WRs by age and ethnic background

[kuha]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

The response you got in your attempt to tell the TRUTH about these obvious differences is all too predictable.

Yes, indeed, I'd be very interested in the "truth" here. As most of us have said, ad nauseum, every one with even one functioning eyeball knows that the best sprinters today are blacks. That's not an issue. In any way. IT IS NOT IN DEBATE, AT ALL, and NEVER HAS BEEN--no matter how much indignation certain Neanderthals present. The issue is semantics and science, and the very idea of any simplistic understanding of "racial" identities, categories, and "essential" traits. This stuff is NOT scientific and only confuses the real issues involved.

Please tell me why my emphasis on genetic populations is not "the truth"? I dare you.

[TrackDaddy]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

The response you got in your attempt to tell the TRUTH about these obvious differences is all too predictable.

Yes, indeed, I'd be very interested in the "truth" here. As most of us have said, ad nauseum, every one with even one functioning eyeball knows that the best sprinters today are blacks. That's not an issue. In any way. IT IS NOT IN DEBATE, AT ALL, and NEVER HAS BEEN--no matter how much indignation certain Neanderthals present. The issue is semantics and science, and the very idea of any simplistic understanding of "racial" identities, categories, and "essential" traits. This stuff is NOT scientific and only confuses the real issues involved.

Please tell me why my emphasis on genetic populations is not "the truth"? I dare you.

Don't we use "simplistic understandings of racial identities, categories and essential traits" in everyday conversations?

When we describe each other in a negative sense (the black guy on the news) in particular... isn't that the way its done?

Why, pray tell, is it important in this instance (who's faster) to suddenly be "scientific?"

[kuha]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

The response you got in your attempt to tell the TRUTH about these obvious differences is all too predictable.

Yes, indeed, I'd be very interested in the "truth" here. As most of us have said, ad nauseum, every one with even one functioning eyeball knows that the best sprinters today are blacks. That's not an issue. In any way. IT IS NOT IN DEBATE, AT ALL, and NEVER HAS BEEN--no matter how much indignation certain Neanderthals present. The issue is semantics and science, and the very idea of any simplistic understanding of "racial" identities, categories, and "essential" traits. This stuff is NOT scientific and only confuses the real issues involved.

Please tell me why my emphasis on genetic populations is not "the truth"? I dare you.

Don't we use "simplistic understandings of racial identities, categories and essential traits" in everyday conversations?

When we describe each other in a negative sense (the black guy on the news) in particular... isn't that the way its done?

Why, pray tell, is it important in this instance (who's faster) to suddenly be "scientific?"

Now you're swimming in shark-infested waters.....

"Everyone" knows that ______ are drug-addicts, crooks, and lazy good-for-nothings.

"Everyone" knows that _______ are penny-pinchers.

"Everyone" knows that ______ are all drunks.

Pardon me, but you and Avante can live in that world. I have no use for it.

[TrackDaddy]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

Are you avoiding my question?

Why is it important to make "scientific" clarifications in this instance when there's nothing common about doing so?

Is it even practical to suggest that generalizations are always unfair or unreasonable? Aren't they-in fact- at times necessary?

No one likes stereotypes but generally speaking a negative context is associated with doing so. I don't think there's a negative in discussing this unless its subliminal.

Don't you believe that white people tolerate cold weather better than blacks, and blacks tolerate hot weather better than whites?

Is there a negative in saying so? How could there be if there is a genetic predisposition that makes this true?

[kuha]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

Are you avoiding my question?

Why is it important to make "scientific" clarifications in this instance when there's nothing common about doing so?

Is it even practical to suggest that generalizations are always unfair or unreasonable? Aren't they-in fact- at times necessary?

No one likes stereotypes but generally speaking a negative context is associated with doing so. I don't think there's a negative in discussing this unless its subliminal.

Don't you believe that white people tolerate cold weather better than blacks, and blacks tolerate hot weather better than whites?

Is there a negative in saying so? How could there be if there is a genetic predisposition that makes this true?

Why are you avoiding my question about "genetic populations" in favor of the broad-brush idea of "race"?

At the beginning of this thread, I warned about going down the rabbit hole. We've hit bottom

[Avante]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

Pardon me, but you and Avante can live in that world. I have no use for it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reality and facts are your friend.....honest! If you need to wander around in a fantasy go for it.

[dbirds]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

Getting back to the original breakdown:
EUROPEANS and their descendants living in countries funded by Europeans (all the American continent, South Africa, Australia, etc.) + former Soviet Union republics + three Asian countries members of European sport federations: Turkey, Cyprus and Israel.
SEMITES: Morocco to Iraq;
INDOEUROPEANS: Iran to Indian subcontinent + Malaysia and Indonesia + Indian Ocean (up to Madagascar).
ORIENTALS: China, Taiwan, Japan, Koreas, South-Eastern Asia.
AFRICAN BLACKS.
AMERICAN BLACKS, athletes living in Europe included.

I would separate Blacks as East Africans (Ethiopia, Kenya, etc) and West African (Nigeria, US, Jamaica, GB, etc) rather than African and American.

I would also include a group of Native American/Hispanic background for Central Americans, Mexicans and Native Americans.

Not sure if I would include Cubans/Brazilians, Argentines in that group above or start another category (kinda of a West African/Hispanic group).

[TrackCEO]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

While it's a hoot to poke fun, there's a serious side to this discussion.

Jon Entine explored this issue in his book, "Taboo : Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It"

We debated that, too
viewtopic.php?p=20587

Author's site:
http://www.jonentine.com/

K E N

[Marlow]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

At the beginning of this thread, I warned about going down the rabbit hole. We've hit bottom

Exactly. And remember the definition of insanity is definitely in play here! Not once in the 7-year existence of this board has this discussion (repeated over and over and over again) EVER provided one scintilla of intelligent insight into the TRUTH. Those who wish to live by generalizations will die by generalizations. Knowing a person's race (sic!) tells you absolutely nothing about them. We can't even decide what 'race' our President is. That should be instructive to everyone . . . but it's not

[dbirds]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

Its not an exact science and there are good reasons for grouping them. If not, why does the census ask for your race? It's important to see how the trends are going for various reasons.

[Daisy]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

Its not an exact science and there are good reasons for grouping them. If not, why does the census ask for your race? It's important to see how the trends are going for various reasons.

If you read the whole thread you'll see that no one denies there are genetic distinctions between different populations.

[kuha]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

At the beginning of this thread, I warned about going down the rabbit hole. We've hit bottom

Exactly. And remember the definition of insanity is definitely in play here! Not once in the 7-year existence of this board has this discussion (repeated over and over and over again) EVER provided one scintilla of intelligent insight into the TRUTH. Those who wish to live by generalizations will die by generalizations. Knowing a person's race (sic!) tells you absolutely nothing about them. We can't even decide what 'race' our President is. That should be instructive to everyone . . . but it's not

Yes, of course. In fact, however, it's false to say that no insight into the TRUTH has been presented. It's just that no such insight has been communicated, digested, and processed. That Jethro Tull album title only begins to tell the story. It really is quite mind-boggling. And I don't mean that in a good way.

[Marlow]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

It's just that no such insight has been communicated, digested, and processed.

Hence the insanity plea . . . presenting the same things over and over and expecting . . . OH YEAH - THIS TIME . . . they'll get it! :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Pego]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

Are you avoiding my question?

1. Why is it important to make "scientific" clarifications in this instance when there's nothing common about doing so?

2. Is it even practical to suggest that generalizations are always unfair or unreasonable? Aren't they-in fact- at times necessary?

3. No one likes stereotypes but generally speaking a negative context is associated with doing so. I don't think there's a negative in discussing this unless its subliminal.

4. Don't you believe that white people tolerate cold weather better than blacks, and blacks tolerate hot weather better than whites?

5. Is there a negative in saying so? How could there be if there is a genetic predisposition that makes this true?

1. Because it clarifies topics. "Scientific"=researched, established, non-speculative, based on evidence.
2. Yes, at times they are. Not always.
3. True when applicable. It is not in this debate.
4. Look up adaptations of the skin pigmentation to certain climates.
5. Nobody argued that point, only made it specific. It is not "blacks are good sprinters", it is "some people of west African origins are good sprinters". Tell me, you agree that it is indeed so.

[TrackDaddy]

Re: WRs by age and ethnic background

At the beginning of this thread, I warned about going down the rabbit hole. We've hit bottom

We can't even decide what 'race' our President is. That should be instructive to everyone . . . but it's not

What are you talking about?

When you look at him what do you see?

If you didn't know who he was and saw him in the mall what would you call him?

Just stop it.