| Is football institutionally racist ? 22:46 - Oct 20 with 6340 views | Loyal |
And what does that mean to you ? |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |  |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 13:42 - Oct 22 with 640 views | E20Jack |
It is highlighting what we have already touched upon, which is geographic specific. It is one of many key aspects that makes a star in a sport. Being from a region where that sport is prominant is one such, but you also must have the genetics to rise above the rest. Obviously that is just physical events, I am not sure if mental fortitude is something that is inherent.
Put a polar bear on central american marathon to find food and it will likely die before it gets there, put a brown bear in Antarctica for the same journey and we will get a similar outcome. The body is an amazing thing, it adapts to its surroundings over an incredible amount of years. So just because we have relatively recently found travel and integrated as a species - it doesnt mean evolution recerses what it has evolved into over those years - those differences are still there, and it is these minor changes in body composition that can give someone a distinct advantage in one aspect of physical exertion than another.
Put an average chinese baby and baby Usain Bolt together and get them both to do exactly the same sprint training as the other and there would be no contest. Assuming the Chinese baby conforms to the average body specifics and characteristics seen from that region (5 foot 6 is the average chinese male height). [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 13:48]
|  |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 13:43 - Oct 22 with 638 views | Highjack |
The author of this article is clearly thick as shit and ignoring science. |  |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 13:47 - Oct 22 with 633 views | E20Jack |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 13:43 - Oct 22 by Highjack |
The author of this article is clearly thick as shit and ignoring science. |
Or absolutely correct but focussing on one of many reasons why athletes excel.
But thats just the sensible view, who wants sensible when we are on a mission to ignore science and obvious common sense? | |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 13:55 - Oct 22 with 624 views | E20Jack |
Lets take a random group of 500 Jamaican children and a random group of 500 Chinese children. (Parents willing of course).
We subject them to the same sprint training day after day, same diet, same sleep pattern, same exposure to surroundings and same influences.
Do you honestly think the Chinese children have just as much chance of being the quickest in the group than the Jamaican? What your saying is we should see an even spread of fastest to slowest. Irrespective that there are clear physiological differences between the two nations even without going into muscle composition, even just length of limbs for a simple example.
Is that correct? You think there will be no difference what so ever? [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 14:00]
| |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:03 - Oct 22 with 618 views | swanjackal |
The problem with this whole argument is the way you define both genetics and race.
It would seem that categorising race is based more on visual/cultural characteristics. There are minor variations in genetics though causing these characteristic changes, ie. melanin production, certain lipid synthesis etc. This is where the confusion lies. There are genetic differences (or gene activation differences), like the same with eye/hair colour) and their propensity, but not anywhere near enough for a deviance of species.
Selection pressures (environment) are more the cause for the perceptions of "Black athletes". The tribal region, and lack of variation in fixed regions after populations were spread out, and developed over hundreds of thousands of years, and thus the bottlenecking of genes, seem to give rise to specific characteristics for that tribe/area.
You probably could use melanin in skin here with environmental pressures as an example. This also could bring about the necessity of developing certain physical traits to be selected for (natural selection.......survival of fittest etc), Different environments caused different selection pressures, and thus different desirable traits.
So, region of ancestry will have an affect on your genetics, and thus it is wrong to specifically say "all black athletes" have an advantage. But, being from a specific tribal group has caused variation to select for certain biochemical reactions in the body to give him (Bolt) an advantage over some other tribal groups. Obviously, this is not the sole reason, or even the biggest reason, as it would be his training and work ethic to bring him to the fore, it isn't racist to convey that message. [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 14:10]
|  |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:13 - Oct 22 with 608 views | E20Jack |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:03 - Oct 22 by swanjackal |
The problem with this whole argument is the way you define both genetics and race.
It would seem that categorising race is based more on visual/cultural characteristics. There are minor variations in genetics though causing these characteristic changes, ie. melanin production, certain lipid synthesis etc. This is where the confusion lies. There are genetic differences (or gene activation differences), like the same with eye/hair colour) and their propensity, but not anywhere near enough for a deviance of species.
Selection pressures (environment) are more the cause for the perceptions of "Black athletes". The tribal region, and lack of variation in fixed regions after populations were spread out, and developed over hundreds of thousands of years, and thus the bottlenecking of genes, seem to give rise to specific characteristics for that tribe/area.
You probably could use melanin in skin here with environmental pressures as an example. This also could bring about the necessity of developing certain physical traits to be selected for (natural selection.......survival of fittest etc), Different environments caused different selection pressures, and thus different desirable traits.
So, region of ancestry will have an affect on your genetics, and thus it is wrong to specifically say "all black athletes" have an advantage. But, being from a specific tribal group has caused variation to select for certain biochemical reactions in the body to give him (Bolt) an advantage over some other tribal groups. Obviously, this is not the sole reason, or even the biggest reason, as it would be his training and work ethic to bring him to the fore, it isn't racist to convey that message. [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 14:10]
|
I would say that sums it up quite nicely.
The term "black" and "white" is too broad really, it is region specific. However the biggest differences come from opposite regions, opposite regions tends to be a case of black and white in all its varying degrees due to natures way of helping that person adapt to the surroundings - but the varience is massive even in their own specific ethic group.
In an age where swimmers shave their body hair for streamlining, are looking to wear swimsuits that mimic sharkskin and its ability to cut through water, where tiny differences are seen as essential - these genetic differences which carry much greater advantages or disadvantes - can be the difference between winning and losing, being the best of all time and being just a good performer.
It is a whole melting pot of things that are needed to become the best. A world exactly as it is but with no water - and nothing survives. Add the water back and take away the oxygen and again everything dies. For species to theive there are a whole host of things that need to happen in order for the perfect balance. Same with top performers in their field, take one thing away that propells the, or add something that will hold them back and they will no longer be what they were.
It is very unlikely we will see in our lifetimes a day where the fastest man on the planet is a white man, and sprinting is a sport that is worldwide. [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 14:17]
| |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:14 - Oct 22 with 607 views | Highjack |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:03 - Oct 22 by swanjackal |
The problem with this whole argument is the way you define both genetics and race.
It would seem that categorising race is based more on visual/cultural characteristics. There are minor variations in genetics though causing these characteristic changes, ie. melanin production, certain lipid synthesis etc. This is where the confusion lies. There are genetic differences (or gene activation differences), like the same with eye/hair colour) and their propensity, but not anywhere near enough for a deviance of species.
Selection pressures (environment) are more the cause for the perceptions of "Black athletes". The tribal region, and lack of variation in fixed regions after populations were spread out, and developed over hundreds of thousands of years, and thus the bottlenecking of genes, seem to give rise to specific characteristics for that tribe/area.
You probably could use melanin in skin here with environmental pressures as an example. This also could bring about the necessity of developing certain physical traits to be selected for (natural selection.......survival of fittest etc), Different environments caused different selection pressures, and thus different desirable traits.
So, region of ancestry will have an affect on your genetics, and thus it is wrong to specifically say "all black athletes" have an advantage. But, being from a specific tribal group has caused variation to select for certain biochemical reactions in the body to give him (Bolt) an advantage over some other tribal groups. Obviously, this is not the sole reason, or even the biggest reason, as it would be his training and work ethic to bring him to the fore, it isn't racist to convey that message. [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 14:10]
|
Absolutely. The genetics that are involved with the colour of the skin are just a tiny part of the genome. The genes that control muscle mass, structure, physique etc are completely separate. People with black skin are as genetically diverse as everyone else.
This is why it is foolish to make sweeping statements about groups and generalising with lazy stereotypes based on the colour of their skin. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:22 - Oct 22 with 592 views | whoflungdung |
Name me an international black swimmer
Why are black athletes pre eminent up to 400 metres only |  |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:23 - Oct 22 with 590 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:22 - Oct 22 by whoflungdung |
Name me an international black swimmer
Why are black athletes pre eminent up to 400 metres only |
What about 800 meters and up? Black athletes are pre-eminent at distance running too. |  |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:23 - Oct 22 with 590 views | E20Jack |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:14 - Oct 22 by Highjack |
Absolutely. The genetics that are involved with the colour of the skin are just a tiny part of the genome. The genes that control muscle mass, structure, physique etc are completely separate. People with black skin are as genetically diverse as everyone else.
This is why it is foolish to make sweeping statements about groups and generalising with lazy stereotypes based on the colour of their skin. |
You are speaking as if the world has always been multi cultured. If we had all integrated since the start of time then you would have a point, but we havent... So you dont.
Integration has only been a relatively recent thing. A tiny millisecond on a great map of evolution. What you are failing to realise is skin colour IS region specific. There were no black people in the UK hundreds of hears ago. Not one. There were no white men in Jamaica hundreds of years ago. Zero.
There is nothing lazy and nothing stereotypical about noting the indesputable fact that a black person WILL be derived from a country very different climate to the one we regard as predominantly caucasian these days. Due to that being region specific, they will then also still have the genetical traits of that particular region.
It is like you think skin colour has no baring on historical heritage. You cannot agree that body composition is regional specific and then disagree that black people and white people are genetically different - they are opposite arguments, and one that calls into question Darwins theory of evolution.
If you are a religious nut then I will excuse you, but you don't seem the type which leaves your stance awfully confused. | |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:29 - Oct 22 with 584 views | whoflungdung |
American blacks ?
African have geographical advantages
So ,it's because of racism then? | |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:30 - Oct 22 with 583 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:29 - Oct 22 by whoflungdung |
American blacks ?
African have geographical advantages
So ,it's because of racism then? |
Eh? | |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:33 - Oct 22 with 577 views | whoflungdung |
Sprinting is a way out of poverty for American blacks . They have been pre eminent for my lifetime
Why no swimmers | |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:39 - Oct 22 with 568 views | E20Jack |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:30 - Oct 22 by exiledclaseboy |
Eh? |
ECB. Do you think Chinese people being shorter in stature on average is just a stereotype? Or do you believe that people from that region are physiologically different to Europeans, lets say Germans for example? (Ignoring the undisputed fact that the average difference is 2-3 inches, which is massive when going on an average).
Surely you dont think that taking a random 50 kids from China and 50 from Germany they all have exactly the same chance of growing to be the same height? That would just be bonkers. So you must realise that there are region specific physiological differences.
So if you see the obvious and stark difference in body and more specific - skeletal differences between these regions, then wouldn't it be fair to think that Europeans would have more of an advantage over Asians when it comes to specific tasks?
Surely it is not that far removed from changing that from Asians to then predominantly black countries and the scientifically proven differences between their genetic make up and a caucasion regions people? [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 14:49]
| |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:55 - Oct 22 with 552 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:39 - Oct 22 by E20Jack |
ECB. Do you think Chinese people being shorter in stature on average is just a stereotype? Or do you believe that people from that region are physiologically different to Europeans, lets say Germans for example? (Ignoring the undisputed fact that the average difference is 2-3 inches, which is massive when going on an average).
Surely you dont think that taking a random 50 kids from China and 50 from Germany they all have exactly the same chance of growing to be the same height? That would just be bonkers. So you must realise that there are region specific physiological differences.
So if you see the obvious and stark difference in body and more specific - skeletal differences between these regions, then wouldn't it be fair to think that Europeans would have more of an advantage over Asians when it comes to specific tasks?
Surely it is not that far removed from changing that from Asians to then predominantly black countries and the scientifically proven differences between their genetic make up and a caucasion regions people? [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 14:49]
|
What are you asking me for? | |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:57 - Oct 22 with 547 views | E20Jack |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:55 - Oct 22 by exiledclaseboy |
What are you asking me for? |
Because I am interested in your opinion. | |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 15:07 - Oct 22 with 533 views | E20Jack |
For someone that comes across as a pretty balanced individual, it would be depressing to think you also do not believe that there are any physiological differences between people of specific regions. The fact Chinese people are short is not a continual shock and freak turn up of events.
So if you recognise that obvious fact then there are no longer any barriers to accepting the scientifically proven fact that people from predominantly black regions have a different genetical make up of those from predominantly white regions. Again using black regions and white regions as they are the most obvious and stark differences, its not a skin thing but a region thing... A byproduct of which will be skin colour.
It is also proven that black men generally have higher levels of natural DHT to testosterone levels than caucasian and hispanic men. Testeosterone is key in building and developing muscle. Surely you see this as something that could be advantageous in physical sports?
I always find it funny when a white man and a black man are at the weigh ins before the fight and they always say "they look in good shape, but obviously his muscles stand out more because hes black". Its not a visual trick, its not the way some women wear black as its slimming or vertical stripes... They look leaner because they are leaner. Their lipid transference is different, not to mention the higher DHT to testosterone levels in order to build it easier and quicker. An advantage wouldn't you say?
[Post edited 22 Oct 2017 15:14]
| |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 15:21 - Oct 22 with 513 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 14:23 - Oct 22 by E20Jack |
You are speaking as if the world has always been multi cultured. If we had all integrated since the start of time then you would have a point, but we havent... So you dont.
Integration has only been a relatively recent thing. A tiny millisecond on a great map of evolution. What you are failing to realise is skin colour IS region specific. There were no black people in the UK hundreds of hears ago. Not one. There were no white men in Jamaica hundreds of years ago. Zero.
There is nothing lazy and nothing stereotypical about noting the indesputable fact that a black person WILL be derived from a country very different climate to the one we regard as predominantly caucasian these days. Due to that being region specific, they will then also still have the genetical traits of that particular region.
It is like you think skin colour has no baring on historical heritage. You cannot agree that body composition is regional specific and then disagree that black people and white people are genetically different - they are opposite arguments, and one that calls into question Darwins theory of evolution.
If you are a religious nut then I will excuse you, but you don't seem the type which leaves your stance awfully confused. |
"There were no white men in Jamaica hundreds of years ago. Zero. "
There weren't any 'black men' in the context of your point either mind.
I mean, surely you realise why there are black people in the Caribbean?
There are tribal groups, predominantly indigenous to West Africa, who have an undoubted genetic disposition to be able to run fast. They also happen to be black.
There are other tribal groups, predominantly indigenous to East and Northern Africa, who have an undoubted genetic disposition to be able to run huge distances relatively fast. They also happen to be black.
There is a tribe in Mexico who has the same ability, but over even further distances.
The black people who are sprinters, whether they are American or Jamaican, or British or any other nationality, are all descendants of West African tribal groups.
It's really correct to say not that black people can run more quickly, but rather that there are tribal groups from particular parts of West Africa who can run more quickly, and they happen to be black. [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 15:24]
| | | |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 15:35 - Oct 22 with 499 views | Highjack |
Asians have been traditionally shorter because their diets have largely consisted of rice and vegetables. Since the introduction of foodstuff from abroad and a more "western" diet, the average height has shot up in only a few generations. | |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 15:36 - Oct 22 with 496 views | E20Jack |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 15:21 - Oct 22 by londonlisa2001 |
"There were no white men in Jamaica hundreds of years ago. Zero. "
There weren't any 'black men' in the context of your point either mind.
I mean, surely you realise why there are black people in the Caribbean?
There are tribal groups, predominantly indigenous to West Africa, who have an undoubted genetic disposition to be able to run fast. They also happen to be black.
There are other tribal groups, predominantly indigenous to East and Northern Africa, who have an undoubted genetic disposition to be able to run huge distances relatively fast. They also happen to be black.
There is a tribe in Mexico who has the same ability, but over even further distances.
The black people who are sprinters, whether they are American or Jamaican, or British or any other nationality, are all descendants of West African tribal groups.
It's really correct to say not that black people can run more quickly, but rather that there are tribal groups from particular parts of West Africa who can run more quickly, and they happen to be black. [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 15:24]
|
Yes thats a fair point and one I completely agree with. However we are (or were) having a general discussion as we are now drilling into the specifics then of course, what you are saying is correct.
But skin colour is region specific, and so is genetics. So every single black person on the planet descended from a country pretty opposite to the one we traditionally identify with as caucasian regions and woth it would come genetic differences. I have stated a few times that this will also vary in race depending on region.
But the bottom line is someone like Usain Bolt has an undoubted genetic advantage over other athletes not descended from his region on the globe, and by that I dont mean his country of birth. | |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 15:37 - Oct 22 with 493 views | Highjack |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 13:42 - Oct 22 by E20Jack |
It is highlighting what we have already touched upon, which is geographic specific. It is one of many key aspects that makes a star in a sport. Being from a region where that sport is prominant is one such, but you also must have the genetics to rise above the rest. Obviously that is just physical events, I am not sure if mental fortitude is something that is inherent.
Put a polar bear on central american marathon to find food and it will likely die before it gets there, put a brown bear in Antarctica for the same journey and we will get a similar outcome. The body is an amazing thing, it adapts to its surroundings over an incredible amount of years. So just because we have relatively recently found travel and integrated as a species - it doesnt mean evolution recerses what it has evolved into over those years - those differences are still there, and it is these minor changes in body composition that can give someone a distinct advantage in one aspect of physical exertion than another.
Put an average chinese baby and baby Usain Bolt together and get them both to do exactly the same sprint training as the other and there would be no contest. Assuming the Chinese baby conforms to the average body specifics and characteristics seen from that region (5 foot 6 is the average chinese male height). [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 13:48]
|
Does usain bolt conform to the average Jamaican physique then. Is the average height in Jamaica 6 foot 6 or whatever he is? | |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 15:39 - Oct 22 with 491 views | E20Jack |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 15:35 - Oct 22 by Highjack |
Asians have been traditionally shorter because their diets have largely consisted of rice and vegetables. Since the introduction of foodstuff from abroad and a more "western" diet, the average height has shot up in only a few generations. |
The traits of thicker hair shafts, more sweat glands, characteristically identified teeth and smaller breasts in women are the result of a gene mutation that occurred about 35,000 Years ago. Nothing to do with diet. | |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 15:42 - Oct 22 with 489 views | E20Jack |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 15:37 - Oct 22 by Highjack |
Does usain bolt conform to the average Jamaican physique then. Is the average height in Jamaica 6 foot 6 or whatever he is? |
It doesnt matter, he is over conforming. There are a host of superb Jamaican sprinters that conform to their natural genes. Bolt is just the pinnacle example, ironically as you point out, due largely to his superb genetic code that set him apart even from his own countrymen. The very fact you mention his physiological make up shows exactly the advantage it gives him. [Post edited 22 Oct 2017 15:43]
| |
| |
| Is football institutionally racist ? on 16:00 - Oct 22 with 475 views | whoflungdung |
Why are Chinese good at table tennis | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
