Why are black people so fast?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q]While complaining about simplistic answers, you provide one yourself. Why am I not suprised?

You'll notice I was commenting on this thread providing a platform for people to make racist comments on the sly in the manner of saying 'it would be wrong for someone to make such and such a comment - in the same post as actually making the comment!

That is an underhand and cowardly form of racism but the guilty parties are trying to circumvent the rules against racism on this board whilst still managing to get away with having racist comments written up on this board! Evidently they even managed to get away with it too - which implies more than a little about the views of the moderators that they can let them slide...

You will also note that my 'simplistic' argument has nothing to do with anything about any notion of genetic differences between races, which is what people like Lancer seem to be trying to prove...

Why do they do it? These threads always seem to be posted by a right-wing/conservative poster seeking to point out or prove there are genetic differences between races, they should be left well alone because the reasoning usually appears faulty and ends up bordering on racism, or provoking it - unless that is the point all along...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by GP
I noticed speed differences as a child all through school. And that is interesting that you are so fast, but how about the average black and white on your team. Who were typically fastest? And was your team majority black even though it drew from a population that wasn't? Why are there no white cornerbacks. I played in high school and I had plenty of guts and work ethic. I hit just fine. And practiced my ass off. But speed is something that is pretty inate.

I played up until I was 20, which is a bit old for a child...

It is true to say that there were more fast black players on the time, but there were also fast white players - I can't really remember because all I was worried about was being faster than everyone else...

Being that the teams I played on were in Finsbury Park and Southwark, the majority of the population is black.

Not sure about the cornerback thing considering that I was one for our team, as well as being the half back - we had a small squad, if you were good and could handle it you were generally 1st string on both sides of the ball...

Now, on top of that one of my school friends who was also white was about the same speed if not (grudgingly admits it) perhaps a little faster - but we was only good in straight lines...

Certainly I never came across anyone who could beat us - but then American Football in the UK isn't exactly a professional sport...

[Ming]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
which implies more than a little about the views of the moderators that they can let them slide...

Oh please... Just trying to let the discussion continue...
If you would like, I will start checking out EVERY STINKING WORD YOU post... and if I see ANYTHING at all that even looks questionable, I will restrict you with no warning... How does that sound to you, sounds great to me

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why do they do it?

Perhaps because they are curious about a interesting difference? Not everyone has ulterior motives when they post... I wonder if you do.

And Lancer is generally a very nice guy, who never really struck me as racist.

[Japher]

Why do they do it? These threads always seem to be posted by a right-wing/conservative poster seeking to point out or prove there are genetic differences between races, they should be left well alone because the reasoning usually appears faulty and ends up bordering on racism, or provoking it - unless that is the point all along..

I never see these types of threads as such.

Analyzing differences does not equal racism, I think most of my threads I start on this subject or that Caligista are way more deserving of your tirade then this one that was more aimed at specific point that wished to discuss the emergance of pecularity. Lancer could of just as easly ask why are some stars brighter than others. Yet, his curiosity is why is one race seem to be more athletic than others. What's your problem? racistphobia?

Acknowledging and addressing differences is not racist, yes it could lead to such comments, but the mods have done a good job at warning/banning those who wish to jest.

I for one take offense at your generalization that only right-winged conservatives bring up this topic. Albert Speers (the poster) does all the time, and last I checked he is not white (though might as well be in his neighb). For your info it is generally left-winged liberals who bring this up on the political level what with their AA and social reform for specific "minorities". They are more concerned with differences than the we are. It is only in recent times that us Repubs have actually been taking a stance to point out their equality only for it to be be rebutted by the dems and the minority supporters.

So, why do we bring it up? Because it needs to be addressed and noted that by not addressing and instead giving minorities "special treatments" we are actually being more racist than just and fair.

[Berzerker]

Tingkai -

What I said was the Berzerker's hot cause tall/cold cause shortness hypothesis is incorrect in and of itself.

There is ample emphirical evidence showing the hypothesis is not valid. The average height of people in cold regions can be tall, and average height of people in hot regions can be short.

Berzerker argues that this is the result of migration and that "These changes (caused by environment) take a long time."

Yes, people who've lived near the equator on hotter savannahs for long amounts of time tend to be much taller. You've been citing examples of short people who live farther away from the equator (Bushmen) or in tropical forests (pygmies).

However, the Han Chinese of the colder northern China are taller than the Han Chinese of hot southern China. Both groups share the same genes so they should have equal heights according to Berzerker's theories, but they do not. Not only that, the height difference is opposite to what Berzerker's theory would predict.

We'd need proof of their ancient ancestry before drawing such a conclusion.

As well, we have evidence that changes in average height can occur over relatively short periods of time.

Yes, diet is a factor. Can you explain what is so special about the diet of the Watusi to account for their stature?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by GP
Ting, yes. I'm sure that the actual story of genetic effects is more complicated than black/white. There are significant ethnic subgroupings in each "race" and these groups have variances in genetic endowments. But if you accept that idea, it seems like more of a support for the idea that there are general racial differences as well.

No, accepting that there are noticable hereditary differences within a small group of people does not mean there are noticeable hereditary differences among races.

It's all about the law of averages.

Hereditary traits can be quite pronounced within one family, but far less so within a static community and none existant within a race of billions of people.

Children with tall parents are highly likely be tall. Dutch people are generally tall, but not all Dutch are tall. And just because the Dutch are tall does not mean that all white people are tall.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by GP
x is nature (genes). y is nurture (environment to include diet, and physical environment). You also need to differentiate between the time scale of an effect on a person and that on a population. There are different effects going on. (Watch out for Lamarkian fallacies.)

Ironically, I think it is your theories that fail to see the difference between a person and the overall population.

Genes are set for a person, but differ significantly in a population, and more importantly, change over time.

You describe x as being nature (genes), but genes are very much a component of culture.

White society tends to link tall height with power (most executives in the US are taller than average). That's largely because white European society has been a warrior society. So people would subconsciously want tall kids. Tall men would be perceived as more attractive or better potential fathers. Evolution in this society has therefore led to tall people.

The same is not true in Chinese society where intellectual ability (passing civil service exams) has been the determinate for success for over 1,000 years. Height is not important and that why height differences have developed and continued between the north and south.

In Africa, some societies may have placed an emphasis on speed resulting in people being faster than average. However, this cannot be said of the entire black race just as it is incorrect to say that all Chinese are tall or that all are short.

Diet is also a major determinate. A person could have "tall" genes, but they will be stunted if they are malnurioused during childhood.

Similarly a white person could have the muscles to be the faster person on earth, but simply not be in a society where those muscles would be used.

As for your animal suggestion, yes, humans are different for the simple reason that for thousands of years, humans have worn clothing. Our bodies do not need to adapt to a cold environment because we can simply put on clothes.

Animals are also hunter-gathers, most of humanity is not.

Humans deliberately breed animals. The variety of dogs have substantially increased during the last 200 years or so. The same is not true of people.

So a person's height is a function of culture, diet, genes, and to a less degree environment. Or F=f(w,x,y,z) where
w= genes,
x = physical environment,
y = diet,
z = culture.

W is actually a subcomponent of z. X is becoming less important due to the advent of indoor heating and air con.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Tingkai -

Yes, people who've lived near the equator on hotter savannahs for long amounts of time tend to be much taller. You've been citing examples of short people who live farther away from the equator (Bushmen) or in tropical forests (pygmies).

So the Dutch who are tall live near the equator? And the northern Chinese?

Originally posted by Berzerker
We'd need proof of their ancient ancestry before drawing such a conclusion.

Why? The Southern Han Chinese moved to the south from the north. They are descended from the same people. Yet, they have different average heights.

Anyways, the ancient past is not significant. Average heights have changed rapidly in the past century due to vastly improved diets.

Genes are just not that important.

[TCO]

I really doubt that if we take ten pygmies and ten watusi, and raise them in cages with the same diet that they will have the same average height. Height varies by race, just as skin color, hair kink, brain size, D!ck size, etc. does. Nothing wrong with that. It's just the way of the world...