If you see a Mexican riding a bike, catch him! It’s probably your bike!
If you see a black man riding a bike, catch him! It’s probably YOUR black man!
[quote]mombasa333 wrote:
Kimbo Slice lost to ???[/quote]
I think he’s supposed to go to white’s or mexicans in the next race draft.
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
I didnt read the article, but I can tell you its obvious there are huge differences in abilities between people originating from different areas of the world. But saying black people are better at sports period is not the right way to say it, mainly because it has nothing to do with all people of a certain skin color, instead it is very specific based on where the ancestry of that person originates from.
Some of the weakest least explosive athletes on the face of the earth are of East African descent. Go look at a map of africa. Ethiopa, Somalia, Kenya, even Egypt, are all East African countries. However these are also the absolute best distance runners on the planet.
Then I started thinking when I saw Sudan, hmm, they aren’t that good at distance running I dont think, and there is Luol Deng that basketball player, who isnt terribly explosive, but decent I would say. After a bit of Googling, BAM, there it is, SUDAN emerges as a MIDDLE DISTANCE running hotbed… interesting. Now lets travel to West Africa. Angola, Cameroon and Nigeria have a tremendous amount of very athletic basketball players come to the states every year, and whats more, you can trace the descent of other explosive athletes to west africa. This has all been known for quite awhile, the book Taboo, goes in depth with this and is quite a good read.
The fact that athletes from these regions excel at certain activities is pretty amazing, especially since you know athletes of other race are trying to succeed with training just as good or better than those from these regions, yet are coming up short.
Now you could say well white athletes dominate hockey, and they do, but I would imagine that is largely a socioeconomic difference in that hockey is a prohibitively expensive sport and there is much less interest in the sport compared to basketball or football.[/quote]
I think Hockey is cost prohibitive. Ice is free in Canada. The lakes freeze over in the winter while it takes a lot of money to freeze water in Africa.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
It IS to imply (IMO) that the current definition of race is not an objective scientific one… rather an arbitrary social one by whoever’s mindset happens to be most prominent at the time. You needn’t look too far in history to see these arbitrary classifications can pollute even medical science, e.g the classification of skull types into mongoloid, caucasoid and negroid.
[/quote]
Classification by skulls is the basis of hominid evolutionary trees, so I don’t see how it’s arbitrary. The three big human populations in the ancient past were African, European and Asian, each of which looked different and had characteristic skulls.
The idea that Jews are a separate race is certainly a social construct, but the idea that the Chinese are part of a different race to the Nigerians or the Swedes, isn’t.
not all sports, but they are a physically gifted race, ive notice some black dudes at my gym who just gain muscle mass easy
I’ve always wondered what sports I’m more genetically gifted for. And people always tell me I shouldn’t worry about it, because it only matters if you reach the elite. There’s one thing about that which bugs the hell out of me though: What if I decided to try sprinting? I’d reach the elite, only to find out I’d never be the best, simply because I don’t have the genes for it. If something would be a bitter pill to swallow, that would surely be it.
So I don’t have much other comments on the article, other than; I find it very interesting, and would like to see a lot more studies on the subject.
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
This has all been known for quite awhile, the book Taboo, goes in depth with this and is quite a good read.
[/quote]
This article was written by the author of Taboo.
It is really a shame that this subject cannot be discussed with seriousness without the typical race-baiting. To truly get past race as a devisive issue we are going to have to be a bit more truthful with ourselves and admit that different races are indeed different. To believe that the only difference is in skin color is extremely naive. Oddly enough, this sort of belief seems to be very common in the progressive, pro-evolution, and youth crowd. It seems to me that it should be very intuitive that humans that evolved in different parts of the world would have developed many differences other than skin color.
Many want to have things both ways. They want evolution to be a fact of life yet at the same time attribute nearly all differences amongst human populations to socio-economic causes. It’s a logical fallacy at best, and pure idiocy at worst.
Making things even more confusing, in genetic terms the population of the African continent is more variegated than the rest of the world. And of course “black” is just a colour: West Africans, East Africans, Sri Lankans, Papuans / Torres Strait Islanders and Australian Aboriginals are all “black”, but they are all quite different peoples.
Skin colour is just one bundle of genes commonly found in folk living in sunny regions. I’d be unsurprised to learn that it’s appeared independently more than once, or that more than one gene can ‘cause’ it.
As for sports performance, the exact combination of genes, culture, popular sports etc is going to vary from place to place. That white men are commonly found in the upper circles of Oly lifting might easily have more to do with the popularity of the sport in countries which are almost entirely ethnically ‘white’, rather than genetics. There’s simply no scientific way to tell.