Racist post on CB

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You should take my posts at face value rather than inferring unstated "base assumptions."

Whether pursuing sports or school is the better strategy based on the odds of success is not the point of my posts.

Your post at face value recognizes only environmental factors in athletic performance and discounts genetic contributions.

Exposure or societal interference is your simplistic explanation for the unique distribution of track performance. You didn't even read the post that Donovan Bailey was not disadvantaged, or if you did read it, you ignored it because it didn't fit within your world view.

Nobody here knows why certain ethnic groups, those from West Africa have a greater preponderance of quick twitch muscle fiber sufficient to perform at a high level of track performance. Your simplistic explanation is lack of exposure. I call that bunk as racist. If other races had the genetic disposition to produce those few rare individuals who can perform at the high end of the spectrum, those ethnic groups would have done so, given the high level of interest all races and ethnic groups show in athletics.

China has millions and millions of athletes, yet only their women, who are suspected of enhancements due to the importation of East German trainers, demonstrate sufficient strength to compete at the highest level in track. And Chinese are not subject to a lack of exposure. They lack the genetic predisposition for quick twitch muscle fibers, despite more than a billion persons who are potentially available.

And nobody here will suggest a higher level of intelligence for other races. Last time I checked an African American woman had the highest IQ score of record.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Did you read the articles? Track was the focus, IMO.

The best time a white person has ever run in the 100 meters is only the 200th best time over all. Not very selective, IMO. Entine makes the point in the interview that it is not merely genetic, however. Entine's work is not dispositive by any means, and any given genrealization abotu humans is subject to being disproven in any given specific example, but the trends he notes are pretty ahrd to ignore.

I also disagree that the logical extension of this analysis of athletic perfromance is that whites are intellectually superior due to their predominance in white collar jobs. In fact, just the opposite. Entine makes the point that West African blacks perfrom so well despite the fact that they face so many disadvantages in getting into the perfromance arena, disadvantages that they are not so easily able to overcome in the economic world. Indeed, if your olgic holds true, then the fact that blacks are underrepresented in business due to rascism means that they must also be under-represented in sports, true? SO how do you exaplin what Entine observes?

Interestign issue, overall. Not sure we really have the evidence to know for sure, but if we err, we should err on the side that does not tend to foment rascist feelings/attitudes/reactions.

Juan Williams started out talking about NFL and NBA. Track is an extreme example like tennis, hockey or golf. In these three sports equally lop-sided statistics could be cited to prove the opposite proposition. These types of figures prove nothing in terms of genes vs. environment.

Blacks were underrepresented in all sports in our lifetimes, as you know. Before 1966 most NCAA basketball champions were mostly white teams. That's a brief space in time ago.

I could turn your question around and say, "If overrepresentation of blacks in NFL, NBA and track means blacks are better suited to those sports, then overrepresentation of whites in the medical profession and hockey means whites are better suited to those professions." Nonsense. I reject the whole paradigm. I say that when we're making generalizations it's all about exposure and opportunity.

Jay Santos pats himself on the back for saying that blacks are better genetically for sport because as a race they excell disproportionately in certain select sports. But he ignores the ugly corrolary: what his fixation upon end results being the be all and end all as to natural ability says about how well suited blacks are to endeavors in which they are underrepresented.

I don't see how the Santos approach of assuming natural genetic pre-disposition of any given race to excell in an endeavor based on over- or under- representation in such endeavor does anything but aggravate racist feelings, attitudes, and reactions.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I could turn your question around and say, "If overrepresentation of blacks in NFL, NBA and track means blacks are better suited to those sports, then overrepresentation of whites in the medical profession and hockey means whites are better suited to those professions." Nonsense. I reject the whole paradigm. I say that when we're making generalizations it's all about exposure and opportunity.

This is the rub, you won't acknowledge a possibility, as well as overstating what people are stating, because this is your fear.

Well the paradigm need not extend that far. You appear to apply very linear thinking in a nonlinear world.

Nobody but you has claimed any ethnic group is "better suited". Those are your words.

Certain groups have a genetic predisposition to possess at the high end of the spectrum, better physical attributes which will predict better performance. That's not the same, as "better-suited", as that's a value judgment not a performance based judgment.

Additionally, "intelligence" is a much more complex trait or sets of traits to suggest that any physical component will necessarily translate into being "better suited" for mental exercises.

Your fear here is unfounded.

And there is no evidence than any ethnic group higher level of intelligence performance standards than any other group.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You should take my posts at face value rather than inferring unstated "base assumptions."

Whether pursuing sports or school is the better strategy based on the odds of success is not the point of my posts.

Archaea said "And, frankly, the argument that African-Americans succeed because they're escaping the ghetto is quite racist." and your answer implied your agreement with his line.

You said "The point is that they pursue sports because society closes other doors to them, or because of lack of exposure to other opportunities, not because of immutable characteristics. "

mrboynoah said "I didn't have the heart at the time to wipe his mind clean of all its Fisher Deberryness by explaining that the real reason we see more blacks over-represented at the upper echelons of sports is because white kids grow up realizing they have more options in life and hence, don't put out the same effort as their black colleagues when it comes to sports. I know I remember making that calculus (I assume he meant calculation) as a boy."

Ok tell me what underlying assumptions are behind these comments. If you peel the opinion, somewhere at the bottom you're goint to get to the belief that blacks aren't as smart as whites so they better try to make it with sports.

[SeattleUte]

http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/olympics.html

This is a pretty good article on this subject.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Jay Santos pats himself on the back for saying that blacks are better genetically for sport because as a race they excell disproportionately in certain select sports. But he ignores the ugly corrolary: what his fixation upon end results being the be all and end all as to natural ability says about how well suited blacks are to endeavors in which they are underrepresented.

I don't see how the Santos approach of assuming natural genetic pre-disposition of any given race to excell in an endeavor based on over- or under- representation in such endeavor does anything but aggravate racist feelings, attitudes, and reactions.

WOW! Where'd you get that out of what I said?? I don't believe that (well not exactly sure yet what I believe but definitely not in that black and white, forgive the pun, kind of way). And I know I didn't say anything close to it.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by jay santos

WOW! Where'd you get that out of what I said?? I don't believe that (well not exactly sure yet what I believe but definitely not in that black and white, forgive the pun, kind of way). And I know I didn't say anything close to it.

I've decided you don't know what in the hades you're saying.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Juan Williams started out talking about NFL and NBA. Track is an extreme example like tennis, hockey or golf. In these three sports equally lop-sided statistics could be cited to prove the opposite proposition. These types of figures prove nothing in terms of genes vs. environment.

Blacks were underrepresented in all sports in our lifetimes, as you know. Before 1966 most NCAA basketball champions were mostly white teams. That's a brief space in time ago.

I could turn your question around and say, "If overrepresentation of blacks in NFL, NBA and track means blacks are better suited to those sports, then overrepresentation of whites in the medical profession and hockey means whites are better suited to those professions." Nonsense. I reject the whole paradigm. I say that when we're making generalizations it's all about exposure and opportunity.

Jay Santos pats himself on the back for saying that blacks are better genetically for sport because as a race they excell disproportionately in certain select sports. But he ignores the ugly corrolary: what his fixation upon end results being the be all and end all as to natural ability says about how well suited blacks are to endeavors in which they are underrepresented.

I don't see how the Santos approach of assuming natural genetic pre-disposition of any given race to excell in an endeavor based on over- or under- representation in such endeavor does anything but aggravate racist feelings, attitudes, and reactions.

Juan Williams was the interviewer and not the interviewee,as you surely noticed. Jon Entine and his book were the focus of the interview as well as of the article.

The fact that blacks were under-represented in sports as of 1966 (in the uSA alone) is irrelevant. Where they have become well represented, such as in track, and wehre the sport calls for certain abilities, they have dominated. Look, how do you explain what Entine observes in track? As of the date of his interview no one that was not of West African descent has EVER run a sub 10 second 100 meter while many persons of that ddescent had done so. How can you exaplin this? Becasue they were exposed to the notion of track shoe endorsement contracts early in life? Seriously, how do you explain it?

The 'Santos' approach, as you call it, doesn't make an assumption about West/East-African dominance in certain sports, it is empirical. Your 'ugly corollary' is not empirical, and in fact is empirically disprovaeable, which means that you, who always tout the importance of basing beleif on reason and the scientific method, should be most keen to undeerstand these observations. Instead, you freely admit you reject them nbecasue you fear they may be used for improper ends. I concede your fear, and agree such improper use must be avoided, but to ignore such interesting and compelling evidence is rather shortsighted. I am not sure there is a clear answer to this issue, as I said before, but how on earth can you call yourself a rational, reasoning being and ignore this line of empirical inquiry simply becasue you think it might be used by bigots to support a position that is already empirically disproven?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is the rub, you won't acknowledge a possibility, as well as overstating what people are stating, because this is your fear.

Well the paradigm need not extend that far. You appear to apply very linear thinking in a nonlinear world.

Nobody but you has claimed any ethnic group is "better suited". Those are your words.

Certain groups have a genetic predisposition to possess at the high end of the spectrum, better physical attributes which will predict better performance. That's not the same, as "better-suited", as that's a value judgment not a performance based judgment.

Additionally, "intelligence" is a much more complex trait or sets of traits to suggest that any physical component will necessarily translate into being "better suited" for mental exercises.

Your fear here is unfounded.

And there is no evidence than any ethnic group higher level of intelligence performance standards than any other group.

Of course you didn't say that. I'm applying logic. I'm saying that once you start advocating the latest crack pot theory that seeks to "prove" natural ability by race--whatever the ability you're talking about--you are grabbing this tiger's tail, like it or not.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/olympics.html

This is a pretty good article on this subject.

It is a good article, and I don't think it is inconsistent with what I have been saying