Right, my bad. I meant to characterize peoples words as racist, and should have been more diplomatic in my criticism of the OP. I apologize to the board.
Anecdotal, and probably phrased badly, but here it goes:
My high school human anatomy teacher was a black man originally born in Africa, but who was later educated in Britain. He moved to the states later in life and thus became one of my instructors. I recall him saying those many years ago that black people would not typically be good swimmers because there was a slight difference in the origin-insertion-action of the shoulder muscles.
He was my high school teacher, and I took his word for it. He was quite intelligent and I never had any reason to doubt him. Now, I do not recall through these years what, if any, research etc he used to back that claim. But there you go. That’s what he said and that could be a starting point for actual research.
I would think that better fast twitch muscles would more than make up for their higher density. Swimmer need to have their head above water only long enough to breathe, more being underwater would seem to mean that less energy is wasted moving through the air. I’d be guessing that black athletes make big bucks in popular league sports and aren’t interested in water. That and I’m reminded that they are descended from people in Africa, where you definitely do not want to go swimming because of the crocodiles. It seems to me Africa would be the most dangerous place in the world to go swimming with the possible exception of Australia.
For comparison’s sake, have white people been serious swimmers for more than, say, 200 years? We Irish Americans swim okay now, but I suspect that wasn’t the case before my grandfather’s lifetime. Outside of Pacific islanders, I doubt many people have any kind of atavistic racial memory of being effective swimmers.
While some ancient epics mention swimming, the first book expressly about it wasn’t written until around 1800.
I once tried to rescue one of my cousins (Irish) from drowning in a large vat of beer. Despite two hours effort on my part, he fought me off valiantly. At the wake we all agreed that the destruction of the remainder of the vat by the health department for contamination was a tragedy. Except for a more distant cousin who worked at the health department who got to help destroy it.
It’s unclear to me how changing someone else’s quote results in a rhetorical triumph for a point of debate…
I’m completely uninterested in defining “race.” My position, repeated over and over here ad nauseum, is much simpler: when you take two cohorts–including the cohorts of Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity–and find differences in average outcomes, there is good data to support a contention that underpinning those differences are average biologic differences and not just Nurture.
It’s not that hard to win an argument that “there is biologic definition for race” and that therefore “race” is a social construct. See Tomndeb’s reply to me above. That argument rests on looking for some sort of marker unique to a particular race, and having created that straw man, shooting it down.
But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether we are all one family, essentially equal in our racially-grouped genetically-based potential. Are all “races” equally accessing the same genetic library pool? They are not, for even though you may not be able to accurately and uniquely define what “black” is, you can predict with near absolute certainty that the next Olympians in sprinting will be black and that the reason underpinning that certainty is superior genes. You can predict with absolute certainty that looking for HbS in American blacks will be more cost-effective than looking for it in whites, or vice versa for cystic fibrosis. You can predict that creatine kinase muscle enzyme reference levels are higher for populations of blacks than whites if you are a lab technician in South Africa.
There are real genetic differences among human populations. Period. Those real genetic differences drive outcome differences. Period. If it makes you more content to attack the concept that “race” is biologic, have at it. If you are happier insisting that “race” is only cultural, enjoy your definition. But don’t get confused that, because “race” is only cultural somehow the next Olympian group might have white sprinters standing on the podium.
You can define race away if you like, but you can’t define away easily-demonstrable genetic prevalence differences that occur between races. It just depends on whether you want to be a splitter or a lumper. In modern academia, we like to be splitters, defining every human as a unique individual within a single family of humans. There’s some good fireside-chat warmth in that story. Unfortunately the smoke from the fire obscures the simple truth that human populations differ genetically. It’s my personal opinion that modern academia likes that obfuscation because it allows an uneducated public to draw the inference that creationism is right after all, and we’re all essentially one family, equal in our racially-based potential.
Here’s one that I thought was stereotypical until I saw it for myself, and I’ll concede that maybe I was looking for it.
Are all Asians bad drivers? I lived in Northern Utah for 15 years, and there are alot of Asian people there. I saw many examples of them struggling in traffic, and yesterday here in Cedar rapids, there was almost a huge pileup on the freeway because an Asian lady was trying to get on at about 10 MPH. It was like she was afraid to “jump in”. traffic wasnt even heavy.
I don’t like even thinking in therse terms, but it SEEMS like I’ve seen evidence.
Really, you don’t see the deep logical flaw in that statement?
The problem with refusing to define your terms is that you end up with fuzzy thinking.
Suppose I take two groups of people. Group A is all those people with free ear lobes and pale skin. Group B is all those people with attached ear lobes and pale skin. My society is fascinated by ear lobes, and therefore this seems like a natural division for the purposes of study. Suppose I observe that the incidence of the gene for yellow earwax is statistically significantly different between the two groups. However, suppose I also know that the group of people with attached ear lobes includes a sub-group with an especially high propensity for yellow earwax, whereas another sub-group has a lower propensity than the average across detached earlobe-havers. Would this be an “easily-demonstrable genetic prevalence difference” between those with attached earlobes and those without?
If so, then whoop-dee-doo, the phrase’s meaning is trivial. I can separate pale-skinned people into two arbitrary groups and find “easily-demonstrable genetic prevalence difference.” Would that finding mean that we’ve heretefore been mistaken about white being a single race, however you mean that term?
Of course you can arbitrarily lump together a bunch of different populations, lump together a second group of heterogenous populations, and identify statistical differences between the groups. That’s just a mathematical truism when each group has so many characteristics to compare. It doesn’t prove your groupings weren’t arbitrary, doesn’t prove that it isn’t just a coincidence of which sub-populations were involved in the groupings, and certainly doesn’t speak to social policy or whatever else you’d like to use the findings to support.
I’ve already addressed the fact that the advantage of fast twitch muscles are irrelevant in swimming.
You just can’t get much farther from the truth. About 800 times more energy is wasted travelling through water than air due to their relative densities. That is why we have hydroplanes.
MWAG,
I get it. I’m not sure why so many people take issue with this concept.
It seems that any time someone mentions the differences between persons of caucasoid, monogloid and negroid ancestry they are automatically labeled as “racist”. I’ve wondered about the same sorts of things, and contrary to popular opinion, just because I notice these things does not make me a “racist”.
If you look at Olympic gymnasts, they are all a specific body type. Short, small-boned, very little body fat. Persons of mongoloid ancestry have a slight genetic edge in this sport as a result of their *typical * body type.
You will never find a 6’ tall woman winning any of the gymnastic events. For that matter, you’ll never see her competing in them at all! Her center of gravity is too high for her to be as fast on the floor and uneven parallel bars as her more petite counterparts… regardless of their respective “races”.
It is not racist to point out that a small person with a low center of gravity has a genetic edge in gymnastics.
It is not racist to point out that a tall person with long legs and more “fast twitch” muscle fibers has a genetic edge in track. (Try explaining what “fast twitch muscle fibers” are… most folks have never heard of them and likely believe them to be a “racist fabrication”! :eek:)
Therefore, how can it be racist to point out that a small person has a genetic liability in track or a tall person has a genetic liability in gymnastics?
And while we’re at it… the term “racist” is one of the most misused terms in the English language. But then, try explaining why a person should be using the term “bigot” rather than “racist” and you will be called a “racist”! :dubious:
I find it extremely interesting how those of us who offered plausible cultural reasons for lack of swimming now discover that we hysterically labeled everyone else “racist.”
But hey! Don’t let facts get in the way.
I would characterize your words as ‘racist’, and note the similarities of the quality of your science with the armed primate you quoted.
Is that OK Marley23?
Speaking of the “quality of science”, you should be aware that primates are incapable of reading and writing. Its fundamental biology.
Are they capable of reading OR writing though? Logical relationships in scientific claims must be specific and inclusive.
You have to ask ? You want a cite ?
Really? You made the assertion that there was, indeed, a biological “underpinning” for various groups, including “cohorts of Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity,” that are “average biological differences.” You then went on to misread or misinterpret a study that demonstrated that we could determine the geographic location of various groups by a statistical analysis of various alleles that cluster in various ways even though they do not represent any biological relationship among the people studied.
That you want to claim that you do not care about “race” while bending over backward to associate different and unrelated people according to measures that just coincidentally correspond exactly to the outmoded and discredited notions of race is not my problem and pointing out that you have misued data does not make my effort a straw man.
A cite would be interesting to read, if I could.
I would characterize your statement as tap-dancing around the rules when you are clearly attempting to insult another poster.
Just back off and stick to arguing points, not people.
[ /Modding ]
I would love to have a cite that you are not a primate. 
TriPolar,
Thank-you for making my point for me. 
Taken from Dictionary.com based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010:
(italics and bold highlighting added by me)
rac·ism –noun
- a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, *usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others. *
big·ot·ry –noun, plural -ries.
- stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
Or if you prefer a more authoritative dictionary definition to the online one, I submit the Oxford Collegiate Dictionary definitions:
bigot n. a person who is bigoted.
bigoted n. obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions. expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.
bigotry n. bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
racism n. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
I did not say that genetic predispositions DETERMINE anything.
I said they can give people an edge or a handicap.
I have never held a belief that one race is superior and/or has the right to rule any other.
Note that the dictionary itself acknowledges the “INHERENT DIFFERENCES among the various human races.”
Noting these differences is not, in itself, racist.