Racial superiority

[Admiral Valdemar]

Basically, just because WCotC idiots are fucktards, doesn't mean there aren't variations between human populations. Think of the range of environments we live in, for crying out loud!

But no, there isn't very much genetic variation at all within H. sap, especially outside of Africa, and the races have so much in common with each other that they don't even warrent the classification subspecies, IMO.
Of course, this depends on whether you believe in multiregional evolution or the African Exodus, but let's not confuse anthropology with racism, please.

From all the studies I have seen it has been concluded that no sub-species of separate race occurs in Homo sapiens. There is some genetic drift between regions brought about by environmental conditions or genetic bottleneck, but we interbreed so much and have such an in touch world now that we are truly just one race, one species.

Of course the racists will exclaim their crusade isn't about skin colour but also intelligence and crime in society and so on.

[InnerBrat]

but we interbreed so much and have such an in touch world now that we are truly just one race, one species.

Well, not quite yet, - there're still differences between races. But give us a coupla centuries, and the boundaries will fuzz even further...

[Slartibartfast]

Black people are better at boxing because they are a violent subspecies of human. True or false?
Black people are better at boxing, because they have longer arms. True or false?

Now, guess which one is scientifically (?) accurate, and which one is racist bullshit. Just because one is, doesn't mean all distinctions are racist.


Black people have darker skin. True or false? Duh.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Black people are better at boxing because they are a violent subspecies of human. True or false?
Black people are better at boxing, because they have longer arms. True or false?

Now, guess which one is scientifically (?) accurate, and which one is racist bullshit. Just because one is, doesn't mean all distinctions are racist.


Black people have darker skin. True or false? Duh.

Well yeah, there are some minor distinctions such as blacks being better runners, but it's hardly racist, it's a fact. Just like saying women are on average weaker than men physically. Not shauvinistic, just factual.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

have you all simply chosen to ignore my posts???

It all comes down to Diet, Comittment & Technique when it comes to running!!! and of these, Technique and Comittment are the most important. Anyone who really applies themselves can develop the proper technique, which for sprinters is a digitgrade posture where the heel is never allowed to hit ground while the body is in motion. I know it looks weird, but that weirdness is the principle reason that the technique is so widely ignored -- people think it doesnt 'look' right!

I suppose the next thing will be idiotic people asking 'well then if thats the case, why arent there more 'africans' in swimming?'

the answer is this: most people of recent African ancenstry are culturally inhibited from swimming. For the vast majority, water is something you drink or bathe in... if you need to get across a body of it you take a boat... if you swim you are taking the risk of getting eaten! In those cases where 'blacks' do get into swimming, we tend to get lower quality instruction, and thus never learn the techniques properly. these factors greatly inhibit the ability to compete at even local levels.

As for all this 'evolution influences it' to the tune of fractions of a second, which is the margin of victory/defeat at any level -- you are delusional! There are so many other factors playing into it that evolutionary adaptation becomes insignificant... emotions, diet, etc are the dominant issues... it can sometimes be decided by what one athlete had for breakfast that morning! I rest my case!

[Admiral Valdemar]

have you all simply chosen to ignore my posts???

It all comes down to Diet, Comittment & Technique when it comes to running!!! and of these, Technique and Comittment are the most important. Anyone who really applies themselves can develop the proper technique, which for sprinters is a digitgrade posture where the heel is never allowed to hit ground while the body is in motion. I know it looks weird, but that weirdness is the principle reason that the technique is so widely ignored -- people think it doesnt 'look' right!

I suppose the next thing will be idiotic people asking 'well then if thats the case, why arent there more 'africans' in swimming?'

the answer is this: most people of recent African ancenstry are culturally inhibited from swimming. For the vast majority, water is something you drink or bathe in... if you need to get across a body of it you take a boat... if you swim you are taking the risk of getting eaten! In those cases where 'blacks' do get into swimming, we tend to get lower quality instruction, and thus never learn the techniques properly. these factors greatly inhibit the ability to compete at even local levels.

As for all this 'evolution influences it' to the tune of fractions of a second, which is the margin of victory/defeat at any level -- you are delusional! There are so many other factors playing into it that evolutionary adaptation becomes insignificant... emotions, diet, etc are the dominant issues... it can sometimes be decided by what one athlete had for breakfast that morning! I rest my case!

Yeah, but my fact still stands, majority of good runners are black therefore they are the best runners if only because they train well, not just through genetics.

[InnerBrat]

have you all simply chosen to ignore my posts???

It all comes down to Diet, Comittment & Technique when it comes to running!!! and of these, Technique and Comittment are the most important. Anyone who really applies themselves can develop the proper technique, which for sprinters is a digitgrade posture where the heel is never allowed to hit ground while the body is in motion. I know it looks weird, but that weirdness is the principle reason that the technique is so widely ignored -- people think it doesnt 'look' right!

You haven't explained why the line up is predominately black - in fact more than that, because genetic stusies have shown that the blacks who excel at the 100m originate from one area of Africa, while the 800m runners originate from another - seeing as these athletes are all from different countries, different backgrounds and different trainers. The only thing they have in common is their ancestry...

[Slartibartfast]

Black people are better at boxing because they are a violent subspecies of human. True or false?
Black people are better at boxing, because they have longer arms. True or false?

Now, guess which one is scientifically (?) accurate, and which one is racist bullshit. Just because one is, doesn't mean all distinctions are racist.


Black people have darker skin. True or false? Duh.

Well yeah, there are some minor distinctions such as blacks being better runners, but it's hardly racist, it's a fact. Just like saying women are on average weaker than men physically. Not shauvinistic, just factual.

That's kinda exactly what I said.

[The Dark]

Other differences come because of the sport. Europeans and Africans (from observation) tend to be much better at martial arts like Tae Kwon Do and Karate rather than Aikido or Taido. Why? Because TKD and Karate are heavy on kick techniques, where the longer legs of those "races" tend to provide an advantage over the (typically) shorter Orientals who developed the techniques (although there is that 7' Chinese guy in the NBA). Aikido and Taido rely on speed and flexibility more than reach and strength, thus the more compact body and shorter distances to move make a small person better at those arts. I myself tend to be mediocre at both TKD and Aikido, since I'm 5'9", shorter than the average European male but taller than the average Oriental. Some sports do come down to physical differences, but IMHO, it's rare for that to be the main consideration.

[SyntaxVorlon]

You haven't explained why the line up is predominately black - in fact more than that, because genetic stusies have shown that the blacks who excel at the 100m originate from one area of Africa, while the 800m runners originate from another - seeing as these athletes are all from different countries, different backgrounds and different trainers. The only thing they have in common is their ancestry...

That is a bit of a stretch, as most of the people of these regions have histories in their respective regions. Their common ancestry is about as common as it is toward modern Europeans, or to a greater degree, Australian Aborigines. Humans have been in Africa for 25000+ years and so ancestry can get mixed together but this happens as part of a nation's history. The one think that these two peoples have in common is a landmass and probably a close shade of skin color. They might not even share a like climate, as Africa is such a diverse continent in itself that it is a virtual snapshot of the entire biosphere.
Remember evolution allows for parallel development. Though not as useful as the eye, techniques and resourcefulness can develop in different parts of the world in the same way. What gets you running from a bear in Europe gets you running from lion in the Sahara.
So really it's just parallel techniques for survival being utilized. Racism is a useless philosophy and superiority has no basis, quite simply because what keeps you alive and making babies in one part of the world, makes you superior to the guy next to you who either can't get a date or gets eaten by wolves. A fat white Irish man would not survive long in the Outback or the Sahara or the Gobi and I doubt that a Watusi, Aborigine, or Mongolian would be at home in the climate of canada.

[lgot]

Perinquus:

Igot, you are still confusing the terms "race" and "species".

No, I am not.

You assert that there are no races, and it is a meaningless term. I respond that race is a term used to distinguish among certain physical types

You see ? I say race is not important to biology, a meaningless term to biology. And you say that which in no ways goes agaist my claims.

you reply to this that there are no separate races because all people are genetically compatible and can produce offspring. The ability to produce fertile offspring is not a characterisic of race, it is a characteristic of species .

Oh, yeah. Do you actually read any posts ? Besides mine have you cared to read Shaka posts ?
Look what I said in my third post : They reproduce between themselves, they are extremelly similar, therefore they are the same specie.
Why do you say I confund both and them come to repeat the samethign I Said ? For the sake of argument ?

So, people of all races can produce offspring with one another. Of course they can, we are all members of the same species - homo sapiens.

You fail to understand what Shaka said and I said: To biology race is nothing important.

Race is not the same thing. The word race has two general meanings. One meaning is linguistic/social/cultural. The other meaning is used to classify members of certain groups which share broadly similar, easily identifiable physical characteristics.

I keep thinking that you should care to read the posts you reply
my second post: "The concept of race is cultural and social. "
my third post: "What you call of different Human race is a social-cultural concept or just a show of geographic differences. "
You AGAIN say I am wrong and them repeat what I have said (Basically)
What is our problem ???

In that same third post: "Race and Species are not the same thing. "
Could I be more clear ? Could you quote me more ?

In that sense, race is a meaningful term.

Not to Biology.
May be to social studies, may be to the racists who use that, may be to those who promote the difference between the races or its forms of nacionalism, may be to a cultural study.
But putting aside the moronic side of racism and nacionalism, the social study or cultural shows there is no difference between the races whatsoever, just the background. A latin-american in Mexico is not the same of a latin-American here in Brazil. There is more than enough studies that show your raising background will bring influece over you, not your color, skin or "race". So, Race is irrelevant. The Culture or Society you live is more important even to the social science.

Racial definitions are scientifically indefinite, owing to the large amount of intermingling that has been going on among human populations for thousands of years, but they are still based on real, identifiable differences.

You end all that here. Something scientifically indefinite does not belong to the science called Biology.
There is no such thing as Homo Spaiens Negro, Or Homo Sapiens Jew, Moderm biology does not work with that.
Is not that enough to show Race is concept irrelevant to biology ?

There are no pure races in any meaningful sense, but there are still broad general groupings, which exhibit a certain commonality of some salient genetic characteristics.

To Social Sciences it is more important the group. Not race. You talk about Brazilian history, culture and not about all latin-american culture. It is a huge prejudice and arrogance even to mix up all this way.
To genetic is irrelevant. It is just a show of geographic isolation.

[Perinquus]

Look what I said in my third post : They reproduce between themselves, they are extremelly similar, therefore they are the same specie.
Why do you say I confund both and them come to repeat the samethign I Said ? For the sake of argument ?

Because you keep using a characterisitc of species to discount race; they are two different concepts, what applies to one does not automatically apply to the other. You are basically arguing that a characteristic which defines A proves that there is no such thing as B.

You fail to understand what Shaka said and I said: To biology race is nothing important.

I keep thinking that you should care to read the posts you reply
my second post: "The concept of race is cultural and social. "
my third post: "What you call of different Human race is a social-cultural concept or just a show of geographic differences. "
You AGAIN say I am wrong and them repeat what I have said (Basically)
What is our problem ???

In that same third post: "Race and Species are not the same thing. "
Could I be more clear ? Could you quote me more ?

Not to Biology.
May be to social studies, may be to the racists who use that, may be to those who promote the difference between the races or its forms of nacionalism, may be to a cultural study.
But putting aside the moronic side of racism and nacionalism, the social study or cultural shows there is no difference between the races whatsoever, just the background. You end all that here. Something scientifically indefinite does not belong to the science called Biology.
There is no such thing as Homo Spaiens Negro, Or Homo Sapiens Jew, Moderm biology does not work with that.
Is not that enough to show Race is concept irrelevant to biology ?

Alright, then let's hear your explanation for the physical differences between the races. If the whole things is unimportant to biology, then let me hear your explanation for why, for example, blacks have a far higher incidence of sickle cell anemia than whites or Asians.

There are certain physical characteristics that are inherited, and some of these characteristics are more strongly represented in some groups of humans than others. We tend to refer to these classifications as "race". It's general, and inexact, owing to the intermingling of human populations over thousands of years, but what we are discussing in this thread is the question of whether or not certain human groups possess certain genetically inherited traits which give them a performance edge in certain sports.

[InnerBrat]

You haven't explained why the line up is predominately black - in fact more than that, because genetic stusies have shown that the blacks who excel at the 100m originate from one area of Africa, while the 800m runners originate from another - seeing as these athletes are all from different countries, different backgrounds and different trainers. The only thing they have in common is their ancestry...

That is a bit of a stretch, as most of the people of these regions have histories in their respective regions. Their common ancestry is about as common as it is toward modern Europeans, or to a greater degree, Australian Aborigines. Humans have been in Africa for 25000+ years and so ancestry can get mixed together but this happens as part of a nation's history. The one think that these two peoples have in common is a landmass and probably a close shade of skin color. They might not even share a like climate, as Africa is such a diverse continent in itself that it is a virtual snapshot of the entire biosphere.
Remember evolution allows for parallel development. Though not as useful as the eye, techniques and resourcefulness can develop in different parts of the world in the same way. What gets you running from a bear in Europe gets you running from lion in the Sahara.
So really it's just parallel techniques for survival being utilized. Racism is a useless philosophy and superiority has no basis, quite simply because what keeps you alive and making babies in one part of the world, makes you superior to the guy next to you who either can't get a date or gets eaten by wolves. A fat white Irish man would not survive long in the Outback or the Sahara or the Gobi and I doubt that a Watusi, Aborigine, or Mongolian would be at home in the climate of canada.

I know all this - I'm not advocating superiority of any one race, but poitning out that diversity exists. And the genetic diversity within Africa accoutns for 95% of human diversity. That is why two black men from seperate regions have differing physicalities and strengths.

[InnerBrat]

Alright, then let's hear your explanation for the physical differences between the races. If the whole things is unimportant to biology, then let me hear your explanation for why, for example, blacks have a far higher incidence of sickle cell anemia than whites or Asians.

Ummm... that is geographical. It's a play off between sickle cell anaemia and malaria. The gene is able to survive in Africa because in heterozygotic form it provides protection against malaria.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

A fat white Irish man would not survive long in the Outback or the Sahara or the Gobi and I doubt that a Watusi, Aborigine, or Mongolian would be at home in the climate of canada.

Actually, to survive in any of those extreme climates requires some form of technological adaptation during at least part of the yearly cycle, in addition to a change in diet to get the nutiritional intake into proper balance. That fat white Irish guy would get slimmed down right fast in the sahara, as the climate there tends to suck water out of you, and the proper clothing would keep him from burning to death, getting melanoma or becoming folate depleted (no problems with vit. D here)... He wouldnt have the same foods available either, and would have to eat what's there. The Watusi, Aborigine & Mongolian would do just fine in canada by wearing warmer clothes (like everybody else there) & changing their diet to get more vitamin D (among others) that their skin would normally process via UV exposure.

None of these adaptations are genetic in nature -- they are cultural and would be done within the space of a single generation. Over the course of many generations, you might see some evolutionary response to the change in habitat, but that depends a great deal on the degree of success of the cultural adaptations, and would appear first in the skin tone if, and only if the adapted diet was unable to provide enough vit. D and the clothing could not prevent excessive depletion of folate -- the benefits of melanin in preventing melanoma are a secondary side-effect, and rarely plays into survival before procreation. At most, any evolutionary adaptation would serve to slightly lessen the dependance on things like protective clothing, but that's about it.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

You haven't explained why the line up is predominately black - in fact more than that, because genetic stusies have shown that the blacks who excel at the 100m originate from one area of Africa, while the 800m runners originate from another - seeing as these athletes are all from different countries, different backgrounds and different trainers. The only thing they have in common is their ancestry...

First a question: Do these studies account for those 'black' sprinters who were born & raised in the west (ie the USA and surrounds) and whose families have been here for more than a century?

Also you need to note the fact that many of these runners -- all of the real contenders in fact -- come to the west to train with western trainers on a regular basis... it is incredibly rare for a Nigerian who trains solely in Nigeria under Nigerian trainers to be a serious contender in the sprints, and the same goes for the east African marathoners. I have yet to hear of any 'white' runners going to Africa to train in their specialties... maybe that would help them!

There has still been no convincing evidence of evolutionary adaptation (aside from extreme height variation) playing a role in general athletics... in certain highly specialized sports such as wrestling it may be true, but those examples are few.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Shaka:
I was stating that under the circumstance of a helicopter picking one of these people up and dropping them in the other climate. But not only do these people require the technology, they require the skills to keep themselves from dying, I was jumping into cultural differences here and I apologize the analogy was not good.
I also meant to say Tutsi(Pron: Toot-zee) I got a tribe of middle Africans mixed up with a dance. Please excuse me I realized this just now.

[lgot]

Because you keep using a characterisitc of species to discount race; they are two different concepts, what applies to one does not automatically apply to the other. You are basically arguing that a characteristic which defines A proves that there is no such thing as B.

No, No and no. I never said Because specie is that race is not. I even said what race was and they are different. When I said wh it is irrelevant to biology i pointed out a BOOK with the classfication of all living beings to show that biology does not work with the classification of race.
I never said there is not the concept of race, but that concept is meaningless.

Alright, then let's hear your explanation for the physical differences between the races.

So Aristotoles made all green living beings be same and goes you.
Tell me, Do you noticed how much physical kinds of jews exist ?
Wait, YOU said race is cultural/ social. How this is important to biology.
Now, if you do not understand this is a geography difference, which I said in my first post, you will see. That is all that biology cares for. They do not use the race to classify those differences. Ends here.

There are certain physical characteristics that are inherited, and some of these characteristics are more strongly represented in some groups of humans than others.

Yes, Have I denied it ?
No. Just that the race definition is a generic useless idea for biology.
Now if you wish, Diabets. It is a inherited trait. My family have it from my father side. Mother side does not. And yet we would be "LATIN AMERICANS" race. Of course, Biology does her job more serious and does not use a broad generalization (like yourself said) but something specific and therefore they use not race.

We tend to refer to these classifications as "race".

That is your problem. Scientific therminology is not something "We" use. It is what the scietist use. I am talking about Science. I showed you a book that show how biology deals with that. What you call or "We" is irrelevant. You would be surprise by the number of names "we" use and Biology does not.

It's general, and inexact

This is moronic. Get your clue dude. The Classification of Living beings is something NOT general and they try to be the LESS inexact possible or it will lose the purpose. That is one of the reasons that Biology uses not the race concept, it is useless because is one of the most relatives classifications in the world. Put that in your head.

but what we are discussing in this thread is the question of whether or not certain human groups possess certain genetically inherited traits which give them a performance edge in certain sports.

no, You should learn to read.
Yogi first question to this topic was:
"Right now it is generally accpeted fact that no one race is superior to another, and that race does not have any determening factor when it comes to ability.

But has there been any objective scientific study proving this fact? Note, I am NOT saying that one race is superior, just asking a question"

First he say there is no determing factor and then he asks for studies, which can be only Medicine/Biology studies and the best that can be said is the biology does not even reckon race classification as relevant which agree with him about the race superiority since their studies show how little differences have between all humans.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

DOH!!!

I followed you right into that tutsi/watusi brainfart!!!

I'm so ashamed!!!!