Pathetic old racist fart on Frogley road (Lounged)

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Wrong Thread,Sorry.....

[Jeremy]

Brendan/taper/coachkelly et al - I am aware that there is a lot of genetic diversity in Africa, it was not my intention to suggest that "all blacks are the same", or any such nonsense. Perhaps there is a specific region or "population group" which has attributes particularly suited to sprinting, and many of today's athletes inherit genes from that group? In a similar way to certain East African countries who tend to do very well at distance running.

Certainly it doesn't seem unrealistic to suggest that certain genetic groups are prone to a certain body shape, muscular development, etc, which would give certain physical advantages. Taper seems to acknowledge this himself, so I can't quite work out what his beef is. Is it just because I used the term "black", rather than being more specific?

CitizenED, you make an intesting point and I agree to an extent. But seeing as that experiment will never happen, I am just going by the data available.

[Brendan]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Certainly it doesn't seem unrealistic to suggest

> that certain genetic groups are prone to a certain

> body shape, muscular development, etc,

Jeremy, no it?s not. At least I don?t think so. I was just making a point specifically about Africa because it?s a personal bug bear of mine.

I do think lots of people are quite justifiably cautious about putting too much importance on different physical racial traits. This is because we unfortunately live in a world where there are still plenty of people out there who would jump at the opportunity to use these ideas to justify their own racist beliefs.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I think you'll find all redheads are gorgeous.

ed. for atrocious spelling.

[david_carnell]

The whole argument about blacks being better sprinters/whites being better swimmers etc is unbeleivably simplified. It's like trying to explain quantum physics using only GCSE maths - you can't do it.

The infitessimal number of variations of heredity, cultural and environmental influences over generations make trying to explain away sporting prowess through simple genetics a fruitless exercise. Whilst a few scientifics papers allude to African infants having more advanced motor development than whites, African men have greater bone density and lower body-fat ratios than their non-African counterparts and Japanese researchers observed that athletes of African extraction had stiffer muscles than whites, a trait they concluded "could contribute to greater sprint/jump performance among black athletes", no scientific study shows that one ethnic group is profoundly different overall ? for better or worse ? than another.

To start with, the current crop of West-African originating successful sprinters do not come from Senegal they come from the West. European and Native American or other aboriginal bloodlines will have substantially diluted the West African ancestry of any recent sprint champions from the U.S., Canada and the Caribbean.

There may be few great basketball players among the Aleut natives of Alaska, but you've never seen a great seal fisherman on the playgrounds of Compton either, have you? Cultural effects play a massive role.

The elite athletes that people see on television represent only a tiny fraction of any given ethnic group ? one skewed by coaching, personal decisions and cultural influences.

[ClareC]

I went to Morocco with some friends and the locals called us "Fish and Chips" damn cheek! Another favourite was "lubbly jubbly! and the personal favourite "Charlies Angels"!

twas all said on jest and no offence taken........... still not keen on being called "Fish and Chips" though!

[TillieTrotter]

I went to Tunisia years ago and the sellers in the souks when realising we were English shouted out "Maggie Thatcher", "Bobby Charlton" and unbelievably "Lucy from Dallas"!

[Jeremy]

Hi david_carnell - I do agree with a lot of what you say, the cultural aspects, parental support, coaching, etc are all bound to have a large impact on the success of a sportsman. But surely there are genetic factors too. Not everyone is born with the potential to become a great athlete, there's undeniably a hereditary factor. And I'm not sure I necessarily believe that athletics/sprinting is more ingrained in black cultures than it is in other cultures (although I won't mind if someone proves me wrong).

Now, of course the top performers are not representative of their entire ethnic group, but isn't it possible that certain ethnic groups, certain patterns of genes etc are more capable of producing the occasional elite specimen than others?

[david_carnell]

I think it's the term "black sprinter" or "black athlete" that leads to the confusion. By grouping together all athletes of a certain skin pigmentation, whilst not racist, is certainly simplistic and definitely wrong.

What is really being said is that, in the example of long distance running, a very specific area of the the Rift Valley in Kenya seems to produce very good runners. As has been well documented, Kenyans from well-defined areas in the Rift Valley are strikingly successful at running 3,000m and above. Up until 1993 the Kalenjin tribe won 317 medals and the neighbouring Gussi people won 78. These figures amounted respectively to 63 per cent and 15 per cent of the 506 medals won by Kenyan athletes in major competitions.

This however, doesn't amount to "blacks" being good at running. The fallacy may not seem obvious because we are so used to thinking that ?black? and ?white? refer to biologically significant groupings. So let us imagine a similar argument using the Central African Bambuti, a tribe commonly referred to as Pygmies. With an average height of 4ft we can safely assert that the Bambuti have a natural superiority when it comes to walking under low ceilings. Would it be legitimate to extrapolate from this that blacks in general have a natural advantage at walking under low ceilings?

The problem for the ?racial scientist? is his yearning to generalise.

It's like saying that whites are excellent skiers. Really, what we're saying is that some Scandanavians and alps-based folk are pretty darn hot when it comes to going down slopes on planks of wood. Frankly, the rest of the "white" populous of the world are terrible at skiing. Just ask any Australian. Except those who live near ski resorts.

And exceptions are easy to find. Olympic basketball champions? The mighty afro-caribbean ganglies of the USA? Their ancestral homelands of Mali or Somalia? Nope, Argentina.

[Jeremy]

As I said in my previous post... I was never trying to suggest that "all blacks" are great sprinters. I was saying that all great (modern day) sprinters are black. I am quite happy to believe that certain sub-groups are genetically advantaged, and again I repeat that I already know there is a great deal of genetic diversity in Africa. Your "pygmy" example is largely wasted on me - I have no need for a lesson in logical deduction. In short, I agree with you.

What I object to is to is people who refuse to believe that genetics play a factor, possibly because they believe it to be politically incorrect to do so.

Skiing is not a good example, as most of us can run every day if we choose to... very few of us can ski regularly, due to geography and wealth. It is also a more technical discipline than sprinting, and plainly has nothing to do with genetics/evolution.

[taper]

Straw man Jeremy. No-one on here has argued that genetics don't play a factor.

[david_carnell]

Of course genetics play some role in whether you're a good athlete. Partly due to genetic pre-disposition and partly down to good nutrition from birth, at 6'2" I'm quite tall. This would make me naturally better at many sports than someone of 5'2".

Whether I put that genetic advantage to good use however is almost entirely down to cultural and environmental factors.

Your point about "all of us could choose to run every day" is a good one. It highlights the above point neatly. Most of choose not to run at all. Ergo, we're pretty bad at running. Nothing to do with race.

And I didn't mean to patronise you with simple racial biology of African tribes, merely highlighting the blurred boundaries of ethnicity.

I don't think that a form-book of twenty years is really sufficient to accurately say that from now on only black people will win sprints. Up until recently, black Americans dominated heavyweight boxing. The white fellas put in against them were routinely pummeled (eg. ol' Henry Cooper or Joe Bugner) and the general perception was that there was a natural predisposed strength and stamina to be attributed. Then in the 21st century the heavyweight division is now dominated by Eastern Europeans and Russians. Cultural tides.

[Brendan]

Can I play devil?s advocate and point out that Eastern Europeans and Russians come from significantly different genetic stock to white Americans and British?

[david_carnell]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can I play devil?s advocate and point out that

> Eastern Europeans and Russians come from

> significantly different genetic stock to white

> Americans and British?

*Gasp!* What's that you say Brendan? All white folks aren't the same? Nah, mate, you're 'avin' a giggle.

Next you'll be saying that Ethiopians are different to Nigerians. I won't have it!

[Jeremy]

So we agree that it's a combination of hereditary factors, and social/environmental factors. Good. There seems to remain a disagreement about the balance of the two, but at the end of the day, neither of us know... we're both applying our own mixture of logic and assumptions.

It will be interesting to see whether the trend in sprinting does continue.

I know what you mean about boxing, I was going to bring it up myself. However, the standard of heavyweight boxing these days is awful, the current crop of champs are surely not up there with some of the fighters of the 90s (just look at how a middle-aged Holyfield still held his own against Ibragimov recently). Maybe in the states, all of the big lads are being drawn into the NFL or other more lucrative sports instead these days?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I would be interested to hear from any long-term Teachers in London,particularly Sports Teachers...

[taper]

Well of course we agree that Jeremy, but it wasn't your original point.

I know a PE teacher in London, Tony. What do you want me to ask him?

[Brendan]

Ask him for a thorough explanation for every world cup since 1966.

[Huguenot]

The way this conversation appears to be developing Taper, it seems that you are supposed to ask your PE teacher if racial prejudice is justified by sporting prowess?

The point being missed here is that whilst it is perfectly reasonable to recognise that athletes of an afro-carribean appearance appear to be successful athletes, it is not reasonable to assume that because someone is black that they are consequently a good runner.

Whilst the athletic debate could be considered humdrum, it becomes a problem when this neanderthal logic is transferred to other issues. For instance, you may not treat youths of particular racial groups as criminal simply because their particular demographic contributes a disproportionate number of crimes.

Likewise, depriving people of their pride and individuality by shouting nasty names at them in the street as they walk home alone is a particularly unpleasant form of racism. It can't have escaped the victim that horrific assaults are usually preceded by escalating bouts of jeering and stone chucking as these screwed-up retards egg themselves on to bigger and more brutal attacks.

I doubt that knowledge had escaped the abuser either, who probably thought that the cowardly humiliation of strangers increased their social status.

[Jeremy]

Taper, what exactly do you think my original point was? You seem to have read between the lines, and assumed that I think "all black guys are really good at running", or some such rubbish. All I ever really did was to point out the obvious fact that all current top sprinters are black, and to suggest that there could be a genetic trend in there somewhere. I never suggested it was a simple pattern, I never suggested it was just related to tone of skin, and I never suggested other factors were not relevant.

Huguenot - "neanderthal logic"? Are you referring to me? For some reason, I find myself having to repeat myself, by saying that at no point did I say that belonging to a certain race ensures you have any special abilities. Some of us are intelligent enough to distinguish between inherited physical characteristics, and criminal activity.

[Huguenot]

Sorry Jeremy, not alluding to anyone in particular. I was observing that it would be neanderthal to characterise any one individual because of a flimsy statistical correlation with an imagined 'brotherhood'.

This debate started off with a pathetic verbal attack on a vulnerable minority based on supposed racial characteristics. It then wandered into 'you can make racial generalisations 'cause afro-carribeans kids is fast, innit'.

Since both seem to be making sweeping assumptions based on statistical likelihood I find them both unreasonable, and one of them abhorrent.

The fact that the latter is only a small step away from justifying the former means that whatever your views on its veracity, it may be a good idea to steer clear so as not to egg on the wallies.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well of course we agree that Jeremy, but it wasn't

> your original point. >

> I know a PE teacher in London, Tony. What do you

> want me to ask him?

....taper,at your convenience could you ask him if he had 1,000 Jewish and 1,000 Asiatic and 1,000 Afro-Caribbean and 1,000 White-British and 1,000 Chinese Students who would expect (as a group) to be the fastest over Sprint Distances such as 100/200 Metres.Also why does he think this is and how does he reach whatever conclusion he has made.

Thanking You In Anticipation.

Tony.

[Huguenot]

TLS, why does this matter? What does this prove?

Let's say that Afro-Carribeans are disproportionately represented in the first 1,000 finishers, and you announce with spectacular bathos that this means there are genetic differences...

This gives you the right to do what?

Call big-eared people Dumbo? Call big-nosed people Nellie? Call victims of Thalidomide Stupid Flids?

What on earth are you getting at?

[Jeremy]

Huguenot - thanks for the reply. I understand your concerns, but surely it is obvious that different racial groups have different physical characteristics (some superficial, and arguably others which are not so superficial), so I cannot understand why it's taboo to discuss it intelligently. I couldn't really give a toss about the skin colour of sprinters, but I don't like the way it's considered borderline racist to dare to mention it.

Yes you have to be careful not to "egg on the wallies"... which it's why it's so important to draw a definite line between physical differences, and any perceived behavioural differences, which if they exist are surely social/cultural.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TLS, why does this matter? What does this prove?

>

> Let's say that Afro-Carribeans are

> disproportionately represented in the first 1,000

> finishers, and you announce with spectacular

> bathos that this means there are genetic

> differences...>

> "This gives you the right to do what?>

> Call big-eared people Dumbo? Call big-nosed people

> Nellie? Call victims of Thalidomide Stupid Flids?> "

> What on earth are you getting at?

....Hugeonot:Behave Yourself!...The comments that I have marked have no relation whatsoever to the other points about possible genetic differences!..Of course,everyone will agree,quite rightly,that only a fool or moron would shout out these comments to anyone,let alone anyone who "might" be considered disadvantaged or "different".....

Funnily enough just b4 I replied I thought I would read the latest comments from Jeremy and his first four lines could have been written by me!..It irritates me enormously when people refuse to accept "the bleedin' obvious" and then when they DO reluctantly accept their is some creedence as to differences not only move the goalposts but take the whole ruddy pitch awayB)B)...it says a great deal about their psyche in my opinion,if truth be told.Its impossible in my opinion to have lived in.say,London for 5 Decades(like myself) and NOT noted clear differences from people all living in the same areas and exposed to the same lifestyle in roughly the same circumstances(with individual differences) and yet there are clear distinctions which,well-meaning,people are,literally,frightened to acknowledge as it might lead to something deeper and more negative,which is not the intention here.