About racial diversity in Olympic sports

[Dirty_Zulu]

If White Men can't jump, then does that mean Black Men can't swim?

Almost no Black swimmers. Could it be the genetics? Their body isn't made to swim like the White guys. Same with gymnastics and sailing and shooting.

In winter Olympics, it's almost all dominated by Caucasians.

However, in track and field is a different story. Genetics? Could it be that certain races does better in some physical activity than others?

[Clink]

Ya, I heard it has something to do with genetics wrt Black people being able to swim competively. They can definitley swim and such, but the way ther muscles are developed, it does not allow for them to be too competitive when it comes to swimming. Someone else may have a clearer explanation on it!

Edit: I would say overall its culturally, but some i have heard it is genetics between races(swimming, running, jumpimg?).

[Drosselmeier]

In winter Olympics, it's almost all dominated by Caucasians.

Yeah... I wonder why that is...

I doubt any of those have to do with racial characteristics. A simpler explanation is that some nations don't practice certain sports, or rarely do.
Archery isn't as popular in Namibia as in Korea.

It's a cultural thing. As usual.

[DrunkCajun]

Not gonna touch the genetics thing with a ten foot pole, but I would venture a guess that the fact that there aren't too many ski slopes in, say, Liberia, compared to Canada or Sweden might have something to do with the dominance of caucasians in the winter olympics. Though, anyone who's seen Cool Runnings has grounds to argue I suppose.

[toader]

Im sure Steel_Avatar or Drossliemer will come call me a racist for saying this....

But, Black people's muscles are composed differently than those of Caucasians. They are more dense, allowing them to squeeze more out of their muscles per say. This is why they are better at strength excercises, but it also causes them to lose that ever so important bouyancy that swimmers need.

Call me racist, argue that all humans are equal, argue that its how someone was raised and its their environment that affects their muscles...but you wont convince me of any of that. We are NOT all equal as races.

edit: haha, I actually started typing my reply before Dross posted here, but had to go to a meeting. Funny stuff, so predictable since weve been around here awhile.

[Tertsu]

I think generally everyone has the blanket statement that they don't mean to be racist by anything they're saying and that definitely applies to me, but I'd almost guess there is something genetic in it as well as cultural. Blacks is a very general term as well, too, for instance there are Africans, and there are African Americans. Kind of like the difference between Americans and Europeans and all that good stuff. African Americans were (whether you like the way I say it or not) bred to be a stronger more hardy people. If they have a history back to being a slave then there is a good chance that they were brought here because of their genetics or survived better because of it, either way they had it and with other people who have it, it kind of creates more who have it; that's how genetics works. But then, Africans, they are generally great distance runners, and while their bodies have something to do with it, they also seem to have a very strong cultural influence with that as well. It's possible that a lack of vehicles for travel and less indulgences help them become better runners (as in they don't sit on the couch watching tv stuffing their face all day...). I think it would be silly to think that genetics had nothing to do with it; obviously the color of the skin is genetic and there is no reason to believe that there are not certain other traits that go along with that (not that you have to be black to be able to do certain things, but more of a prevalent trait in blacks). Just my own musings, though...

Tert

[Steel_Avatar]

Actually toader, I'm going to agree with you.

From what I remember of reading about genetics, different ethnicities have tendencies towards different musculatures. I said tendencies because it isn't always true, and because you can certainly go against the grain and bulk up like crazy. But it will be easier for some ethnicities to obtain a certain body type. And if you have an overall genetic tendency to be bulky, it's much harder to lean yourself out to a runner's shape, than it is for a runner to bulk up. Easier to go up than down, no?

Anyone on a diet will tell you that ;)

And because different sports require different musculatures (runners, especially sprinters, need to be lean, whereas swimmers need to be more compact and beefy, for example; I'm just making this up), different races will have an easier time of obtaining the ideal body shape.

But Dross is also right, geography plays a role too. Anyone remember that Disney movie, Cool Runnings? :D In all seriousness, Canada is very strong at hockey, speedskating, figure skating, and other winter sports. I wouldn't expect South America to dominate at curling, for example.

[toader]

Actually toader, I'm going to agree with you.
*passes out*


Excellent.....Now if I can just convince you that Asians are genetically smarter than all other races, my plan will be complete..... :lol:

j/k btw, dont get all hot and bothered.

[Freemason]

But, Black people's muscles are composed differently than those of Caucasians. They are more dense, allowing them to squeeze more out of their muscles per say. This is why they are better at strength excercises, but it also causes them to lose that ever so important bouyancy that swimmers need.

Black people tend to have more "Fast Twitch" muscle fibers than white people. Fast Twitch muscles are better for running, jumping, etc. Explosive motions. Which is why the majority of basketball players are black. Why there are more black wide receivers than white men. And why there are more white linemen than black.

[quote]Call me racist, argue that all humans are equal, argue that its how someone was raised and its their environment that affects their muscles...but you wont convince me of any of that. We are NOT all equal as races.

The enviroment does have some influence, but genetics play a bigger role. And no, people are NOT equal. Eskimos are short and squat. Black Africans are tall and lean. Swedes are bikini models. We're all unique, just like everybody else.

What gets me is why does anybody pay attention to skin color? We all bleed red.

[Raistlin Majere]

Black people tend to have more "Fast Twitch" muscle fibers than white people. Fast Twitch muscles are better for running, jumping, etc. Explosive motions.

good for sprints, not for marathons. that is when you want slow-twitch. or you can have Medium-twitch, more of a jack of all trades. because of them, I ran sprints and long distance in track.


Swedes are bikini models.
and you have a problem with that?

[LunarSolaris]

There are different theories. Some say there are genetic reasons, others say that there are social/cultural reasons... I think it's likely a combination of the two, but lean a little stronger toward social reasons. The sports that you don't see many blacks in (such as golf before Tiger Woods) was almost solely due to intentional exclusion from the sport. My hope is that we'll eventually see a larger increase in participation over time... perhaps even in our lifetimes.

EDIT: This reply has been sitting at my computer since this morning, and others have responded to the thread since I started writing this. Suffice to say, I agree with the general sentiment here. I do agree that there is genetic evidence of physical differences by race, but I also agree that there are cultural and geographic reasons as well as has already been mentioned.

[Freemason]

and you have a problem with that?
You bet I do! I want to see more big boobied women with flaming red hair in bikinis.

[Raistlin Majere]

You bet I do! I want to see more big boobied women with flaming red hair in bikinis.

with green eyes and a throaty russian accented voice... :thumbsup:

[Jandirex]

I doesn't rain i Africa and tthere are deserts in Afrika too. therefore they can't swim. Just take Eric "the EEL" he couldn't swim neither.

I guess the environment must have an influence bout swimming. Without water you cant swin. And in countries in Africa are very poor and can't afford swimming pools.
:winner:
Why black americans doesn'tswim I dont know

[Ash Housewares]

I'll just watch telemundo for boxeo y futbol

[Freemason]

I'll just watch telemundo for boxeo y futbol

You're not the only one going to the Spanish stations to watch boxing. HBO Latino is chocked full of boxing. I'm starting to pick up some Spanish as well :thumbsup:

[Dark Matter]

I don't know, but it's not just about fast and slow twitch muscles - most people (incl top athletes) have roughly a 50/50 split. West Africans (and/or their descendants - America and the West Indes fo example) generally make better sprinters than East Africans (Ditto decendants) - who in turn are much better at distance running (Kenyan and Ethiopian etc.).

No one has a definative answer yet, but there are 'pointers' - West Africans have less muscle mass in their lower legs and arms, and can run (on average) 10% further than Europeans before they hit their lactic threshold. Indications are that the further muscles are from the centre of gravity the quicker lactic acid builds up - research continues.

There is no cultural reason why Africans can't swim fast - parts of china are just as far (if not further) from the sea than central Africa, and every continent has rivers and river side fishing communities (except Australia).

The Jurys out atm.

[DrunkPotHead]

It's the fast/slow twitch muscle fibers why blacks are so good in track. There aren't many black swimmers because less blacks swim. That's a cultural thing.

[Dirty_Zulu]

If we take all that muscle structure into consideration, why can't we say the brain's structure is also different? Asians' brains are superior than say Blacks and Hispanics in general?

Also are White and Asians have faster reaction time than Blacks? That's why they dominate table tennis, martial arts, and badminton.

[Draconis]

Because it's infinitely harder to point to two brains and say 'that one's better'.

[Metallica]

You bet I do! I want to see more big boobied women with flaming red hair in bikinis.

Scandinavian women are THE best looking women in the world. IMO of courser.

[Steel_Avatar]

If we take all that muscle structure into consideration, why can't we say the brain's structure is also different? Asians' brains are superior than say Blacks and Hispanics in general?

Also are White and Asians have faster reaction time than Blacks? That's why they dominate table tennis, martial arts, and badminton.
Because you cannot quantitatively and objectively measure intelligence. And it has been pointed out that it is not only genetic, and that they are only tendencies, not sure things.

[Canadia142]

I am appauled at the lack of pcness in this thread. They are not "black" they are "African American" and they are not "white" they are "crackas". Please be more pc next time

[jimmyboy]

If White Men can't jump, then does that mean Black Men can't swim?

Almost no Black swimmers. Could it be the genetics? Their body isn't made to swim like the White guys. Same with gymnastics and sailing and shooting.

In winter Olympics, it's almost all dominated by Caucasians.

However, in track and field is a different story. Genetics? Could it be that certain races does better in some physical activity than others?

Maybe, or in the alternative....

It's pretty difficult to find financial reward in swimming.

[toader]

I am appauled at the lack of pcness in this thread. They are not "black" they are "African American" and they are not "white" they are "crackas". Please be more pc next time
They're not "azn" they are "smarties"

[jimmyboy]

If we take all that muscle structure into consideration, why can't we say the brain's structure is also different? Asians' brains are superior than say Blacks and Hispanics in general?

Also are White and Asians have faster reaction time than Blacks? That's why they dominate table tennis, martial arts, and badminton.

Asians believe that education is the key to success, whereas Blacks believe that sports and entertainment is the key to success.

Shorter people has faster reaction time. Besides, by process of elimination, short folks tend to flock to table tennis and badmitton where height and size advantage is mitigated.

Blacks do very well in martial arts, dominating in the 80s. While the dominance has evaporated, there are still many Black champion fighters from K-1 to point fighting. Besides, martial arts pay alot less than boxing.

[Raistlin Majere]

Shorter people has faster reaction time. Besides, by process of elimination, short folks tend to flock to table tennis and badmitton where height and size advantage is mitigated.
Depends on the person. I am 6'3 and tend to win most reaction games. not to mention reaction timing is nothing without coordination.

*gets smacked by the Coordination Fairy*

Blacks do very well in martial arts, dominating in the 80s. While the dominance has evaporated, there are still many Black champion fighters from K-1 to point fighting. Besides, martial arts pay alot less than boxing.[/QUOTE]
true but in a fight, Martial arts> boxing most of the time. and its cooler :thumbsup:

[Night]

Maybe, or in the alternative....

It's pretty difficult to find financial reward in swimming.

That's so messed....hahahaha..

You're a bad person :P!

[Malibu, CA]

I am appauled at the lack of pcness in this thread. They are not "black" they are "African American" and they are not "white" they are "crackas". Please be more pc next time
Well, hello there Chris Rock. :lol:

[jimmyboy]

Depends on the person. I am 6'3 and tend to win most reaction games. not to mention reaction timing is nothing without coordination.

*gets smacked by the Coordination Fairy*

Blacks do very well in martial arts, dominating in the 80s. While the dominance has evaporated, there are still many Black champion fighters from K-1 to point fighting. Besides, martial arts pay alot less than boxing.
true but in a fight, Martial arts> boxing most of the time. and its cooler :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]

Ever notice how the quicker players in the NBA are smaller guards; in the NFL smaller receivers; in baseball smaller base-stealers? And ever notice how there aren't many tall players in table tennis, or badmitton, or soccer? Do you think most 6'3" have the same quickness as you? BTW, you're kind of short for basketball. Do you think that 6'10" players are quicker or slower than you... in general...

Martial arts could be better than boxing, but the arguement was to show that African-Americans are well represented in martial arts competition rather than the old adage of kungfu vs karate.

[DrunkCajun]

Now here's one for you--why are there no Asians/Blacks in the World's Strongest Man competition? Every one of those beasts is Nordic and honky as they come. I mean, honestly, 3/4 of them look like they were yanked from the set of The 13th Warrior.

[publius]

Funny thing, no one here seems to consider the possibility that success in athletics may be directly related to the amount of effort put into lifting weight or jogging, nor do they consider academic success related into the amount of motivation and hard work devoted to studying. The whole "get-rich-quickly" appeal of genetics seems to be much more popular for some reason.

[Steel_Avatar]

Funny thing how you didn't read the whole thread :rolleyes:

Several people, myself included, noted that cultural and other social factors played a role as much as genetics did. But that would take away from your righteousness, wouldn't it?

[acceleration turkey]

american blacks, which are closer genetically to west african blacks than west african blacks are to east african blacks, do not swim because their bones are too dense and they lack bouyancy. im suprised nobody has ever heard that. im not suprised to see so many people claiming that it is all cultural and a matter of national choice, even as year after year we see black jumpers and sprinters and white swimmers.

there needs to be more racial discussion like this in the world. is anyone here aware of controversy involving the segregation of blood supplies and organs? did you know that interracial transfusions and organ transplants are often unsuccessful (at a higher rate than intraracial) but that segregating blood and organ supplies is met with criticism and it said to be discriminatiory? there is in fact little controversy, because in order for there to be controversy, people have to be informed enough to raise objection.

when you need an organ or blood, should people really be playing politics? people are so afraid to admit that the races are slightly different that we are wasting good blood and good organs in denial of the facts. it is extremely shameful, but there is no accountability because no one will stand up to the hype.

American Renaissance has a lot of interesting stuff:

WARNING: some people might find the following content offensive for personal or political reasons, but it is not outright objectionable. these are back issues of AR.

http://www.amren.com/9212issue/9212issue.html (physical differences)

http://www.amren.com/9211issue/9211issue.html (mental differences)

http://www.amren.com/0302issue/0302issue.html (race mixing, genetic difference...subjective social commentary)

http://www.science.smith.edu/exer_sci/ESS200/Raceh/Raceh.htm

[Steel_Avatar]

Separating blood stocks is stupid because the only thing you need to match is type and Rh proteins, which are not particular to any one race. Yes, certain races tend to exhibit one type more consistently, but that doesn't mean we should separate all. Besides, there is a universal donor type.

[jimmyboy]

american blacks, which are closer genetically to west african blacks than west african blacks are to east african blacks, do not swim because their bones are too dense and they lack bouyancy. im suprised nobody has ever heard that. im not suprised to see so many people claiming that it is all cultural and a matter of national choice, even as year after year we see black jumpers and sprinters and white swimmers.

there needs to be more racial discussion like this in the world. is anyone here aware of controversy involving the segregation of blood supplies and organs? did you know that interracial transfusions and organ transplants are often unsuccessful (at a higher rate than intraracial) but that segregating blood and organ supplies is met with criticism and it said to be discriminatiory? there is in fact little controversy, because in order for there to be controversy, people have to be informed enough to raise objection.

when you need an organ or blood, should people really be playing politics? people are so afraid to admit that the races are slightly different that we are wasting good blood and good organs in denial of the facts. it is extremely shameful, but there is no accountability because no one will stand up to the hype.

American Renaissance has a lot of interesting stuff:

WARNING: some people might find the following content offensive for personal or political reasons, but it is not outright objectionable. these are back issues of AR.

http://www.amren.com/9212issue/9212issue.html (physical differences)

http://www.amren.com/9211issue/9211issue.html (mental differences)

http://www.amren.com/0302issue/0302issue.html (race mixing, genetic difference...subjective social commentary)

http://www.science.smith.edu/exer_sci/ESS200/Raceh/Raceh.htm

You're implying that we should believe everything that we hear. Sure you want to take that stand?

Wow, those sites are some of the most racist sites I've seen in a while. They should rename it to the "official aryan-nation site."

Could you provide some proof that this site isn't just an opinion from a bunch of racist pigs?

[lala]

anyone seen the china female weight lifter? i think she broke the record and got gold...oh and she looks like a guy

[acceleration turkey]

You're implying that we should believe everything that we hear. Sure you want to take that stand?

Wow, those sites are some of the most racist sites I've seen in a while. They should rename it to the "official aryan-nation site."

Could you provide some proof that this site isn't just an opinion from a bunch of racist pigs?

can you provide proof that your reaction isnt just political correctness? you think you arent supposed to believe any of those things, so you dismiss it. where's the 'proof' that everyone is the same, and that people that evolved separately and faced different challenges for tens of thousands of years are therefore identical by some grand coincidence? moreover, what is wrong with just talking about it, when real policies are being made as we speak that are anti-white majority in the US?

the only reason that the tagline 'race is only skin deep' exists is because the egalitarian and multicultural community would look even more like fools to deny that skin color differences exist, because no testing or science is needed to prove that races are visually distinct. when information about ability, both mental and physical, come into the mix, everyone screams foul, because 'its not nice.' why not? the polling and the interpretation of data and anthropological theorizing is the same stuff used to develop multiculturalist and feminist doctrine. are those groups racist for casting aspersion on whole groups of whites or males?

its the most racist thing youve seen in a while because you are being shut out and are shutting yourself out from an entire spectrum of opinion that is not airable on television, is not taught in the university system, and is not discussed in town hall meetings. everyone is afraid to say what they think. the discourse is stifled and full of slander. anyone who gets a little too honest looses their credibility, license, title, etc. and i dont mean honest like 'the truth.' when i say too honest i mean with their opinions. im not telling anyone to believe any of the stuff at American Renaissance...it is opinion and speculation and interpretation. but so is race and gender theory. thus, the kinds of writings at AR are food for thought for the millions of people in america and beyond who frown at multicultural lies but bear them anyway, because they dont want to risk losing what they already have. challenge yourself to think of the world in a different way. that is how the multiculturalists are selling their message. why wont american renaissance sell? because the bar is higher, or they are not allowed to compete at all in the marketplace of ideas.

what is a racist anyway? is that necessarily a bad thing? why is the worst thing you can be a racist, and not a communist or an anarchist or a heretic or a traitor or a criminal? where has this big lie come from that the worst thing anyone can be capable of is the continuity of and favor for people who look like, act like, and value the things that you do?

if its racist, you just wont read it? why not? you are proving that there is thought control going on, that certain subjects cannot be talked about and are unthinkably wrong. just because AR's writings dont privilege blacks, it must be racist? what would you say if AR was a magazine published by the Nation of Islam, and it said that blacks were found to be superior (which is that group's belief)? "racism" is ultimately just another word for "an outcome which is not outwardly advantageous for non-whites." and by non-whites i dont mean asians, since they outperform whites on supposedly white-biased tests such as the IQ and SAT, etc.

what is the big deal? steel already provided a good comment as to why blood doesnt need to be segregated, although the AR article discusses more specifically what i meant (profiling for screenings, rather than outright segregation of real blood). i would like to hear others make comments on the material instead of just trying to discredit it as naughty and evil. stop acting like the case is closed.

[Ash Housewares]

stop acting like the case is closed.

well thats how it works, they don't have to accept your statements, they can just shut down and ignore them, but, no one should retort based on their disregard to even consider what is being argued, ideally, one should argue or ignore, it is the irritating reality that people will not be content to disagree with you, but will go so far as to say you are wrong for not sharing their opinion. However, jimmyboy was just questioning what he was being told, a very legitimate reaction that you used for that tangent witch hunt, but I do agree with some of what you say.

[Untitled]

Sure, I mean, those guy can call Black as un-intelligent as they want. But using their own "tests" and "measures", they get the inevitable correlation that Asians are smarter than whites.

That always give me a chuckle.

[acceleration turkey]

Sure, I mean, those guy can call Black as un-intelligent as they want. But using their own "tests" and "measures", they get the inevitable correlation that Asians are smarter than whites.

That always give me a chuckle.

dont you think that makes the case for the idea that the tests and measures are more objective, and arent built simply for white interests?

why dont they keep re-engineering the test, if you are thinking they do that, until the test ranks both blacks and asians below whites?

or, why release the asian stats at all, when the american race debate never includes asians, because asians are considered to be neither victims nor perpetrators of racism the way the blacks and whites are?

[zarikdon]

dont you think that makes the case for the idea that the tests and measures are more objective, and arent built simply for white interests?

why dont they keep re-engineering the test, if you are thinking they do that, until the test ranks both blacks and asians below whites?

or, why release the asian stats at all, when the american race debate never includes asians, because asians are considered to be neither victims nor perpetrators of racism the way the blacks and whites are?

I don't think the ordering of the test results gives any indication of their objective usefulness, whatever that means. If they continually re-engineered, that might suggest foul play, but of course that says nothing about the lack of re-engineering. A statement and its converse aren't equivalent.

[felstorm]

dont you think that makes the case for the idea that the tests and measures are more objective, and arent built simply for white interests?

why dont they keep re-engineering the test, if you are thinking they do that, until the test ranks both blacks and asians below whites?

or, why release the asian stats at all, when the american race debate never includes asians, because asians are considered to be neither victims nor perpetrators of racism the way the blacks and whites are?

Stop being a turkey... turkey.

Don't turn this into a political debacle... it was a rational conversation about racial differences.

By the way: The "smartest" person in the world is white, and female.

Intelligence is a combination of genetic predisposition, and mental discipline.

Asian cultures also stress academia more than whites or blacks do. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but as Peirrot can confirm, Asian folks grind on their kids alot to excell in school.

So basically what you are talking about is really more of a cultural difference, not a genetic/racial one.

[zarikdon]

Asian cultures also stress academia more than whites or blacks do. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but as Peirrot can confirm, Asian folks grind on their kids alot to excell in school.

So basically what you are talking about is really more of a cultural difference, not a genetic/racial one.

Of course, one of the biggest reasons for this is the cultural role of testing in Asian cultures. For example, the civil service exam in ancient China was one of the few ways a peasant could reach a higher station in life. In modern days, testing in most East Asian countries has been institutionalized into a series of educational gates that supposedly divies up students according to ability. It's a nice idea, since if the tests didn't affect the subjects you'd end up with an efficient allocation, but of course that's not the case. If you base your education system around a series of tests, at the end of the day you'll just end up with a student population that's really good at... taking tests.

I'd also like to see some data on how much Asian-American parents that are second-generation (or later) immigrants urge their children to study and work hard. Personal experience suggests that there's a drop-off. Actually, more generally, I'm curious to see to what degree good parental traits (such as a strong work ethic) are passed on to their children. Results could be divided by any number of factors, such as race, wealth, or parental occupation.

[acceleration turkey]

Of course, one of the biggest reasons for this is the cultural role of testing in Asian cultures. For example, the civil service exam in ancient China was one of the few ways a peasant could reach a higher station in life. In modern days, testing in most East Asian countries has been institutionalized into a series of educational gates that supposedly divies up students according to ability. It's a nice idea, since if the tests didn't affect the subjects you'd end up with an efficient allocation, but of course that's not the case. If you base your education system around a series of tests, at the end of the day you'll just end up with a student population that's really good at... taking tests.

I'd also like to see some data on how much Asian-American parents that are second-generation (or later) immigrants urge their children to study and work hard. Personal experience suggests that there's a drop-off. Actually, more generally, I'm curious to see to what degree good parental traits (such as a strong work ethic) are passed on to their children. Results could be divided by any number of factors, such as race, wealth, or parental occupation.

re: parenting and test apptitude/intelligence. do you mean passed on genetically, or learned and adopted environmentally?

-one of the links i posted from AR claimed that identical twins raised apart had closer IQ scores on average than fraternal twins raised in the same home.

-the same link claimed that adopted blacks rasied in white households in the suburbs did not outscore urban and poor blacks by any substantial amount (IQ test).

-the same link claims that white students with family incomes of 20,000$ a year outscore blacks with 70,000$ a year family incomes on the SAT.

[bc10068]

Excellent.....Now if I can just convince you that Asians are genetically smarter than all other races, my plan will be complete..... :lol:

j/k btw, dont get all hot and bothered.

It's not really 'smarter' but then. It's more like... math. :buddies:

[Ash Housewares]

eh, the amount of money necessary to hire educators and prepare for the exam excluded chinese peasantry outright, they had no chance, it was only a means for the wealthy to enter into the corrupt elitist minority government that would only accept a miniscule number of them anyways

[zarikdon]

re: parenting and test apptitude/intelligence. do you mean passed on genetically, or learned and adopted environmentally?

-one of the links i posted from AR claimed that identical twins raised apart had closer IQ scores on average than fraternal twins raised in the same home.

-the same link claimed that adopted blacks rasied in white households in the suburbs did not outscore urban and poor blacks by any substantial amount (IQ test).

-the same link claims that white students with family incomes of 20,000$ a year outscore blacks with 70,000$ a year family incomes on the SAT.
Either correlation, genetic or environmental, would be interesting. I'm just curious because I notice that a number of people who have hard-working parents aren't hard-working themselves. Might just be selection bias though. I've only read the third AR link in detail, but it's too late at night to post my thoughts on it. I'll look at the other links later.

However, without looking at the links, I'm not sure how the twins study could be carried out in a controlled way. Specifically, the part about giving identical twins nearly identical environments. The part about adopted blacks is interesting, and I'll look forward to reading about it. The income effect seems a little misleading (at least from your paraphrase) since it doesn't compare equal income, though I'm guessing the study probably has the data for that too. However, there are a ton of other factors too. Are we talking about real income? Where are these households located geographically (i.e. is there clustering)? What are the conditions in schools in the area? You could go on and on... too bad there's no way to have all the data at your fingertips and get some program to filter it on command.

Oh, and how does this data track with time? Does the achievement gap fluctuate significantly? This could be a problem because there's probably not enough data available time-wise. If they wanted to get really serious about this, then they should conduct a study over several decades, assuming that no significant racial intermixing occurs.


eh, the amount of money necessary to hire educators and prepare for the exam excluded chinese peasantry outright, they had no chance, it was only a means for the wealthy to enter into the corrupt elitist minority government that would only accept a miniscule number of them anyways
Probably true for the most part, and I'm not saying that it provided outstanding social mobility or anything. It's just that it was one of the few ways to get ahead, so a cultural principle developed around it. Or it might be that valuing education pre-dated that. I can't remember if it was an explicit Confucian tenet or not...

In any case, other major cultures nearby also have a similar emphasis on learning. India, for example. But then again, perhaps most properous cultures (to look at ancient examples) have that trait simply because it helps bring them to that stage.

[acceleration turkey]

Either correlation, genetic or environmental, would be interesting. I'm just curious because I notice that a number of people who have hard-working parents aren't hard-working themselves. Might just be selection bias though.

i agree, if that is the same thing as 'survivor bias.' sounds like.


I've only read the third AR link in detail, but it's too late at night to post my thoughts on it. I'll look at the other links later.

i feel that the first 2 AR links are most intersting, and the race/sport link (which is enormous) the 3rd one is a little farther out. it deals more with genetic difference among the races, and how it is natural to not want your race's genes displaced by another, therefore on average displacing the paternity of a community. group solidarity, if you will. keep in mind that everything after the 'cover story' is not what i am linking too, although it is all interesting. the cover stories are on-topic to this discussion.


However, without looking at the links, I'm not sure how the twins study could be carried out in a controlled way. Specifically, the part about giving identical twins nearly identical environments.

they arent supposed to have identical environments. the point was that fraternal twins, which are more distant genetically, have more different IQ scores when raised together (same household) than identical twins (with the same genetic code) raised on different coasts or in different cities. the idea is that genetics account for more of root smartness (pattern-finding, etc) than education, parenting, etc.


The part about adopted blacks is interesting, and I'll look forward to reading about it. The income effect seems a little misleading (at least from your paraphrase) since it doesn't compare equal income, though I'm guessing the study probably has the data for that too.

the disparity in incomes is meant to discredit the importance of environmental factors. the claim is that whites with poor access to 'the good life' outperform blacks on the IQ test. i doubt that they would on the SAT on such a wide margin, since the SAT is a lot more subjective (analogies, reading comp, etc). you cant train for an IQ test per se, but many people still like to pretend that the rich and white have some kind of advantage. the credibility of the IQ and SAT are taking a beating by multiculturalists because the claim is that whites succeed because the tests are biased towards them and only they have the resources to prepare for them. when the income situations are reversed, AR claims, whites continue to outscore blacks. this discredits the multiculturalists' mass appeal to environmentalism.


However, there are a ton of other factors too. Are we talking about real income? Where are these households located geographically (i.e. is there clustering)? What are the conditions in schools in the area? You could go on and on... too bad there's no way to have all the data at your fingertips and get some program to filter it on command.

if by clustering you are asking if the 70,000$ black residence is in the middle of an otherwise crappy neighborhood, i dont know. and likewise, if the 20,000$ white household is in a nice town with good services etc...cant say. a lot of the studies are referenced in name, but the statistics themselves rarely are. the links are back issues of magazines, so dont get your hopes up for finding raw data...they are articles and so mostly rhetorical. AR can be a good starting point for finding studies with statistical data that wont get published in journals/newspapers though, so go nuts. the articles themselves are rather barren of hard data. :cheesy:



Oh, and how does this data track with time? Does the achievement gap fluctuate significantly? This could be a problem because there's probably not enough data available time-wise. If they wanted to get really serious about this, then they should conduct a study over several decades, assuming that no significant racial intermixing occurs.

if by with time you are asking over the history of racial studies in the US, some older anthropological data is used. if you mean over time as in over the life of a given person, as in do white students outscore blacks by a large margin in elementary school but less so in highschool, or outscore by a small margin in early life but moreso in older age, i believe that is somewhat discussed. in the physical difference link, there some discussion about infancy/toddlerhood and the differences in the races in babies holding their heads up, walking, etc, and also of IQ tests given to very young children and the fact that the variation at adulthood is slight. one thing it notes is that the 'lag' of blacks behind other races is more or less constant from tolder age to adulthood. the information is meant to suggest that racial differences are at least partly, if not largely biological, as, on average, races score in a certain range for IQ despite leading wildly different lives.

[TheUnchosen]

Don't think it applies to anything said in this thread but I thought I should bring this up.

I study Sociology and one thing I remember learning is that "races" like African, Asian, European etc actually don't bear any scientific classification and is only a tool of identification for society.

Genetically, the difference between a "white" person and a "black" person is almost the same as a "white" person and another "white" person.

When people of this society talk about what race they come from, it's the same as people from old english time talking about what "class" they belong to.

There is not genetic difference between Royalty and a peasant for instance but you'll probably find that royalty have features that peasants may not typically have. Obviously these "genetic" differences have nothing to do with their class but their surroundings and upbringing.

Same applies to "races".

So when someone says " Black people have more fast twitch muscles", they are actually incorrect. Black people may tend to be faster runners and/or better athletes but it's more to do with their surroundings and the individual. The fact they are "black" plays not role genetically in their greater athletic abilities.

I've yet to dig up a source but I'm studying for my Sociology test coming up soon so I'll probably find something to back up my post if it needs to be proven.

[jimmyboy]

can you provide proof that your reaction isnt just political correctness? you think you arent supposed to believe any of those things, so you dismiss it. where's the 'proof' that everyone is the same, and that people that evolved separately and faced different challenges for tens of thousands of years are therefore identical by some grand coincidence? moreover, what is wrong with just talking about it, when real policies are being made as we speak that are anti-white majority in the US?

the only reason that the tagline 'race is only skin deep' exists is because the egalitarian and multicultural community would look even more like fools to deny that skin color differences exist, because no testing or science is needed to prove that races are visually distinct. when information about ability, both mental and physical, come into the mix, everyone screams foul, because 'its not nice.' why not? the polling and the interpretation of data and anthropological theorizing is the same stuff used to develop multiculturalist and feminist doctrine. are those groups racist for casting aspersion on whole groups of whites or males?

its the most racist thing youve seen in a while because you are being shut out and are shutting yourself out from an entire spectrum of opinion that is not airable on television, is not taught in the university system, and is not discussed in town hall meetings. everyone is afraid to say what they think. the discourse is stifled and full of slander. anyone who gets a little too honest looses their credibility, license, title, etc. and i dont mean honest like 'the truth.' when i say too honest i mean with their opinions. im not telling anyone to believe any of the stuff at American Renaissance...it is opinion and speculation and interpretation. but so is race and gender theory. thus, the kinds of writings at AR are food for thought for the millions of people in america and beyond who frown at multicultural lies but bear them anyway, because they dont want to risk losing what they already have. challenge yourself to think of the world in a different way. that is how the multiculturalists are selling their message. why wont american renaissance sell? because the bar is higher, or they are not allowed to compete at all in the marketplace of ideas.

what is a racist anyway? is that necessarily a bad thing? why is the worst thing you can be a racist, and not a communist or an anarchist or a heretic or a traitor or a criminal? where has this big lie come from that the worst thing anyone can be capable of is the continuity of and favor for people who look like, act like, and value the things that you do?

if its racist, you just wont read it? why not? you are proving that there is thought control going on, that certain subjects cannot be talked about and are unthinkably wrong. just because AR's writings dont privilege blacks, it must be racist? what would you say if AR was a magazine published by the Nation of Islam, and it said that blacks were found to be superior (which is that group's belief)? "racism" is ultimately just another word for "an outcome which is not outwardly advantageous for non-whites." and by non-whites i dont mean asians, since they outperform whites on supposedly white-biased tests such as the IQ and SAT, etc.

what is the big deal? steel already provided a good comment as to why blood doesnt need to be segregated, although the AR article discusses more specifically what i meant (profiling for screenings, rather than outright segregation of real blood). i would like to hear others make comments on the material instead of just trying to discredit it as naughty and evil. stop acting like the case is closed.

My position may be out of political correcteness, but I didn't offer a link to a page as evidence. So I need not authenticate the link as accurate. If you provide an outside source then you need to show us that it's sufficiently believable. You admitted youself that it's not taught in any university. Is it taught in any highschool? Or used in any court? If not, then where is its credibility? Perhaps it's not becasuse it can't be proven rather than for politeness.

If multicultural and feminist groups use data to preach segregation of races, then they are definitly as racist as the AR, and I'd condem them in a second. the same goes for any Islamic periodicals. But just because they're wrong doesn't mean you're right.

Why is racism so bad? Well, we could look at history. Racism was the cause of Hitler's genocide of the ****; the genocide of Serbians; the genocide of Rwanda minorities; the American slavery, Southern lynchings, S. African apartheid, the Japanese internment during WW2, the **** of and genocide in Naking. Pretty bad "stuff" I'd say.

Not read racism publication? On the contrary, I take special interest in reading racist publication. The AR is mild compared to some other groups. If I didn't read the AR, I'd forgone going into other pages where its racist message was much clearer. And if I didn't read the AR, I would not have notice that it fails to be use in another academic research, any government research, any court use, any business uses.... etc.

Wow, if I didn't take an interest in the AR, some forum readers may even believed it to be an accurate scientific research especially with all the PHD name droppings, rather than a speculative opinion as you admitted in paragraph 3.

[Dark Knight]

Just posting to say that I never throw the "racism" card unwarrantedly... but after two or three paragraphs of the amran mental differences page, it was blatantly plain to me that its a totally racist site (as in, biased against races; not scientific, etc).

The caps quotes such as

<FOREIGN GROUP> ARE LESSER BEINGS, or whatever the exact wording also provides a subtle clue.

[Steve_Kow]

Strangely, Dark Knight, that is his point precisely. One dismisses an article like that because one's politically correct mind is unwilling to obejectively analyze it.