You’ve stated before that you’d agree that genetics amy be responsible. That’s my position. Nothing more. Yet you will argue to the cows come home that “It just can’t be!” and “How dare you hold such a position.” Yes, I paraphrase.
But they still have the African ancestry, as well. Again, what percent of the 100 fastest humans are not black or “mixed-black”?
You need to provide an explanation. Back when the Jews dominated basketball, if one were to ask why the Jews, culture wold be a good answer. If one were tom ask, why are there no blacks in basketball? Well, culture had more than a little to do with that. Now we have all groups free to participate. I am positive that culture and society account for some of the disparity in basketball (inner city, available courts, low cost, etc.) but that does not account for the disparity. And when you look at the speed positions in football, the explanation is even more eating. Move on to sprinting and you really need to just abandon the notion that the disparity can be accounted for by society and culture.
Myopia is the word for it. It’s hilarious and bizarre at the same time.
This isn’t really a debate about genetics. That’s pretty much been settled - the strong genetic hypothesis for the test score gap is dead. It’s a search for rational support for irrational hostility against black Americans.
I never asserted anything like “it just can’t be” or “how dare you…”. I’ve said nothing like that (not even close) regarding race and athletics.
I don’t know. What percent have no European (or Native American) ancestry? Probably very few, if any.
Whites dominated sprinting in the past. I don’t see “NOW” as special, so the same forces that operated in the past might just be operating in different ways and varying degrees today.
I would love to here your theory of the forces in play that result in a small group (~16%) achieving 90%-plus of the slots in the NBA, in the NFL’s speed positions, and on the list of the 100 fastest sprinters.
It is very funny, the pretension the american one drop rule about black is pretended to have a genetic meaning…
I think it is in the american phrases “he has the black cooties”?
In fact the unifiying factor of this, it is the perception of origin and not the genetics, which seems to give an answer.
of course I have witness the alignment of a certian kind of american opinion about their black population and their insistence on a one drop content of genetic analysis.
I don’t have a “theory”. I’m just not ready to accept a theory (hypothesis, really) with no specific supporting evidence. Even if its genetics – what genetics? Maybe the combination of African and European genetics cause the greatest sprinting abilities, or basketball abilities, or football… maybe that’s why African Americans dominate (statistically) many of these sports, since African Americans have lots of both ancestries. Or maybe it’s something entirely different.
Are you friggin kidding me? They dominated because blacks weren’t competing. The disparity is astronomical. Extraordinary! It falls to you to at least offer an alternate theory, with with some meat on it. This “culture and society” is a bullshit answer and you know it. What specific mechanisms cop you think are in play? What is it about culture? What is it about society?
What is it about genetics? The same questions apply to any theory. You are marking “black” as “African ancestry”, even though most black people in America have mixed ancestry. We might as well say “~99% of basketball players have European ancestry”… and we’d probably be correct! Most black people, most sprinters, and most basketball players in America have European ancestry.
But because we culturally identify them as black, they seem “different” than the majority, and it seems to some like we have to explain it as something intrinsic to their supposed difference. But they’re not really that different, even genetically – most African Americans have some European ancestry, and many white Americans have some African ancestry.
Translation, “I have no idea what the explanation might be, I just know that it can’t be (must not be!) genetics. Because…well, just because. Oh, and I don’t want it to be true because my Kumbaya wish is that everyone is the same other than a few more drops of melanin. Can’t we all just get along?”
Except that I’ve never said “it can’t” or “it must not be” genetics with regards to athletics. Never. I’ll kindly ask you to stop saying false things about my assertions, or cite them if you think they’re not false.
Do you disagree that most basketball players probably have European ancestry? Or most American sprinters? They probably do, you know. Why does their African ancestry “count” but not their other ancestry?
It’s funny that magellan01 says that I’m insisting that it can’t be genetics in response to a post in which I specifically offer a possible genetic explanation.
It is the african cooties theory of americans - it is odd how it only accidentally resembles at all the blacks are inferior theory of your Jim crow era, only accidentally because it is only the ‘data’ that lead to this conclusion and not anything social at all.
he misses your proposal of the unique mixing of the euro and the african and the indian as it is not consistent with the african cooties rule.
On the contrary, that is a central thesis of Chief Pedant’s argument. Despite numerous exchanges in which the various differences of culture are pointed out, he continues to harp on the refrain
This is nothing more than an appeal to his personal (unsupported) belief in order to find a way to pretend that cultural differences simply play no serious part in the situation.