I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Race is mostly based on skin color, that’s about all there is to it. There is no link between skin color and sickle cell. There is a link between ancestral geography and skin color, and there is a link between that same geography and sickle-cell prevalence, but there is no pure overlapping there. You hinted that black people are better at sports, for example. Commonly cited as proof is the performance of African long-distance runners. But the marathon champions tend to be from the same area - Kenya in particular, and Ethiopia. [The current President is descended from a tribe in Kenya and you may recall some long public arguments over whether or not he even qualified as black!] I’m not aware of any world champion runners from Zimbabwe or Malawi, for example. Granted I’m not a fan of the sport. But marathon running isn’t dominated by “blacks,” it’s dominated by people from a particular part of Africa.
Confounding all this is the fact that most African-Americans have at least some white ancestry owing to the fact of 250 years of slavery. So in the U.S., you’d probably go nuts trying to figure out who even counted as “black” long before you managed to prove black people start with any deficit in intelligence.
Sub-cultures can be formed voluntarily in opposition to mainstream culture, or they can be formed because a group is denied participation in mainstream culture.
Black culture came as a result of being denied participation in mainstream culture. Black culture today can trace it’s roots back to segregation. Naturally this led to feelings of not fitting in with smart white student, like those described by Left Hand of Dorkness.
Usually no culture is superior to another, but black culture developed from being treated as an inferior race and those overtones have not yet disappeared.
So it’s still the white man’s fault. Only not today’s white man, but the guys around 60+ years ago.
But what about the proliferation of African Americans in professional sports, like the NBA and the NFL? There’s even a (somewhat) racial distinction by position. NFL wideouts are mostly black, quarterbacks are mostly white (though that’s changing). Punters are almost always white, same with kickers. These are all Americans for the most part, so why the difference there?
“…spike404, JTThunder, the original discussion that inspired this thread didn’t involve gratituitous accusations of racism…”
Racism? I made ONE post! I only opined that if a study was not PC, it would called flawed or not scientific. How in the world is that racist?
Ever heard of “The Bell Curve?” I am not a statistician nor psychologist, nor have I ever read the book, nor have an opinion as to its merits. What I DO remember is that the authors were called racist, and reviled in the press—by folks who had no more knowledge of the subject than I did.
But racxe is the actual discussion. You appear to wish to be able to theorize that the members of some race are intellectually inferior (throwing a bone of “athletically superior”), without identifying who “they” are, then retreat behind a shield of “that is too messy” when asked to identify the population so described.
My photo was very appropriate. Is that group part of the larger group we are discussing or not? If not, why not? What makes up a group if we have to exclude large portions of it when we begin to discuss it? (For example, we have, in the past, started with a claim that there is something about “black people” that makes them better sprinters and a separate claim that there is something about “black people” that makes them better marathon runners. When we looked at the actual data, we found that people with a Western African ancestry appear to dominate sprinting at this time and that people from one tiny ethnic group in a place between 1,100 and 2,600 miles away from the sprinters produce the marathon runners. What is the point of claiming that they are part of some monolithic group?
Well, whether there is an intelligence gene (or, rather, a set of inheritable characteristics that is more or less prevalent in people of different races) is precisely what people are trying to study, right?
You are essentially saying that it is inherently racist to say that people of one race tend to be more intelligent than people of another even if that statement is supported by reproducible scientific studies. I disagree with that. To me, a racist is someone who believes that one race is inherently inferior to another. A person that believes this doesn’t need studies of the racial variability of intelligence–they have an irrational belief that doesn’t need any scientific support.
If you are saying that these studies shouldn’t be done because of how they could be used, then you are essentially making a slippery slope argument, which fails for the reason almost all other slippery slope arguments fail (which is that you must also show why the bad effects you imagine can’t be stopped by means other than stopping what you perceive to be the cause).
Well, I’d say yes. First the country has only been around for the blink of an eye from an evolutionary standpoint. True, there has been a lot of mixing, but it is still possible to look a man’s skin and to be fairly certain if his ancestors came from Africa, particularly non-northern Africa. And we can usually tell who probably had ancestors from Asia. But we can leave America out of it. Look at professional sports and the Olympics. If you looked at the 100 fastest humans, you’d see that those with west African ancestry would be greatly over represented. Similarly, a list of the 100 best marathoners would show a disproportionate representation of people from non-western Africa.
But countries like the U.S. and England are telling. With a majority of non-blacks in their populations, their Olympic sprinting teams are predominantly black. Do you think that is coincidence? Accident?
Which does not contradict anything that either one of us said. Quite the contrary; I lamented the way gratuitious accusations of racism almost inevitably creep into these dicsussions. So why are you criticizing me for stating this up front?
You seem to be equating our statements with accusations of racism. If so, then I think your response demonstrates what a hot-button topic this is, as I’ve repeatedly complained. And if not… well, that objection seems to come out of nowhere, especially since it reinforces what I’ve been stating in this thread.
Yes, I think so. I’d chalk it up to culture, and let’s not forget, the beliefs of the people who choose the wideouts and quarterbacks and punters.
And did I object to any attempt to study this?
But it isn’t backed up by reproducible scientific studies.
They may not “need” it, but they are happy to use it. Racists are happy to cling to flawed, sometimes absurd attempts at science because to them, it looks like objective proof of their world views. If racists didn’t want scientific support, the ideas of eugenics never would have become popular a century ago. People like Stoddard didn’t invent racism, but using science as a cloak, they created a justification that racists could use.
Actually, several “intelligence” genes have been identified. None by itself explains much variation, but I think the general consensus in the scientific community would be that there are a number of genes linking to intelligence, each with a small, but cumulative, effect.
No such theory has been offered. It has merely been posited as a possibilty that should not be automatically be discarded with regard to any race. There’s a rather large difference between the two claims.
This is precisely why I say that this topic is dangerously volatile. If you suggest that it’s even possible blacks – or any race – to have some sort of genetic disadvantage, people will accuse you of offering this as a theory that you officially endorse. For my part, I only say that it’s not something that can be automatically ruled out. I don’t believe that any such genetic disadvantage exists, nor do I think that there’s any reasonable evidence for such. Does this mean that no such racial-genetic link can ever be demonstrated? I can’t say that, no matter how unpleasant the implications may be.
OK, fine, Marley23. If your attitude is just “I’ll believe it when I see it” and you do not automatically assume that any study that says there are differences in intelligence between the races is wrong, then I have no quarrel with you.
On the cultural point, it should also be mentioned that there are a fair number of whites who have adopted the inner-city culture, and they don’t generally do too well in school, either. Unfortunately, culture is a difficult thing to quantify, so it’s hard to control for it in studies.
Because the so-called “black race” is a genetically diverse group, so diverse that I am perfectly happy to rule out the possibility that they are all suffering from the same genetic disadvantage. Africa has more human genetic diversity than any other continent on the planet. I believe this is a fairly well-known fact, but if anyone needs a cite here’s the first study I could come up with for free online.
Specific populations may be at higher risk of certain genetic problems, but there are many different populations in Africa that have relatively little in common genetically.