The Slave trade has been a benefit to Blacks

[Goldstone Rapper]

Don't forget Blues and every musical genre derived from it.

In the same vein, thank God for Bellotti and Archer otherwise we would not have the Amex stadium now

 

[Brightonfan1983]

I've just read that article and it's shocking - fukcing Mail and their nasty right-wing shite. I bet the 'scientists' they 'consulted' are of the same ilk as the "reverend" who ran for the BNP in the elections in London just gone.

 

[brightn'ove]

Why is this a subject that can't be discussed rationally? Why would people get all het up about it? My opinion is that certain races are better at different procedures than others. Why do White people dominate in Swimming, Skiing, Surfing, shooting, golf, tennis, darts, snooker etc.

Those are all sports which generally require you to be a member of a club, or be in possession of certain (usually expensive) equipment. Running very fast doesn't require much wealth or class status to excel in.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

I've just read that article and it's shocking - fukcing Mail and their nasty right-wing shite. I bet the 'scientists' they 'consulted' are of the same ilk as the "reverend" who ran for the BNP in the elections in London just gone.

Are you suggesting the article was racist?

 

[jmsc]

My opinion is that certain races are better at different procedures than others.

Slaves are not, nor have they ever been a race. You however, are a moron and from your posts I deduct that you always have been.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Slavery was never confined to just black people.

There was a healthy trade in white slaves who most of ended up in North Africa.

 

[Rugrat]

Looking for attention because mummy and daddy wouldn't give it?

and hasn't had any since

 

[CheeseRolls]

Take this discussion off the Internet for a moment and consider what would you do ? I think the best options are as follows;

1 Put your head phones on and tell the driver you need to sleep - pros puts an end to the dull monologue, cons assumes he knows where he is going. Note he probably doesn't use a Satnav as he believes he knows everything already.
2 Tell him you have to make an important phone call to make, then call an elderly relative - pros might stop him talking, cons will confuse already confused elderly relative, who will not have a clue why you are calling, but will likely be grateful anyway.
3 Opt for public transport - ok bound to be packed noisy and smelly, but seriously look at the alternatives.

 

[Kumquat]

Take this discussion off the Internet for a moment and consider what would you do ? I think the best options are as follows;

1 Put your head phones on and tell the driver you need to sleep - pros puts an end to the dull monologue, cons assumes he knows where he is going. Note he probably doesn't use a Satnav as he believes he knows everything already.
2 Tell him you have to make an important phone call to make, then call an elderly relative - pros might stop him talking, cons will confuse already confused elderly relative, who will not have a clue why you are calling, but will likely be grateful anyway.
3 Opt for public transport - ok bound to be packed noisy and smelly, but seriously look at the alternatives.

Or the Danny Dyer one - "Oi, driver, will you shut your f***ing noise"

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Why is this a subject that can't be discussed rationally? Why would people get all het up about it? My opinion is that certain races are better at different procedures than others. Why do White people dominate in Swimming, Skiing, Surfing, shooting, golf, tennis, darts, snooker etc.

It can be discussed rationally but not with you involved. You tend to start a thread with a subject you know has the potential to start a binfest. You then sit back and watch. If the expected binfest hasn't started then you return to the thread and post crap to inflame people thus attempting to ignite the binfest. You have a history of this.

 

[pigbite]

Why is this a subject that can't be discussed rationally? Why would people get all het up about it? My opinion is that certain races are better at different procedures than others. Why do White people dominate in Swimming, Skiing, Surfing, shooting, golf, tennis, darts, snooker etc.

This is nothing to do with race. Certain athletic prowess might have a genetic basis and there is no doubt that part of the abilities of any top sports person to perform at the highest level is down to physical attributes (e.g. Bolt's massive stride length, GP bike riders' sight and reactions, a boxer's size and strength). Just as much, if not more, is down to nurture. Studies show east Africans that excel at long distance running tend to come from areas were kids have more than 5k to go to get to school and often run it. This is true even when the area is at a lower altitude - not just higher altitudes. In Jamaica, track events - especially 100m sprint - is a key part of the sporting culture from a very very early age and they have the facilities to spot talent and nurture it.

The fact that white people are at the top of sports you talk about has everything to do with access from an early age and social/cultural barriers. It has nothing to do with idiotic ideas like black people can't swim or any other racially based assumption. People are people. Some are quick, some are fat, some have better developed muscles, some have great vision - none of these are racial traits they are just variations in people. Whilst I do accept the hypothesis that environmental factors will favour certain genes (that's natural selection) the development of a top athlete (or any other sportsman) these days has everything to do with training from an early age and this has so much more dependency on the accident of birth.

 

[User removed 4]

I've just read that article and it's shocking - fukcing Mail and their nasty right-wing shite. I bet the 'scientists' they 'consulted' are of the same ilk as the "reverend" who ran for the BNP in the elections in London just gone.

Why was it racist? It wasnt denigrating anyone in any way, I've seen programmes where the reason given for west african sprinters being better is that they have higher or better levels of twitch muscle in their legs, in the same vein , east african long distance runners are better because they live and grew up at high altitude, black people dont make very competitive swimmers because their bone structure is heavier and not suited to it, nothing racist in that, a simple fact of life.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

There was a programme on bbc many years ago looking at east African runners and trying to work out physically why they are better runners than anyone else.

One of the conclusions was that their hips were more flexible which allowed movement without burning energy.....

With regards to mainly "white " sports, the comment about golf and tiger woods is an interesting one. Tiger doesn't regard himself as black, rather of polynesian extract and he has has run ins with the afro American community about him supposedly not emphasising their heritage

 

[pigbite]

black people dont make very competitive swimmers because their bone structure is heavier and not suited to it, nothing racist in that, a simple fact of life.

I'd love to see your references for that one...

 

[Marshy]

I have not read the article. But I am looking forward to watching the programme, then I will make a judgement on it.

 

[Kumquat]

I'd love to see your references for that one...

This is a summary from one expert. Interesting that apparently the proportion of black people who can actually swim at all, let alone be professional swimmers is much lower than the UK population as a whole.


Matt Bridge, Senior Lecturer in Coaching & Sports Science, University of Birmingham
Expert on human movement and human physiology.
In terms of buoyancy there are some differences and there is evidence to suggest that black men and women are less buoyant than white men and women.
Differences in bone mineral density (weight of bones)
Take average black man and average white man and you’re looking at 300grams difference in terms of skeletal mass.
But there are people in both groups that break the rule, you can get very buoyant black men and very heavy white men.
But generally black people are less buoyant than white people.
But a non buoyant person can still swim.
Lack of buoyancy is most significant at the learning phase. E.g black kid kicking with float, legs may sink. Once you take the floats away, it evens itself out.

 

[jackanada]

[deep breath and prepare to wade into the abyss]

Firstly, ignoring the issues equipment, training, and of course willpower, let us accept that there is a limiting factor in exceptional performance that is genetically controlled physiology. i.e. stride length, lung capacity, alignment of tendons or whatever. The truly exceptional, record-breaking athletes are then those that have a freakishly rare/fortuitous combination of genes.

Secondly,with apologies to creationists and other nut-jobs, let us accept (not blindly, in the face of overwhelming evidence) that humans first evolved somewhere in Africa, and that from there we spread and gradually became different races. One of the sub-groups of the races we became is popularly known as white, perhaps more accurately white-european. Part of becoming a separate race is that the gene-pool substantially narrowed as the original travellers died from new environmental pressures and the bred with one-another.

So what we have, comparing 'black' with 'white' is that when 'whites' are dealt their hand from the genetic lottery there is less variety of cards in the pack, while 'blacks' are picking from a full deck. So in conclusion, a very broad conclusion with many caveats and further explanations that would take up several PhD theses, it is more possible to be a world-class black athlete than a world-class white athlete. (I use possible deliberately, not probable, just the one thesis probably required to explain that one)

 

[User removed 4]

I'd love to see your references for that one...

Looks like Kumquat posted it for me.

 

[Billy the Fish]

[deep breath and prepare to wade into the abyss]

Firstly, ignoring the issues equipment, training, and of course willpower, let us accept that there is a limiting factor in exceptional performance that is genetically controlled physiology. i.e. stride length, lung capacity, alignment of tendons or whatever. The truly exceptional, record-breaking athletes are then those that have a freakishly rare/fortuitous combination of genes.

Secondly,with apologies to creationists and other nut-jobs, let us accept (not blindly, in the face of overwhelming evidence) that humans first evolved somewhere in Africa, and that from there we spread and gradually became different races. One of the sub-groups of the races we became is popularly known as white, perhaps more accurately white-european. Part of becoming a separate race is that the gene-pool substantially narrowed as the original travellers died from new environmental pressures and the bred with one-another.

So what we have, comparing 'black' with 'white' is that when 'whites' are dealt their hand from the genetic lottery there is less variety of cards in the pack, while 'blacks' are picking from a full deck. So in conclusion, a very broad conclusion with many caveats and further explanations that would take up several PhD theses, it is more possible to be a world-class black athlete than a world-class white athlete. (I use possible deliberately, not probable, just the one thesis probably required to explain that one)

A good and interesting post

I'm not sure why some people have such a problem with the concept that humans in different parts of the world have evolved to be physically different. By only comparing blacks and whites we are ignoring some really obvious differences - take indian men for example, how many world class Indian sprinters have there been. On the whole most people in Asia are smaller and shorter than their African/European counterparts. Is it really that much of a leap of faith to suggest that black people have higher bone density and build muscle mass quicker than white people, all the evidence suggests that race does make a difference
.
Of course we are expanding a bit on the original article - the article is based more on Darwins theory than anything else. I've often wondered if the opposite happened to the white european gene pool in WW1. So many people were killed at that time, could we say that on the whole the strongest and fittest of our kind were sent over the top, while the boffins and Nigels stayed at home - or are we talking a too short a timeline and too few people to make a difference?

 

[pigbite]

This is a summary from one expert. Interesting that apparently the proportion of black people who can actually swim at all, let alone be professional swimmers is much lower than the UK population as a whole.


Matt Bridge, Senior Lecturer in Coaching & Sports Science, University of Birmingham
Expert on human movement and human physiology.
In terms of buoyancy there are some differences and there is evidence to suggest that black men and women are less buoyant than white men and women.
Differences in bone mineral density (weight of bones)
Take average black man and average white man and you’re looking at 300grams difference in terms of skeletal mass.
But there are people in both groups that break the rule, you can get very buoyant black men and very heavy white men.
But generally black people are less buoyant than white people.
But a non buoyant person can still swim.
Lack of buoyancy is most significant at the learning phase. E.g black kid kicking with float, legs may sink. Once you take the floats away, it evens itself out.

OK - I checked up on that and there is indeed research on this. What is also interesting however is that this is still a generalisation based on averages and not the same as saying that any black person when compared with a white person of the same age and height will always have a higher bone density level. Researchers have not been able to completely factor out lifestyle choices (e.g. diet). The reality is, as stated above, that none of this prevents swimming. Matt Bridge is also quoted as saying that “Thousands of black Americans have taken the US Marines’ compulsory swimming test and none have failed.”

The research also shows that both in the UK and US participation in swimming from an early age by the black population is much lower than average and this is cultural/social issue as opposed to anything to do with physiological factors. Of course, the fact an individual can excel at any sport requires that they have a complementary, often exceptional, physical makeup but the fact there are a very small number of competitive black swimmers is not down to a generalisation on bone density but the fact that not enough talent is fed into the sport at an early age.

I am not discounting genetics in all of this and I am not saying there is not evidence that some populations of people may have a predisposition to have a genetic makeup that favours certain physical traits but all the research I have seen on things like marathon runners in east Africa ultimately puts the genetic factors for sporting success in a population as a bit player compared to the social and cultural factors. The genetics question becomes much more relevant if you were to actively "breed" for particular traits - a bit like racehorses or pedigree animals. I wonder how the social/cultural aspects (e.g. schools in Jamaica supporting short distance running) can then impact the genetic development of a local population.