White people did, in the primordial soup… that’s why we’re such good swimmers.
I suppose it needs to get asked in as may threads as it takes. I’ve never seen it before and I’ve never read reverberations of it either. But then how many times does it have to be said that “Bush sucks” or that Republicans and conservatives are “teh evil”? I don’t recall much in the way of admonitions from you or anyone else as to how many times they were proclaimed.
Then is it really so difficult when in discussions like this people ask about performance differences among the different races? If everybody knows who they’re talking about (blacks, whites, Asians, East Asians, whatever), why the hairsplitting on whether or not race exists? It’s plainly obvious that when someone speaks of black dominance of sports like football and basketball or running, they are talking about that non-racial group that still has black skin and other distinct differences from the white and Asian non-racial groups.
So in other words, we all know what is meant when we refer to someone as being of this or that race and we all agree on that definition when we’re talking about problems of racial equality, but then all of a sudden when we’re trying to discuss the physical differences that obviously exist between these same groups, all of a sudden there are no genetic differences between humans and no such thing as race exists.
You can’t have it both ways. You argue from the position that races exist when you’re wanting to fight against racism, while contending simultaneously in other arguments that there’s no such thing as race in the first place.
We all know what is meant when questions of black athletic superiority arise, so how about we knock off all this disingenuous bullshit about how there’s no such thing as race and discuss the issue with the same groups in mind as we would if someone made a racial slur? I’ve yet to see anyone around here respond to racist comments like the one you referred to above by alleging that there’s no such thing in the first place.
No, we don’t “all know what is meant when questions of black athletic superiority arise,” and your failure to see the ambiguity is precisely why you can’t understand the position of many of the posters in this thread.
“Black athletes” might plausibly refer to:
(1) self-identified African-Americans, regardless of skin color
(2) People with genes that express for dark enough skin to be considered black by most Americans and who come from any place in the world
(3) People with genes that express for dark enough skin to be considered black from, or relatively recently from, sub-saharan Africa
(4) People who have some recent ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa, regardless of the color of their skin
(5) a race of Negros who constitute one of three races and share dozens of common and expressed traits that are not shared by other races and that coincide with having dark enough skin to be considered black by most Americans
(6) People with some arbitrary but sufficient number of “black” traits – susceptibility to sick-cell anemia, darker skin, curly hair – that the average white American would call them Black
(7) I could keep going…
I understand Chief Pendant’s position, for example, to be that (5) is more or less a real category. (I could be wrong, I don’t follow these threads closely.) Many people disagree. The OP, for example, might be referring to (2), or (3), or (6) – or maybe even (5). Do you see why the difference is important to almost any thread about race?
No, I’m afraid I don’t. It appears to me that you’re merely listing subcategories of people within the black race, and the significance of that in comparing them with people of other races is, frankly, lost on me. (And I’m willing to acknowledge that this may be a shortcoming of my own. I just don’t see what it accomplishes to list subcategories of one race when attempting to compare that race with others. You use the term ‘race’ yourself in multiple ways in your reason #5 as to why someone might regard an athlete as black.)
I’m also struck by your repeated use of skin color and the assumption it seems to carry that this is more or less the only thing people consider when making a determination as to someone’s race. Broad noses, full lips and curly hair are also racial identifiers that a person with black skin but not a Negro likely will not posess, or at least not to the extent commonly found among blacks as we think of them as a race. I’ve met several people from India, for example, who have skin that is easily dark enough to qualify them as black but who have facial features that are more similar to those of Caucasions. I don’t believe most people who might meet these individuals would classify them as black even though their skin color meets that criterion.
Because in a discussion like this, it is relevant to note that these groups lack a biological foundation. When people talk about race they’re really just talking about what people look like, so even if we know who he’s talking about from a social standpoint, it’s worth pointing out that “races” are a social construct. The groups being described are not monolithic and not clearly divided.
There is no such thing as race, and people who believe that there is are called ‘racists’. Their identifying characteristic is the belief in something non-existent. That brings into question any claims of scientific method being used by someone who is a self-identifying racist. Note the OP’s response when faced with the absurd notion that ‘race’ can be determined by the structural characteristics of a skeleton. By your own conclusion we should gather that people claiming to be abducted by aliens are perfectly rational because aliens don’t exist.
Do you believe there is such a thing as gender?
That you consider (1)-(6) to all be subcategories of (5) means you’re using the word “Black” differently than many posters. That might be the source of the confusion. At any given time, other posters are actually intending to refer to (1) or (3) or (6) and you’re conflating them.
I use the term race in (5) because that is the category that is historically associated with the term. It is also the category least likely to exist, according to the scientific evidence regarding statistical relationships between expressed traits. Thus, when people are talking about category (5), it is necessary to ascertain whether the same point could be made by referring to one of the real categories, or whether the point is lost if category (5) doesn’t exist.
Well, in some discussions of race skin color is the relevant factor, as in racial profiling of automobile passengers, for example. But here you’re talking about race in the category (6) way: a pastiche of traits which you have selected as being characteristic of the black race, even though they occur in all populations. In other words, what you mean by race, at least in this paragraph, is an arbitrary constellation of traits.
I suspect that constellation isn’t even that well-defined. Suppose you come across a person with dark skin, a broad nose, skinny lips, straightish hair, and no sick-cell susceptibility (it’s says so on their T-shirt!). Is that person a member of the black race, as you define it? Or how about someone with a broad nose, curly hair, thick lips, and a pale face?
The term “race” as a biologic concept has largely been discarded by modern academia, but the reason for discarding it is more politically and socially mediated than anything else. By taking such a position (that “race” is essentially a cultural phenomenon) one can then leave an inference that any observed outcome differences (excellence in swimming) must be cultural–i.e. it must be due to nurture in some way. We are all a single happy family, essentially equal in our genetically-based potential.
As it turns out, when you look underneath the covers, this veneer turns out to be the shiny outside for public consumption, and it is not the case that there is no genetic basis for race. See, for instance this article by Rosenberg et al. :
“We studied human population structure using genotypes at 377 autosomal
microsatellite loci in 1056 individuals from 52 populations. Within-population
differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation;
differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without
using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main
genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and
subclusters that often correspond to individual populations.”
Of course it’s true that there is admixture of genes in many populations. Of course it’s true that most (and usually minor) variation occurs within, and not between, populations. Of course it’s true that “blacks” (whether Self-Identified by association with a culture or actual sub-saharan populations) have more genetic variation within their various groups than do any other groups–including white.
None of that means that race is meaningless biologically, because none of it means that every human being and every population has access to the same library pool of genes. And it’s the access to those pools which define populations. If there are genes out there resulting in phenotypically dense bones and greater muscle mass, and if those genes occur in the genetic library of “blacks” but not in “whites” then those genes–and many more with similar functional significance–are the ones which drive the population outcome differences. It’s not the thousands of itty bitty variations in fingernail size or pupil color or whatever–it’s those key genes and the relative prevalence with which they occur that drive differences in populations.
In short, whether or not you think there is any such thing as “race” is a matter of definition. But defining it away does not change the fact that there is a demonstrable difference in the prevalence of genes by race even if one uses a so-called “purely cultural” definition of race. In the US, for instance, every single one of the categories you list would have an increased chance–as a group average–of carrying the gene for Hb S.
All of which, even if true, does not mean it isn’t important to understand which category we’re talking about.
Chief Pedant, how do you define a race? Is there some constellation of traits that constitutes the essence of a race, and that an individual without one of those traits is not a member of that race? Or some constellation of traits such that individuals with four out of five qualify? Or is it not based on traits at all, but instead the location of birth of ones recent ancestors? It seems like in order to make claims about this or that race having access to certain genes, you need to have some solid definition of race that is not circular.
Hard to tell these days. There is such a thing as males and females. There are also uncommon chromosomal combinations which may not fit neatly into either definition. If you are talking about the notion that someone with XY chromosomes can have ‘female gender’, I don’t subscribe to that.
I am totally ignorant re: swimming. Are there, as a matter of fact, lots of black kids who want to swim but they run into the brick wall of reality when they go up against white kids? Is so, is this happening at the high school or college level?
Tons of whites play college basketball and would love to play in the NBA if they could, for example. But they don’t get drafted. Or they do and become busts.
I think I’ll go along with those who think it’s a matter of facilities and background. Swimming, to me, seems to the be the preppy white kid thing to do, along with golfing or tennis or winter sports. I’m not saying it’s inconceivable that there’s something about their physical makeup that is a huge disadvantage when it comes to water, but I dunno about the ones offered so far. They’re denser? OK, but a combination of length, strength and speed is still good right?
Do you think that someone could make a list of characteristics, and then say that people with those characteristics are “male”? And they could make a different list and say that people with those characteristics are “female”?
IANA biologist or anthropoligist. I would like to throw in a couple of points for your consideration, though.
I watched a talk show with football player Jim Brown as the guest. The host (Tom Snyder? Dick Cavett? This was maybe 20 years ago) asked him why Blacks were better runners than Europeans. Brown replied that the world record for 50-yard dash at the time was held by an Italian runner. OTOH, the New York Marathon is routinely won by Kenyan after Kenyan. The answer therefore has both societal and biological components.
To the extent that there is such a thing as “race” (and I believe there is), it’s a mistake to lump all sub-Saharan Africans into a single category (Are Bantus and Kalahari Bushmen all that racially similar?). IIRC, there are at lest five unrelated linguistic families of Black African languages, and I suspect there are at least that many distinct sub-Saharan African races. If muscle density and general buoyancy in water are the characteristics the OP seeks, he needs to look in more than one place for the answers.
Black Americans and West Africans are notoriously bad swimmers. The evidence is anecdotal, sure, but I haven’t heard any anecdotes about great swimmers from these sample groups. But how about Somalis or Eritreans? How about Afro-Caribbeans? Jamaica and Trinidad have to have some decent swimmers, I just don’t know where to look for the data.
You said earlier that you had a BS in biology. If you think about biologically, it actually makes sense that blacks would have denser bones. Blacks are more likely to be Vitamin D deficient than whites because (1) melanin reflects UV irradiation and (2) UV irradiation is required to transform 7-dehydrocholesterol (or something like that) into Vitamin D and (3) Vitamin D is required for the absorption of calcium. If you put your degree that you have in biology along with these facts you should be able to piece together why blacks would have denser bones than whites.
Yes, in looking back over your list I can see where I made a couple of errors. (2), for example, could apply to the people from India I mentioned upthread.
I won’t comment on the rest of your post right now as I have to be away for a while, other than to ask what it is that the proponents of the no-race position hope to accomplish by taking it? It seems to me that by parsing genetics this finely you’re only giving ammunition to genuine racists who will use the claim that there is no such thing as race to defend themselves from accusations of racism, claiming instead that they are merely criticizing or making fun of certain ‘cultural’ groups, with the justification in mind that wrongful cultural behavior is learned and can be changed - or at least fought against - whereas genetics can’t. In other words, it seems to me that the anti-racism effort may well be shooting itself in the foot by parsing genetics so finely as to end up taking the position that there is no such thing as race. Such a position seems to accomplish nothing in terms of fighting racism but it would seem to give lots of ammo (and a fair opportunity for ridicule) to people who are racist and anxious to promote or defend their views.
Sure. Chromosomes, ovaries, testicles, etc… Height, weight, bone density, no. Aside from the exceptions of uncommon chromosomal configurations, the distinquishing features are mutually exclusive. That’s kind of the definition of a distinquishing characteristic.
OK, so why couldn’t someone make a list of characteristics and then say that people with those characteristics are “white”? And why couldn’t they do the same thing with “black” etc.?
Well some people think that there are aliens among us.
OMG, we’re all single celled organisms. :eek::eek::eek::eek: