THE INEQUALITY THAT DARES NOT SPEAK ITS NAME

It is so obvious that we no longer think about it. People of Black African heritage are physically superior to other races, statistically speaking. It is obvious that that the best Black athletes are better than the best Asian athletes and better than the best Caucasian athletes. They are faster, stronger and more coordinated. There never has been and there never will be a white Michael Jordan.

My question is not why this is true but why it is so inappropriate to acknowledge this straight up. It is acknowledged only in passing. By jokes (white men can't jump) and by euphemisms ("athleticism" = black). Anticipating some responses-

1)-"This is a cultural phenomenon---ie, Blacks have to try harder because they suffer so much discrimination". I don't buy this; the phenomenon is cross-cultural. Black athletes predominate in communist Cuba, in UK, in Canada, in France. As training techniques improve in 3rd world nations, African Blacks are beginning to prevail in international competitions like the Olympics and they are increasingly common in pro athletics, especially basketball and boxing.

If there is a cultural factor, it is the reverse. White athletes predominate in sports in which Whites have historically been the only participants such as hockey, golf and tennis. This is beginning to change. Tiger Woods, Venus Williams are, I think, a vanguard of future black dominance in golf and tennis. I don't know if Blacks participate much in ice hockey but I bet they could prevail there also.

2)-"This may be true but it is irrelevant. Who cares?" This is hard to answer because it is true. I cheer for American black athletes over foreign white athletes in the Olympics. What do I care what race an athlete is?

Well, I don't care but I do think it is relevant. The egalitarian ideal is at risk here. If one race is physically superior, then another race could be intellectually superior and that's a politically incorrect no-no. Or even worse, if one race is physically superior, then another race could be morally superior; genetically programmed to have less crime and violence.

3)-"This is a temporary condition, soon genetic therapy will allow for designer babies that are physically gifted or mathematically gifted, etc". Maybe so, maybe not, but in the meantime we have what we have and the question is how to best confront it.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 10, 2000

Answers

I have performed zero research on this subject. My experience tells me Lars' thesis statement is right on the money. You go boy! This ought to be a good one.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 10, 2000.

Lars-

I'd love to see the statistics to which you refer. You would seem to have a very narrow definition of sports and athleticism. While blacks do seem to dominate in football, basketball, and track, there are several sports in which blacks are not dominant, such as baseball, gymnastics, equestrian events, swimming, marksmanship and archery, modern pentathlon, soccer, rugby, iceskating, sumo, throwing events in track and field, and long distance running.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 10, 2000.

No problem for me. A few thousand years of necessity finally mated to a few generations of better nutrition. Darwin wins again.

Sic 'em Shaq.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), June 10, 2000.

Lars:

There never has been and there never will be a white Michael Jordan. Jordan was very good. If you mean that to say no one else has dominated basketball like Jordan in his time, I don't agree; regardless of race. You are mouthing press releases.

Now to your main point. You have brought-up an interesting point that has nothing to do with sports. That is the reverse take. At least in stereotype. In my mind, this isn't true, but it will take time for the world to sort it out. I have a number of African friends who have first class minds. The stigma will not be lifted until sub-Saharan Africa solves its problems. After all, in the first analysis, it appears, that we are all Africans. Therefore, it really makes no difference.

Tarzan: Not to argue with most of your points, but I believe you are incorrect when you speak of long distance runners.

Best wis

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 10, 2000.

Now wait just a minute there Lars, for you are treading on the thin ice of racism. What would John Scopes have to say about this? Im with you on this one Bingo for I too have spent zero research hours on this subject. However, others have and their findings were not well received, as you may know. A discussion for closed doors dontcha think?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 10, 2000.

Tarzan,

I have no published statistics. My statistics are in front of my eyes on ESPN, etc. It's clear to me that Blacks excel over Caucasians and Asians in sports that require speed, strength, quickness, jumping ability and proprioception. I agree that they do not dominate baseball as much as football, basketball and track but nonetheless they are represented in baseball far in excess of their pecentage of the population. Again, I have no published numbers. I don't think they are necessary.

You mention long distance running. That is an interesting one. Until recently, whites dominated this endurance event. Not anymore. Now it is dominated by East Africans--Somalis, Ethiopians, Kenyans.

Many of the other events you listed are dominated by whites for cultural reasons. Equestrian, archery, marksmanship, and pentathlon are all sports where blacks have never seriously contested. Who knows how good they would be?

Sumo? Obviously a cultural bias. Who else besides Japanese do much Sumo? Actually, I think there was (is?) a humongous American black man who moved to Japan and became a Sumo master.

Soccer? That is played everywhere in the world and although Pele was black, I agree that black nations do not dominate this sport (yet).

Ice skating? A traditionally white sporting event altho I think there has recently been a black female figure skating champion (Debbie ?).

Swimming and gymnastics. My guess is that compact blacks will in time dominate gymnastics. But true, lanky Blacks like Kareeem Abdul Jabbar would not do well on the flying rings.

Weight events? Historically dominated by whites. Compact limbs are an advantage here. But speed is an advantage too. Ever watch a shot putter uncoil? Remains to be seen who dominates here.

Swimming? This is one sport where whites probably will continue to dominate. Not only are they traditionally more inerested in water sports but there is a well documented physiological reason for white superiority---whites tend to have a slightly higher percentasge of body fat than blacks. I can't readily provide a link to a study on this but I know the research has been done. An interesting corollary to this is that very long distance swimming (like the English Channel) is the one sport where women can out-compete men on a head to head basis. This is because women have more body fat than men and body fat is an advantage in the water.

But all this is quibling. Either you accept the premise or not. The premise is that, on balance, blacks are superior athletes to whites and Asians. If you do accept, my question simply is this: why are we afraid to acknowledge it?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 10, 2000.

Lars:

Your analysis is very simplistic. You are grouping sub-Sarharan Africans into one pot. They are genetically a very diverse group [as would be expected if humans originated there]. I have many African friends. The ones from Ethiopia are different from the ones from Kenya; the ones from Kenya are different from the ones from Ghana; the ones from Ghana are different from the ones from Zimbabwe; and it goes on. While I have no reason to believe that you are attempting to be or bordering on racist [as was suggested by a previous poster] I believe that this grouping of all black Africans leads to misconceptions.

Africa is genetically much more complicated than Norway. If it can solve its problems, it has a bright future.

Best wish

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 10, 2000.

Ra--

I wondered how long it would take for someone to raise the spectre of racism. Not very long. But at least you have answered my question, I think. I understand you to be saying that we can't talk about this obvious (to me) situation because it borders on racism.

Question: is it racist to observe that people of the Negro race (I am using anthropologic language here) have darker skin than do people of the Caucasian race?

Ah, screw it. I'm sorry I brought the whole thing up. I was trying to inject some edge into the forum. Many people think it's getting too dull. Why don't you take a crack at it, by cracky?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 10, 2000.

Lars, you have once again demonstrated your powers of perception. In my own way I was attempting to state the obvious: Any conversation of race issues these days will enter that PC controlled arena of racist viewpoints. Unfortunately, this stifles any public discussion and really promotes closet racism of the ugliest kind. Are the blacks better athletes because of their position on the evolutionary scale? This subject has been swept under the rug for decades but for many scholars it has credence. If we are all so equal then why are we all so different? Please al-d; spare me the bible thumping if you will. This is a good thread you started but I doubt if many will participate for fear of staining their made-up image.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 10, 2000.

Lars:

Ra--

I wondered how long it would take for someone to raise the spectre of racism. Not very long. But at least you have answered my question, I think.

I don't think so and I know that you haven't answered mine.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 10, 2000.

Z---

You are a well-traveled man but you are not the only person who knows that sub-Saharan Africa is an ethnically diverse place. There is much more difference between a Tutsi and a Pygmy than there is between a Norski and an Italian. But surely you don't deny that black Africans are all the same race? That was my only assertion: the Negro race (this may be an obsolete word--feel free to update me) tends to produce athletes superior to the Caucasian race. Simple, not simplistic.

I stand by my remark that there will never be a white Michael Jordan. Nor will there ever be a white Dr J or a white Vince Carter or a white dunk champion. There will certainly be another black Michael Jordan and there will be another white Larry Bird.

I didn't answer your question because you didn't ask me one.

Ra--

Thanks for your comment.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 10, 2000.

A number of high profile people have been bashed for suggesting that the slave owners practiced selective breeding over a number of generations.

-- ahabthearab (xxx@xxx.xxx), June 11, 2000.

Isn't it because they lived in the jungle and had to run from lions and jump to reach bananas in the trees?

-- I'm Pretty Sure (That@thats.it!), June 11, 2000.

Due to different environments throughout the ages, groups of people who were located in different areas of the world became adapted through "genetic selection" to where they lived. Survival of the fittest, and selection of a mate was decided by the best attributes necessary to survive in each individual part of the earth.

It appears that it does not take all that many generations for certain positive attributes to become the norm, the same with negative attributes becoming rare.

Yes slave owners often bred their slaves to produce offspring better suited to their needs. That probably is part of the reason American Blacks have abilities that are not common in different African (and other) Nations.

The slaves were not from the same regions and when intermixed, there is a tendency for the positive attributes of each background to dominate. So it would appear that slavery and segregation in America caused a race that combined a lot of positive physical attributes that we see today in American Blacks. Just as small communities of people who interbreed, such as the English Royalty did for decades cause the degradation of the offspring, bringing together recessive negative genes which were detrimental to them physically and mentally.

The propensity for violence and other behavioral actions, negative and positive, are due to environment more than genetics. The American Indians did not have alcohol until it was given to them by others, and genetically they did not have the ability to handle it the same way as persons who's societies had used it for many lifetimes.

So basically you can genetically engineer people the same way it is done with plants or animals, but the most interesting point to consider is that the more people stick to their own kind, the more it is detrimental to them as a group, the more people interrelate and intermix genetically, the better their offspring fare in all areas, physical and mentally.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 11, 2000.

"I have no published statistics. My statistics are in front of my eyes on ESPN, etc. It's clear to me that Blacks excel over Caucasians and Asians in sports that require speed, strength, quickness, jumping ability and proprioception."

It's not clear to me. So where does that leave us?

"You mention long distance running. That is an interesting one. Until recently, whites dominated this endurance event. Not anymore. Now it is dominated by East Africans--Somalis, Ethiopians, Kenyans."

Not true. There have been a few very strong marathon runners from Africa, but the majority of the top twenty runners in any given marathon are of other races.

"Many of the other events you listed are dominated by whites for cultural reasons. Equestrian, archery, marksmanship, and pentathlon are all sports where blacks have never seriously contested. Who knows how good they would be?"

Indeed, who knows? So how can you say that blacks are better atheletes than whites, asians, hispanics, or anyone else given the nfact that you're only looking at a very small percentage of sports.

"Sumo? Obviously a cultural bias. Who else besides Japanese do much Sumo? Actually, I think there was (is?) a humongous American black man who moved to Japan and became a Sumo master."

No, he was Japanese-American. Sumo is a huge sporting event throughout north Asia and certain parts of the states. Sumo is to asians as football is to Americans.

"But all this is quibling. Either you accept the premise or not. The premise is that, on balance, blacks are superior athletes to whites and Asians."

You still haven't shown any evidence, or made any arguments, that this is true. There's a world of sports and athleticism outside the US. I suggest you try to educate yourself a little in this area before spouting off absolutes.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 11, 2000.

Tarzan--

Perception is reality. You see one thing; I see another. So be it. However, I take exception to the smug words with which you end your post: "I suggest you try to educate yourself a little in this area before spouting off on absolutes". PUHLEEZE! Are you related to Andy Ray?

A question for you, annointed one. What percentage of Olympic sprint champions (male or female) in the last 30 years have been of the Caucasian persuasion?

Cherri--

Thanks for your answer. I always respect your words which doesn't mean that I always agree with them. If I understand you, you are saying that American blacks were bred to be superior physical specimens. For shame, such opinions cost Jimmy the Greek his job. My common sense tells me that this eugenics did indeed happen and that it might account for some of the African-American superiority. But as training techniques improve, African-Africans (ie, pure Negroes) are becoming more competitive. Caucasians continue to lag.

Why did the slavemasters go to the huge expense of importing slaves from distant Africa when they had a ready source of forced labor in the Western Hemisphere? (native Americans) After all, it was all about money. Well, I think American Indians were tried as slaves and they didn't work out. They didn't have the physical strength or the psychological strength to be "good" slaves. My point is that Negroes from Africa were superior from the beginning. Eugenics may have enhanced that superiority but it didn't produce it.

Hey, I didn't start this thread to discuss WHY black folks tend to excel in athletics. I started it to ask why it is impossible in polite company to acknowledge it. Tarzan gives one answer. He basically says that blacks are NOT superior so there is nothing to acknowledge. I think he is in denial because it doesn't fit his ideological preferences. I think we do everyone a disservice by not acknowledging what most people tacitly accept.

I'm outta here.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 11, 2000.

"Why did the slavemasters go to the huge expense of importing slaves from distant Africa when they had a ready source of forced labor in the Western Hemisphere? (native Americans) After all, it was all about money. Well, I think American Indians were tried as slaves and they didn't work out. They didn't have the physical strength or the psychological strength to be "good" slaves."

Wrong, Lars. The reason why American Indian (not to mention white indentured servants) weren't "kept" is because:

1. Native Americans could always "slip out back" into the wilds, back to their families and tribes. Tribal warfar was also a serious consideration against keeping Indians as slaves (Queen Anne's war of 1713 rings a bell as does the Pueblo uprisings of 1680, etc...)

2. White indentured servants could easily default on their "terms" and slip into the mainstream society - hard to trace and bring back, not to mention the sympathy that many colonists might have.

It's not about "fitness" Lars, geez...

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), June 11, 2000.

There are only minor genetic differences between the different races of humans, and these are the result of different environmental conditions. Races which have a history of living in equatorial zones tend to have darker skin pigmentation, etc. Many of the blacks on the African continent still hunt animals on foot, and certainly have a long history of surviving this way. Even though Black-Americans no longer live this way, they still possess a genetic predisposition to outperform other races in these types of activities.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 11, 2000.

Lars:

You said:

You are a well-traveled man but you are not the only person who knows that sub-Saharan Africa is an ethnically diverse place. There is much more difference between a Tutsi and a Pygmy than there is between a Norski and an Italian. But surely you don't deny that black Africans are all the same race?

I said nothing about ethnic diversity. I talked about genetic diversity. Big difference. Personally, I don't know [from a scientific view point] what race means. It is a social creation and, as such, it seems ill defined. A few genes here and a few genes there change skin color and facial and body features, resistance to diseases, etc. I'm not sure that the division of Africans into two races has any scientific or social value, let alone their differentiation from the whites [a classification, which on a genetic level, probably includes the asians as well]. At present, I see none.

I am a Jordan fan; yet, I think that there have been people with such sports dominance in the past; there will be such people in the future; they will come from many genetic groups.

The more important part of your question was: will this association with sports create a stereotype which will work against the non-Jordons in other areas. It is worth considering. Really, I don't care if people with darker skin do well at basketball. More power to them. They are a small part of the darker skinned population [note: my use of darker skinned, rather than black, just reflects the fact that I view these issues from a genetic viewpoint; it is unlikely that any genetically pure individuals (based on the social definition of race) actually exist].

My question was: does your question matter? If so explain why.

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 11, 2000.

The types of activities I was referring to are primarily sprinting and running long distances without fatigue, developed from centuries of hunting on foot.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 11, 2000.

Good points Hawk. Did you know that the average Kenyan has to run 52 miles round-trip to the nearest 7-11?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 11, 2000.

Let's call a spade a spade.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), June 11, 2000.

Lars:

I think you're jumping to conclusions because I don't think race has inherently anything to do with athletic prowess at all.

Think about this one for a minute. Michael Jordon had a desire above all others to excel at athletics and had a family that encouraged this. Athletes in other sports have parents that encourage the desires of their children as well. We didn't see many black females enter the gymnastics/ice-skating arena until a few parents with the means to hire the necessary coaches, pay the gym club fees, ice-time fees entered the picture. In the same way, tennis and golf required coaches or at least someone to correct errors in form.

I think situation and economics play a greater role than genetic disposition. I fell into a discussion of African athletes at the store a few weeks ago, but I'm ashamed to admit that I don't remember all that was said. One of the clerks at the store is from Africa. I forgot which part. I remember that his native language is Swahili. It seems that there's some interest in training boxing contestants in one portion of Africa, while another area has a heightened interest in training distance runners. This separation of skills is due to both interest and terrain. The area training boxers is basically flat. The other area consists of many hills, and contestants who train running uphill develop skills that won't be met by contestants who train on flat terrain.

In the same way, folks who were raised with access to basketball courts since childhood combined, perhaps, with the opinion that there was only one respectable athletic exit door from poverty, tend to develop skills that lead to that door.

So we have a situation wherein there's an request of "I want to" in the child, usually combined with a natural ability to succeed in such skills [no kid wants to do something of which they KNOW they suck], and a parent's desire to accommodate the child's desire.

The genetic disposition goes only so far as to ensure the kid doesn't suck at the event.

Hawk: Your response reminds me of Bill Cosby's description of this many years ago. He played the role of an African-American youth asking God why his legs were so long and his hair nappy. God boomed down that his legs were long so that he may run through the jungle and his hair was nappy so that it might not become entangled in the jungle brush as he ran by. The AM then replied, "This all makes sense, Lord, but why am I in Detroit?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 11, 2000.

Folks:

Anita: good one.

Now let me put this a clearly as I can. I haven't been clear. What is the meaning of race to you? How do you define race? This underscores the whole discussion. For me, I don't know. Yet, you have been discussing everything based on race. Therefore, you must know what the word means. Let us hear. I sure am interested.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 11, 2000.

Lol Ra and Anita! Very funny.

Z, I think race is used to describe the minor differences in genetic traits inherited by groups of people coming from different environments, cultures, traditions, lifestyles, etc. What are you talking about?

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 11, 2000.

Frankly, I think "race" is a canard. It wasn't even a widely-used term in Western culture until the early 1800's and seems primarily cultural/ethnic, not biological, in nature; "Caucasian" was coined by a German ethnographer back in 1795. Current research has revealed very little genetic basis for the concept. It's just another way to differentiate "us" from "not us".

What race are the Inuit of Alaska? How about Native Americans? Are Jews/Semites a separate race? Tiger Woods is a one-man melting pot, so why is he seen as African-American? Are Pakistanis "white"?

And in the final analysis: who really cares? I tell my kids that it's wonderful to see so many "mixed marriages" nowadays, because maybe with enough blending, we'll get rid of this absurd dependency on a visual cue that just wants to say, "they are unlike me and therefore strange and bad".

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), June 11, 2000.

I don't think it matters anymore either, but the government sure likes to make a big deal about it. I wonder which box on the government forms a person should check if he has a black father and a white mother? Particularly in the U.S., we are creating a new breed which could end up being any combination of races, a sort of "mutt" of the human species. According to the "melungeon" thread that Z posted, people could end up having six fingers if they inbreed races, but I think that is just propaganda.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 11, 2000.

Good points, Dee. I'm pretty old, and I don't remember meeting any black folks until I met the folks from Africa who were at my University as exchange students. This doesn't mean that I'd never encountered African Americans. My schools were 90% AM as a child. I remember something about 1/16th black....like folks follow their heritage THAT far back.

Heh...seems like if a trait is consistent with one's perception, it's due to this side or the other.

Z: I don't know how to answer your question. I grew up with such a mixture of folks that I figured we were all just members of the HUMAN race.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 11, 2000.

Cyber friends--

I just found this link. I had not read it before I posted any of the above but I post it now because it says pretty much what I was trying to say when I started this thread.

Z, "define race"? Like the Supreme Court justice said when asked to define pornography, "I can't, but I know it when I see it". Anita and Dee, to say that race is irrelevant is wonderfully ideal but is that what you really want to say? If there are no separate races, then there can be no racism. Hooray, no discrimination, no Affirmative Action, etc. Can you sell this to Rev Jackson and Al Sharpton?

Anyhow, here is the link--

TABO O

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 12, 2000.

Anita

Did I understand you to say that you did not meet a black person until you were in college? Im 57 and grew up in Detroit so my life experiences with the African-American community started from birth. You can trust me when I say that we all knew the differences between the various ethnic groups. That is the main educational byproduct of growing up in a large city.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 12, 2000.

I'd have a hard time trying to fit African-Americans into any race. If the song I learned as a child summed up the possibilities, "Jesus loves the little children...all the children of the world...red and yellow, black and white..." where does this put folks who literally ARE red, yellow, black, and white? Genetic mixing occurred LONG before my time. Looking at my elementary school pictures, I can see the different eye shapes, high cheek bones, etc. of the kids society called African-American who were really a mix of Cherokee Indian, Asian, etc..

On to this article, I think the author's racial premise faulty because he doesn't limit his definition of black to Africa. The African American pot has already been melted. He holds up as examples olympic contestants, where these contestants are an extremely small subset of any population.

He does go on to include the traits necessary to excel in athletics, including hard work, dedication, and a desire. He ignores parental approval or disdain. A kid can have all the natural ability and desire required to become a great basketball player, but if his mom insists that he study instead of practice, these skills will never be developed.

I know many people who didn't fit in the extended categories provided by the 2000 Census for race. Hispanic was listed, and African- American was listed [I think], but what is a kid with a Puerto Rican mother and a mixed dad? What about the folks from Guatemala? I know a Guatemalan woman who married a mixed dad. Her features are more Mayan. Would that be an Asian influence? Where do their kids fit in?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 12, 2000.

"A number of high profile people have been bashed for suggesting that the slave owners practiced selective breeding over a number of generations."
Of course this is not an innacurate thing to write or say, ahabthearab. Slave owners desired stronger slaves; and why wouldn't they? So is it racist to tell the truth? Many think so apparently.

I agree with you, Lars, except for one thing: it is still politically correct to make fun of the white man's inadequacies in sports (basketball, in particular), yet it is politically incorrect speak of any historical or biological reasons behind a black man's dominance in sports.

-- mike (sup@per.com), June 12, 2000.

Looks like Kenyans could dominate the Boston Marathon for years to come. There is clearly an East African superiority in long-distance running.

But not ready to concede about Michael Jordan yet.

-- Just a (Larry@Bird.Fan), June 12, 2000.

First, the Michael Jordan thing. Z, I was never talking about "dominance". I was simply talking about hang time, playing above the rim, the ability to start a leap at the foul line and finish at the basket with a reverse jam. No whites can do this--never have, never will (unless gene therapy becomes a reality). I am not detracting from the minority of brilliant, dominant white basketball players like Bird and Stockton. But those guys have a different game. They are shooters, passers, position players. I have heard Bird joke about his inability to run.

In my mind, the question is not WHY blacks excel (no doubt some perverse combination of genetics, physiology and environment that will never be fully identified) and the question is not IF blacks excel--I take that to be obvious. For me, the important question is why can't we acknowledge the difference in capabilities?

BECAUSE, I think, acknowledging a difference in physical skills legitimizes the "scientific" examination of intelligence, behavior, whatever. As Jon Entine says in his book "Taboo", "the elephant in the living room is intelligence".

I am not a psychometrist and I am not making any assertions about IQ and race. But I do think the intelligence issue is the reason for some of the convoluted efforts to deny the difference in athletic skills. Trouble is, time marches on. New "truths", new essences of things are constantly revealed and they are not always what we want them to be. If intelligence is found to be a racial parameter, then no amount of PC prompting can cover it up. If intelligence is found to be a racial parameter, then I think it will be in a very unique way that is not measurable by traditional IQ tests and I think we will deal with it just fine.

Finally, the question of "what is race?" FWIW, I do think that race is "something", altho I can't define it mathmatically or in words. To me, it's analagous to the difference between men and women--ie, we are both members of the same species (homo sapiens), both have essentially the same DNA, but there is a difference. Except for the NAMBLA types, we say vive la difference. I think we should say that about racial differences too. They are there, we can see them but we cannot totally define them and that's great--again, vive la difference.

Shoot, I've turned into a Flint. Thanks to all for contributing to my thread. Time for a beer.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 12, 2000.

Lars:

So you have turned into "a Flint" ?? hmm, is that a race? or maybe a prototype....

Anita:

I'll leave aside the anthropological definitions of race and just address the Census and its delicate approach to racial tabulations this year.

Census takers were trained this year to ask people which race or races they considered themselves to be. Then the census takers were told to write down whatever the responses were, with no second- guessing the respondents.

The forms listed White, Black, Asian Indian, Chinese, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian (specify), Native Hawaiian, Guamanian/Chamorro, Samoan, Other Pasific Islander, or Some Other Race (specify).

A person could claim to be a White, Black, Guamanian, American Indian, and the census taker would simply check all those boxes. A separate non-race question box asked whether or not the respondent was Hispanic (Latino).

One of the biggest confusions during follow-up census efforts was to convince many Hispanics -- after they had checked the box for Hispanic -- to THEN choose a racial designation that was any of those others listed above. Usually, they would just repeat "Hispanic".

Training for census takers required that if a respondent, when asked twice for their race or races, insisted on a category not included in the race box (for instance, "French" or "Bostonian" or "Flint"), the census taker was to simply write down the designated race i.e. "Flint" in the Some Other Race category, and move on to the next question.

I think it will make for some interesting analysis down the road.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), June 12, 2000.

Lars -

I'll say it again: "race" is not a concept in genetics. The statement "I know it when I see it" doesn't provide any more reinforcement to your argument than saying "Well, it's just what I believe." The concept of "gender" has a great deal of support in biology and genetics. "Race" does not, your visual data notwithstanding.

As for "intelligence", there has certainly been plenty of research vis-a-vis "race" done in this field in the past 20 years, but nothing of much note seems to have come of it yet. It's pretty tough to (a) nail down the definition and (b) get a decent control group together. Then we get all those "environment change" events (e.g., Jaime Escalante's kick-butt calculus classes in East LA) and the whole "intelligence" question seems to become a lot less important than the "encouragement/challenge/discipline" question.

The question would really have to be asked in this way: are "African-Americans" more or less "intelligent" than "Whites" or "Hispanics"?

When you can remove all those quotation marks, you might have a shot at answering the question.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), June 12, 2000.

I just re-read my post. Aaaaaagh! I'm becoming a Flint as well!

Must be some sort of New TB2K virus! 8-}

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), June 12, 2000.

DeeEmBee:

Sorry, I've got the copyright on that: "I just re-read my post. Aaaaaagh!"

Flint (if you're here), you've outdone yourself. You're now:

a race;
a posting style;
a city in Michigan;
a poster on TB2k spinoff;
one of the 5 Banned;
the original anthill kicker.

Your posts are getting more succinct, are the discarded words leaking out into our posts? Or is it just nice weather there?

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 12, 2000.

Dee,

I don't think your post was too long. But I do find the statement "race is not a concept in genetics" to be quite amazing. I am not a biologist or a geneticist. Are you? If not, I think you should preface such remarks with an IMO.

Borrowing from Z in another thread---can you reference an article in a peer-reviewed journal that supports your assertion?

If race is not a valid concept, then why is it such a persistently agonizing issue in the world?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 13, 2000.

Lars:

If you're really interested in studying the genetics involved/not involved with race, you may be interested in starting here. The five races theory dates way back there somewhere.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 13, 2000.

Lars -

You are entirely correct. I should certainly have prefaced my admittedly lay opinion regarding race and genetics with an IMO or three, and I stated my position badly to boot.

My point is this:

IMO, race in today's world is primarily a social/ethnic concept whose biological components (skin color,etc.) are the result of geographic isolation of some populations at some early stage in our species' development. Given the intermixing that has occurred in the past few hundred years, any given individual is probably the product of more than one race, and racial distinctions will continue to break down as populations continue to mix. Conclusions about any individual or even large groups based on race thus seem a bit spurious. Does my Scandinavian great-great-grandfather provide some attribute that's then trumped by a more dominant trait from my Peruvian great-great-grandmother? Who's to say?

IMO as well, intelligence is equally difficult to define accurately and thus to measure. Therefore, identifying possible racial differentiation with regard to intelligence would require that those terms be very well-defined prior to the attempt.

That said, and on a quite different note re basketball skills and abilities: one of my fondest hoop memories was seeing Bobby Gross (white shading to beige) "sky and stuff" Julius Erving (kind of a dark chocolate guy) in the 1977 NBA Finals. Bobby had good speed and excellent "hops", as Dr. J discovered on his way to what he thought was an easy jam. Bill Walton (Irish-lookin' fellow with lots of freckles) could block an opponent's shot at the top of and sometimes above the backboard, which not every 6' 11" player (regardless of skin pigment) can do. Bill was also the only player I ever saw block Kareem's "skyhook" (the crowd went absolutely nuts!) Some of that "flying" ability we see in the hardwood is the result of hours upon days upon months upon years of hard work by dedicated individuals on the techniques for getting and staying "airborne".

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), June 13, 2000.

Dee--

Wow, you are part Peruvian? Inca or Spaniard or mix? Neat.

OK, I just had another amateur scientific thought and it doesn't depend on the definition of race. IMO, one of the things that makes humans unique is that our brains are so good at pattern recognition. For example, a child can quickly learn to recognize an individual's voice on the telephone. This pattern recognition ability is a blessing and a curse. It means that the differences between people are what we notice, not the similarities. Even the most subtle differences can become the basis for deadly animosity. We don't need dramatic physical differences in order to hate each other (altho it helps).

Anita--

Thanks for the Encyclopedia link. I keep forgetting that encyclopedias are online now. I want to read it but not till I'm feeling smarter. Dee would like an Inca link.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 13, 2000.

Easily recognizable patterns, eh, Lars? Well, I must be a slow learner, because when my kids call, I have no idea which one it is due to voice recognition. In fact, my daughter had a roommate last year who sounded JUST like her. Folks were confused all the time. My mom oftentimes says to me, "I thought your mother was coming." "Mom...I AM the mother." This lack of voice recognition ability meant that I insisted that the kids call me by name in a store. I suppose you've never been a mother, but kids in the store yell "Mom!" all the time, and I got pretty darn tired of figuring out if *I* was being called, or some other mother by some other kid.

Look at the link, Lars. It seems that more alleles are similar between races than among races. It's not brain surgery.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 14, 2000.

Lars, thanks for a very interesting thread. I think that "race" is really a meaningless concept that's mainly being kept alive by pressure groups looking for government special rights, favors and handouts. I know that many of the rest of us use this term, but in more innocent ways.

Anyway, here's a neat little essay I found that's somewhat related: Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism By Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D., and Gary Hull, Ph.D. Is ethnic diversity an absolute essential of a college education? UCLAs Chancellor Charles Young thinks so. Ethnic diversity is clearly the purpose of affirmative action, which Young is defending against a long-overdue assault. But far from being essential to a college education, such diversity is a sure road to its destruction. Ethnic diversity is merely racism in a politically correct disguise. Many people have a very superficial view of racism. They see it as merely the belief that one race is superior to another. It is much more than that. It is a fundamental (and fundamentally wrong) view of human nature. Racism is the notion that ones race determines ones identity. It is the belief that ones convictions, values and character are determined not by the judgment of ones mind but by ones anatomy or blood. This view causes people to be condemned (or praised) based on their racial membership. In turn, it leads them to condemn or praise others on the same basis. In fact, one can gain an authentic sense of pride only from ones own achievements, not from inherited characteristics. The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individuals confidence in his own mind. Such an individual then anxiously seeks a sense of identity by clinging to some group, abandoning his autonomy and his rights, allowing his ethnic group to tell him what to believe. Because he thinks of himself as a racial entity, he feels himself only among others of the same race. He becomes a separatist, choosing his friends  and enemies  based on ethnicity. This separatism has resulted in the spectacle of student-segregated dormitories and segregated graduations. The diversity movement claims that its goal is to extinguish racism and build tolerance of differences. This is a complete sham. One cannot teach students that their identity is determined by skin color and expect them to become colorblind. One cannot espouse multiculturalism and expect students to see each other as individual human beings. One cannot preach the need for self-esteem while destroying the faculty which makes it possible: reason. One cannot teach collective identity and expect students to have self-esteem. Advocates of diversity are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts  for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: colorblindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people dont treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they arent. Advocates of diversity claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the differences they have in mind are racial differences, which means were being urged to glorify race, which means were being asked to institutionalize separatism. Racial identity erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true  if racial identity determined ones values and thinking methods  there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races. Advocates of diversity claim that because the real world is diverse, the campus should reflect that fact. But why should a campus population reflect the general population (particularly the ethnic population)? No answer. In fact, the purpose of a university is to impart knowledge and develop reasoning, not to be a demographic mirror of society. Racism, not any meaningful sense of diversity, guides todays intellectuals. The educationally significant diversity that exists in the real world is intellectual diversity, i.e., the diversity of ideas. But such diversity  far from being sought after  is virtually forbidden on campus. The existence of political correctness blasts the academics pretense at valuing real diversity. What they want is abject conformity. The only way to eradicate racism on campus is to scrap racist programs and the philosophic ideas that feed racism. Racism will become an ugly memory only when universities teach a valid concept of human nature: one based on the tenets that the individuals mind is competent, that the human intellect is efficacious, that we possess free will, that individuals are to be judged as individuals  and that deriving ones identity from ones race is a corruption  a corruption appropriate to Nazi Germany, not to a nation based on freedom and independence.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 14, 2000.

Whoops...sorry, y'all, about the long, run-on paragraph. It was divided up -- at least it looked that way -- when I submitted it, but I forgot to ensure that it would turn out ok by methods I learned right here just a couple of weeks ago.

I think I need a nap.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 14, 2000.

Eve--

Thanks. I pondered whether to bring up any aspect of race. It is so often an emotional subject. I think we did rather well here, considering.

Anita--

At what age did your your babies discern their mom's face, sound, fragrance (notice I didn't say "odor")? I don't know diddley squat about alleles. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today?

-- Lars (lars@indy.ney), June 14, 2000.

Eve, that sounds like the writing of Ayn Rand. Am I correct?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 14, 2000.

Lars:

I got up on the same side I always do. The kids recognized the "milk machine" pretty much from birth, but I still can't tell who THEY are on the phone. Does this mean I'm grumpy?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 14, 2000.

Cherri, it wasn't written by her, but by two well respected adherents of her philosophy (Michael Berliner and Gary Hull). The website this came from is the one for the Ayn Rand Institute, which contains other essays as well (you should find them as you click around). Have you read much of her (or related) stuff? If you're interested, Cherri, I can get you other links where you'll find many more writings in this philosopical perspective.

The link follows:

Essay

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 14, 2000.

Anita---

Naaah, I thought your remark about "brain surgery" was a little edgy. It was probably me who got out of bed on the wrong side.

However, I do stand by my remarkably perceptive observation about cognitive discrimination---IMO, we notice what is different before we notice what is similar even when similarity far outweighs differences.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 14, 2000.

Glad we got that straightened out, Lars. Although I oftentimes tease friends and family with an offer of a free frontal lobotomy, I never considered myself qualified to be a brain surgeon. My point was, "If *I* can understand alleles, so can you!" It's grown into an interesting topic, and I'm glad you introduced the thread.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 14, 2000.

Anita, I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have a frontal lobotomy.

I'm chagrined to say that I haven't yet read your encyclopedia link but I did bookmark it which means that I will get to it before Hell freezes over.

Go Pacers!

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 14, 2000.

Lars -

Sorry about tonight's game. Reggie had a chance, but that was a very tough shot and he was well-defended. Pacers played a heck of a game and I was hoping they'd tie up the series. ah well...

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), June 15, 2000.

Yes folks it was a great game and Kobe, like MJ before him, just refused to allow his team to lose. More than likely, there will be no game six. The Pacers have no answer for Shaq but who does. Lakers Rule!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 15, 2000.

Dee and Ra--

Thanks for your condolences. Yes, it's hard to beat a team that has both Superman and Batman. And Mr CEO tells me that LA uses embedded chips!

Anita--

Soon I can get on to alleles. I learn many new words on this forum. Last week was "susurrant", this week "alleles".

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 15, 2000.