position againts socio-economic data as it ‘just can’t be right’ or something along those lines (iii) a desire for a simplistic monocasual explanation -genes- despite the rather substantial problems for this non-group group.
Ah, here we return to my point above, your assumption of coherence. Further the rather strange assumption in re the ultimate dominance of some inchoate package of “West African” genetic traits which lead to dominance in sport X. Given the diversity of Af Am origins, the degree of mixing found in North America, we are forced to presume that this trait package (I make the strong but I think necessary assumption that any dominance must depend on multiple traits as this seems most in accord with present knowledge) must be absolutely dominant and rather coherently linked.
As such I would expect to see it also cropping up significantly in the American white population and to see American whites, above all in those areas where ‘mixing’ due to population densities was greatest, as stand outs athletically. I would further presume by this line of reasoning that American southerners (I recall reading a figure of some 12% input from Africa on average but this is on a vague recollection) should be over represented in sports records. By the same measure it would be silly to consider other factors. Well, I hope someone more well versed in sports history and ins and outs can help us out here. I do note however despite my tongue in cheek appoach I am absolutely serious, should the Greeny hypothesis hold, we must absolutely expect to see higher athletic performance from those whites with “west african” genetic heritage insofar as the traits must be absolutely dominant.
Now it occurs to me the earlier comments by flowbark and izzy give me an occasion to try to quickly make a resume of the sample distribution model I was cooking up to explain these issues.
First, as both recognized what we surely are actually talking about in re the greey topic, that is the sports issue, is the tail of a distribution or rather distributions for several population groups.
Now, firstly, in analyzing this issue it would be nice to be clear on the populations and how they are being defined. Quite clearly in the greeny world we are back to the old racial categories, black and white with flimsy cover of West African that he picked up from a certain sports journalist of little genetic education but lots of stereotypes.
That in no way reduces, as a I have noted, the problem of the incoherence of the groups. But let’s take that as a given, that neither group may be presumed to be particularly genetically homogenous. It rather makes sampling and statistical conclusions difficult but we’re going to ignore that and take the cultural group as is.
I’m going to assume, I think given the heterogeniety of the groups this is defensible but I’m open to correction --this is all off the cuff at the moment, that in each group that traits are normally distributed. That is to say most people bunch up in the middle of whatever we are examining with longer or shorter tails off to the each side of exceptional and crappy trait holders. Minorities both. I am further going to assume that the means for both groups are not far off in terms of distrubtion of generalized traits. I make this assumption on the basis that I see no compelling reason based in logic, or in what is known of trait distributions, to presume a racially structured difference in physical capacity.
As noted and supported through direct citations in past discussions, it is quite clear that most human variation is not, repeat not, between groups but within, that is individually based. This has been amply explained in the past. What is regional or group based would appear to be linked to localized conditions and/or novel traits arising in a population. Given the generalist nature of humanity (we are not ecosystem specific even without much technology) and our indiscriminate sexuality localized traits appear to be maintained as such only under strong selection, otherwise they spread quite rapidly. This is axiomatic given the overall high degree of homogeniety in humanity and the gradualist patterns of distribution.
Given the kinds of athletic traits I presume to be required to stand out in track and field sports would appear to be of a highly general nature and not ecosystem specific, I would expect they would rapidly generalize. Further, given that such traits are likely to be multiple and old, being rather fundamental to survival, I see no logical reason to expect a localized innovation which remained restricted.
There, those are the logical and factual bona fides. Now in regards to what we might expect the data to permit is a degree of variation between the groups --recall both are heterogenous in genetic heritage-- in terms of the size of the “tails.” We might speculate a slightly larger tail, by chance even, for the socially defined “black” group (itself a genetic mishmash of diverse heritages in varying degrees). The superior end of each group is not necessarily inherently better than the other (regarding solely the genetic end of the equation) however the absolute numbers available may be larger.
Here we run into the importance of socio-economic selection. I am sure any of the readers versed in statistics and thinking about this critically may begin to devine where I am going. Different socio-economic/socio-cultural selection factors are going to send differing percentages of the “superior” or better outlaying end of the distribution into competition, which is going to skew the results.
I really need to find the time to run this model of mine to show how some small distributional changes plus assumptions on percents trying out can change the outcomes.
The quote which you did not understand but I snipped observed that your hypothesis is reductionist, ignores fundamentally contradictory data and apparently is favored simply because it seems “obvious” to you upon little reflection, despite all the problems noted.
I have provided tons of facts in the past including our past discussion some months back on this very topic. Given your inability to provide substantive facts at all, then or now, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to repeat the same data which you have ignored in the past. In the event you wish to engage the same, feel free to go to the race page and follow through. However, do not pretend I have not in general provided ample, indeed copious documentation for my argumentation nor I may add, have not addressed directly and logically the arguments presented, although perhaps not always in a manner a sloppy thinker might enjoy.
Quite the contrary, I have challenged each and every one of your characterizations.
Is this your admission your hypothesis does not stand up to the genetic evidence?
No, it is not for we have your follow up which reveals your actual thinking:
How this proves anything in regards to limitations of genetic knowledge I am not sure. It speaks to your limitations, personally, yes, but of genetic science there is no relationship.
And now we see the real argument of greeny stripped of his hedging. As I noted previously and in prior discussion, his entire “analysis” in fact rests on the same old ‘common-sense’, visual obviousness and slippery, incoherent “observation”. To see, despite the long critiques of such idiocy, the old a brother can tell a brother routine is nothing short of stunning.
In re PC:
It strikes me that a “PC” position in re the sense used by Izzy would be the denial of group differences at all and at any level. That is seen from time to time. For the moment I regard this as far less pernicious than those who try to defend the classical race concept or close variations on that theme. Of course the other part of PC, adopting once more the Izzy/december usage, is that segment against genetics in general because it undermines cultures etc., more or less the same or similar set of folks who protest my corporate work (plant gen engin) and globalization. I hasten to add I am being brief and note I have always tried to acknowledge factually founded critiques of both.
sjgouldrocks,
(patiently) please read all my contributions to the thread (and get a sense of sarcasm :rolleyes: )
I think they’re members of the human race.
Autumn Wind Chick thinks they’re from a ‘black’ race.
It’s taken me many postings (some heavily ironic) to get her to admit that.
Since she believes in blacks as a ‘race’, I thought I’d expose her truly frightening lack of logic by asking her to define the rest of the world’s ‘races’.
And this is the thanks I get…
Look,if you think that “blacks” are somehow better off with organs from other “blacks” then your every bit the racist as is AWC.
sjgouldrocks, I suspect that some of us are wishing you would join the “other side,” as your general hostility and your failure to grasp irony, sarcasm, satire, or any other literary device seems to preclude you from understanding what has been posted in many cases.
As to your latest charge of racism, please take the time to read and comprehend the following:
The more closely one can match two humans by blood type and other tissue structure, the better chance that a person receiving an organ donation has to survive.
When, medical workers are “cross-typing” people for compatibility, it is not “racist” to look first among people who may have a greater proportion of individuals who closely match. In the entire U.S., it is possible to find people of all “races” (as defined, culturally, by appearance) who may provide good matches. However, it has been the observation of the people doing the matching that they will find a larger pool of potential donors from among the associated groups.
For example, at the gross level, you can find Type O, Type A, Type B, and Type AB people throughout any “race.” (This is a result of the great genetic mixing that has been the subject of so many of these debates.) In each geographic region, however, you can find larger or smaller percentages of people who carry a specific blood type. If you are in need of a specific blood type, asking first among the people who seem to have a higher percentage of that blood type makes sense.
That is not racism.
When it wanders over near racist assumptions (and the reason for the concerned editorials from the NEJM), is when doctors begin to assume that a higher frequency of occurrence is, somehow, tied to an inherent characteristic rather than the statistical probability.
The specific concern of the NEJM editors was a study that purported to show that blacks were more resistant to the effects of ACE inhibitors when controlling hypertension and heart attacks. However, the study was not sufficiently controlled for age, poverty, diet, and several other factors. Because the arbitrary division of the subjects was made between “whites” and “blacks,” it was possible to review the tested populations and draw different results by using other groupings. (Or, more specifically, the labels of “race” in the group happened to map very closely to the labels “age” and “economic level.” The study could have been published just as legitimately to say that old men in poverty were less successful using the drug than younger men with moderate or better income with no mention of “race.”)
That does not make it racist to look first, when seeking organ donations, among the group with the highest percentages of AB- blood (for example) when trying to quickly find a match for an AB- donor–as long as one does not look only among one group, thinking that AB- blood is “theirs”.
The reason that various agencies are encouraging more blacks to register for organ donation is to increase the percentage of people carrying all characteristics who can provide matches.
Rather than intelligence, I would question the discretion of obviously intelligent SDMB posters who constantly allow themselves to get drawn into exceedingly maddening, tedious, and ultimately futile “debates” with unabashed race-baiters who get their jollies by pushing buttons.
Sysyphus, indeed!
P.S. Collie: How fast are you in the 100?
Please try to be a little more civil. In any other company, your discourse would be regarded with a raised eyebrow. In fact you are in violation of the rules of this message board as expressed by Gaudere recently.
No. you don’t understand my position or are deliberately distorting it. Many of my simple statements are rephrased or explained by you in extended paragraphs just prior to your criticism of the “explained statement”
On the face of it I would say this statement is grossly inaccurate. Unless you can provide evidence to the contary, I would suggest that very few African Americans can make a recent genetic connection with Amer-Ind or Asian.In any event, the influence of where additional genetic inputs may have originated is completely irrelevant to my point.I.E. my past statements regarding the superiority of African-American athletes due to their West African heritage .
I tend to ignore utter crap. Is the descriptor European impossibly broad? Give me one I repeat one link that where a significant portion of African Americans can not claim a genetic connection to West Africa. Or Perhaps what you meant to say is the a significant portion of the African- American genetic heritage comes from somewhere else than Africa. Well then of course. You do not do anyone a service by confusing my position. This quote speaks volumes…
Jon Entine’s book of course
This is new to me. Now I understand your insistence that my point requires genetic coherence. That is your hang up I’m afraid.
I can’t be sure, but I would venture a guess that a better than average proportion of professional football players come from the deep south.
Collounsbury, Anyone with a drop of African blood can call himself a African. For some reason African- Americans pay little attention to their other heritages. If the traits were absolutely dominant wouldn’t every black be a professional athlete ?
[/quote]
What is regional or group based would appear to be linked to localized conditions and/or novel traits arising in a population. Given the generalist nature of humanity (we are not ecosystem specific even without much technology) and our indiscriminate sexuality localized traits appear to be maintained as such only under strong selection, otherwise they spread quite rapidly. This is axiomatic given the overall high degree of homogeniety in humanity and the gradualist patterns of distribution.
Given the kinds of athletic traits I presume to be required to stand out in track and field sports would appear to be of a highly general nature and not ecosystem specific, I would expect they would rapidly generalize. Further, given that such traits are likely to be multiple and old, being rather fundamental to survival, I see no logical reason to expect a localized innovation which remained restricted.
[/quote]
Exactly! With globalizition, a fairly recent phenomenon and the propensity for fraternization enhanced, humanity will eventually blur into a comepletely visually raceless society and this entire argument will become completely irrelevant if it isn’t already.
Glee…
I was working WITH you, Glee, not against you. But, since you look so forlorn over there in the corner… many hundreds of billions of thanks to you for your concerted efforts in eliminating ignorance from Miss Wind Chick. Here’s a corn dog.
Greeny, I repeat myself, I have little patience with deliberate denseness and blindness. I might even add ignorance.
I understand your position all too well. I have repeatedly attempted to explain to you, rather fruitlessly it is clear, the underlying implications and requirements of your ‘naively’ held ‘hypothesis’ – it is not distortion to point out technical problems, its called clarification my dear fellow.
You may declare, for example, that you are for fiscal rectitude but then lay out an economic program which when one understands the underlying economics fundamentally is against your “proclaimed” --be it through mendacity, ignorance or stupidity-- position. Such is the case here, since our first encounter I, and others infinitely more capable than I, have attempted to explain to you the fundamental problems your theory, which is simply that egregiously stupid or dishonest sport journalist’s theory restated.
Hint, there is reason for that, your simple statements are fucking wrong. Simplistic statements don’t advance our understanding if they are based on god damned fundamental misconceptions. I know you have some difficulty in accepting this, but such is logic and rigour. I hope my analogy to economics renders this clearer.
Then you are more ignorant of the subject than I had suspected. Let me note that you have removed the context of the comments, for I noted that the Asian genetic heritage comes through the Carribean, obviously a small input but there it is. The statement I believe could not be more accurate as it stands.
Recent, what does recent have to do with this? No matter, I will ignore that particular red herring to address the substance, that being that Af Am communities have a long and intimate history with native american communities.
Insofar as the numbers, I don’t believe we have directly any percentages which I personally would wish to cite to beyond the genetics matierials I have cited to in the past. However, in regards to the history of Africans and American Indians stretching all the way back to colonial times and continuing through to modern times, let me suggest some of the following which I have seen cited in various literature:
First, for convenience let me direct you to this longish on line essay which appears to be well sourced and covers some of the history of NaAm connexions with Afs.
http://www.patrick.af.mil/deomi/Observances%20&%20Demographics/Ethnic%20Observances/Native%20American%20Month/nahm95.htm
The historical discussion while brief strikes me as balanced and well-done.
I can add this apparently interesting online biblio which I myself can not follow up.
http://www.everton.com/reference/usa/GENEALOG/GENEALOG.5TRIBES
Otherwise I direct your attention to a few works I have seen cited in various contexts:
Boyett, Cheryl “The Seminole-Black alliance during the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842” Thesis California State University, Dominguez Hills, 1996.
Forbes, Jack D. Black Africans and Native Americans.
Africans and Native Americans : the language of race and the evolution of red-black peoples Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993.
Hodes, Martha _ Sex, love, race : crossing boundaries in North American history _ New York: New York University Press, 1999.
Katz, William Loren. Black Indians : a hidden heritage New York : Atheneum, 1986.
Littlefield, Daniel Africans and Seminoles : from removal to Emancipation Westport: Greenwood Press, 1977.
Littlefield, Daniel F. Africans and Creeks : from the colonial period to the Civil War Westport: Greenwood Press, 1979.
May, Katja, Americans and Native Americans in the Creek and Cherokee Nations, 1830s to 1920s : collision and collusion New York: 1996.
McLoughlin, William Gerald. The Cherokee ghost dance : essays on the Southeastern Indians, 1789-1861
Macon: Mercer, 1984.
Taylor, Hellen Rudean “Ethnic admixture in African American ancestry as reflected in dental patterns” Thesis University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 1991. making reference according to the citation to the broad range of AfAm ancestry. I am not necessarily a fan of this methadology, but it can be suggestive.
Wickett, Murray R., _ Contested territory : whites, Native Americans, and African Americans in Oklahoma, 1865-1907 _ Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press, 2000.
Bloody hell! This is amazing. These observations go directly to your statements. How the fuck do you manage this incredible observation ? My god have you understood absolutely nothing so far ?
If we are attempting to speak of a coherent genetic group, well, yes, greeny that’s rather elementary and rather what my entire intervention all these long months has been about. Do you think I have been going on about coherence of groups for nothing ? That all this has been without some underlying justification ? Do you think Edwino might not have intervened , to name but one more knowldgeable poster, if I am ranting about nothing at ll ? A rather vast amount of data was cited to this very effect. Did you not follow one whit of the prior discussions?
This is a red herring as I already laboriously explained. I explained the structural problems in regards to genetic heritage in regards to presumption mere vague connection should be determinate of athleticism, with the added observation that West Africa, itself too broad to be meaningful.
Yeeeees. And I have been fruitlessly attempting to explain to you how this makes your presumption ridiculous.
Ah yes, the piece of shit which I have already torn apart for lack of any proper methadology and which fails to my recollection to mention actual West Africans. Again, can you provide me with the specifics. Actual West Africans. Not Kenyans etc, West Africans.
I note in passing that one would have the gall to cite a work which I have already utterly trashed on substantive grounds some months back, unless you have some actual defense of his slip shod zriting .
It’s not my hang up, Greeny its a fundamental FACTUAL problem in re the required genetics with your half-assed hypothesis. I am at an utter loss as to understand how you think West African heritage is playing a role in your genetics free understanding.
Ergo, by your logic --such as it is–, we must without further regard for historical and socio-cultural/socio-economic factors conclude there is a racial/genetic difference between the deep south whites and others.
Wonderful.
My entire intervention in re race matters has attempted, evidently in your regard without bearing even the semblance of fruit, to droaw attention to the fundamental problems with this sort of naive analysis.
I am possessed with an urge to shove me hand into a meat grinder. It might provide greater satisfaction than this conversation.
There are of course particular and clear historical reasons for the manner in which heritage is discussed and constructed in American. I would hope that they are fairly obvious and explain without much ado the reason why Americans in general have historically been extremely reductionist in talking about their ‘racial’ heritages, clearly of course favoring the most favored unless other issues intervene, say like the KKK. You will find one of the essays linked discusses this.
In re your second statement, … what can I say. That I appear to lack the facilities to make this clear to you or that you may lack the will or capacity to grasp the materials. All I can say is I find the fundamental and irreducable incoherence of your positions as well as your insensibility in re data and logic to be maddening, absolutely maddening.
Not exactly! God damnit, it already is motherfucking irrelevant; The visuality of race is goddamned motherfucking IRRELEVANT to overwhelming balance of our genetic heritage! … okay, I give up. The volumes of cites, the data, the whole of the argument went over your head 100%. The condition to which you refer already exists, except for this deceptive visuality upon which you mistakenly hang your racial conclusions. A great pity. Some folks minds are just bloody insensible to data and reason. Perhaps some one else can try to introduce greeny to some partial understanding of the topic, I have too much to do.
I do need me head examined.
Slow as shit, but I am one mean cyclist. Perhaps I should drop out and try for the Tour de France.
sjgouldrocks
[Moderator Hat ON]
sjgouldrocks, in Great Debates we do not directly call people idiots. Remarks like that should be posted in the BBQ pit. Thank you. Collunsbury/grienspace, saying someone is being willfully dense is not the same as flat-out calling them “dense”; “willfully dense” is a charge of stubborness, not idiocy. Nevertheless, I’d prefer it if things were a little cooler in here. The Pit is always available for insults, should you feel so inclined.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Gaudere,
I take your point about politeness in GD.
(mischievously)
Can I post ‘I might need a brain transplant - but please don’t let me get sjgouldrocks’?
(ducks and flinches, waiting for the reply…)
However, it has been the observation of the people doing the scouting that they will find a larger pool of great sprinters among certain groups.:rolleyes:
If you are in need of certain types of athletic ability, asking first among the people who seem to have a higher percentage of that ability makes sense.:rolleyes:
That is racism.