Talk:Racism
(→Race and genes) |
(→Race and genes) |
||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
:::::So to argue that race isn't grossly simplified to large categories of physical appearance, you cite several incidents wherein enormous and complex populations are called "black" and "white." | :::::So to argue that race isn't grossly simplified to large categories of physical appearance, you cite several incidents wherein enormous and complex populations are called "black" and "white." | ||
:::::Yeah. You sure got me.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]<sup>[[User_Talk:AD|talk]]</sup>{{Template:Moderator}} 15:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | :::::Yeah. You sure got me.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]<sup>[[User_Talk:AD|talk]]</sup>{{Template:Moderator}} 15:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | "When you say "Asian" I hear "Asian", and I have no idea what you are talking about." - When I hear "Asian", I think of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. It's not a good descriptor for that very reason. African isn't a good descriptor for blacks either, for a similar reason - Libyans and modern Egyptians are African...-[[User:Albannach|Albannach]] ([[User talk:Albannach|talk]]) 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:44, 16 April 2013
Contents |
Explain the problem
with this edit.[1] Mikemikev (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- My vote is that the major issue is that it is poorly written. It took me a few reads to figure out what you were getting at - that athletes of certain races to do well in certain sports irrespective of which country they live in. That point is fair enough, but you haven't made it very well here. --DamoHi 07:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Would you be happy with "This is contradicted by the fact that athletes of certain races to do well in certain sports irrespective of which country they live in."? Actually I think I put it better. Mikemikev (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll leave that to others. What was the point of bringing up Cambodia? That looks out of place. --DamoHi 09:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's an example of a poor country that doesn't produce top sprinters. Seriously, I feel a bit silly even discussing this. Does anyone really think West Africans do not have natural sprinting ability? Nevertheless, I will address the bizarre ad hoc environmental explanations if I must. Mikemikev (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are also examples of poor W.African - and other predominantly black - countries which don't produce top sprinters (Liberia, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Haiti, etc.) Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 13:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's an example of a poor country that doesn't produce top sprinters. Seriously, I feel a bit silly even discussing this. Does anyone really think West Africans do not have natural sprinting ability? Nevertheless, I will address the bizarre ad hoc environmental explanations if I must. Mikemikev (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll leave that to others. What was the point of bringing up Cambodia? That looks out of place. --DamoHi 09:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Would you be happy with "This is contradicted by the fact that athletes of certain races to do well in certain sports irrespective of which country they live in."? Actually I think I put it better. Mikemikev (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"Race is not in our genes"
The section is referenced to the book "Not in our genes" by Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Steven Rose.
"Dawkins wrote that the book practices reductionism by distorting arguments in terms of genetics to "an idiotic travesty (that the properties of a complex whole are simply the sum of those same properties in the parts)", and accused the authors of giving "ideology priority over truth".[3] He also accused the authors of having a "bizarre conspiracy theory of science", accusing them of lies and idiocy, and concluding that it is a "silly, pretentious, obscurantist and mendacious book"."
Are we using the best sources? Mikemikev (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"Steven Pinker writes that the book's authors use words such as "determinism" and "reductionism" as "vague terms of abuse", and misrepresent the views of scientists such as Wilson and Dawkins, falsely ascribing ridiculous beliefs to them." Mikemikev (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Athletes
It's a mistake to say that current athletic prowess proves anything about race. For instance, thirty years ago the best long- and middle-distance runners were all British. Now we're bloody useless in hat area, and not just because we're slower than the Kenyans and Ethiopians - we're slower than we used to be. There are massive cultural factors at work in sporting prowess. SophieWilder 10:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's a very controversial statement to be making (and one very much associated with racism) on a very flimsy anecdotal basis. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 10:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was just thinking while making a cup of tea just now, there are loads of black boxers but few wrestlers. SophieWilder 11:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't associated with racism in the slightest to suggest that certain races have certain physical characteristics. In fact it would only be associated with pig-headedness to deny it. DamoHi 11:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is the use of the word "races" - it's easy to say that those with these genetically predisposed attributes have these genetically predisposed attributes but that's just circular reasoning. The added danger is that, while there is an obvious and evident mapping between region of origin and genetic markers, that this becomes the be all and end all. Sprinters come from Jamaica (at the moment) because track and field is their national sport, no because they're darkies. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Race is defined as an ancestral group so that's just a semantic quibble. It may be your opinion that West Africans make better sprinters because of their culture, although I think many would question that. Either way, the argument that living in a poor country explains proclivity to sprinting success is demonstrably false. Mikemikev (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Now the article states as fact that the differences are purely cultural. I think this response I gave to an admin who vandal binned me recently for supposed procedural reasons while calling my edits "disgusting" (and who has a history of reverting "racist" scientific facts) is relevant.
- "There is nothing disgusting about my edits, other than in your PC warped mind. What's disgusting is the transparent nonsense you support because it's "not racist", whether or not it's obviously false or speculative. Sure, West Africans do not dominate sprinting because of their demonstrable physiological differences. East Africans do not have a build suited to distance running. It's all "culture". Where is your evidence for that? Oh, you don't have any, but it's "not racist" so it must be true. Some scientist you are. I am trying to present both possibilities, you are just making shit up. The funny thing is that your website loses credibility by including this rubbish."
- I think "anti-racism" may qualify as a new religion. They call it "liberal creationism" sometimes I think. The things these people believe (or pretend to) are far stranger than any traditional religion. Mikemikev (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. See you in half an hour. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I know, and I don't have any evidence other than a documentary about the hurdler Colin Jackson, but there is a genetic "abnormality" for a group of individuals from part of West Africa which confers an advantage for sprinting. Many slaves transported to the West Indies and southern US had this genetic trait. This is why so many of the good sprinters are from Jamaica and the US. This genetic trait is not shared bya lot other Africans so when you talk about race you need to be very careful how you use the word. However, the US and Jamaica do focus heavily on training in sprinting so separating the genetic from the cultural influences is difficult. The main problem is that Mikemikev seems to be focussing so much on these "racial" differences without really specifying what he means by race. Too often it appears that the lowest common denominator being plugged for these differences is skin color and that is patently false.
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
15:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- (ec) Whatever you say, Mr. Entine. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's certainly true that there are heritable physical traits. The problem, as Genghis notes, is that "race" is not a good label for these traits, because it's a culturally-constructed bundle of immediately perceptible differences rather than a meaningful descriptor. Some peoples that originate from some parts of Africa also are more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia (presumably as a response to malaria), but "black people" are not, except in the crudest and least useful way of saying it. And while such poor communication isn't ordinarily a problem, there is a long history and almost ubiquitous practice of nasty results from such sloppy speaking. So, Mikemikev, let's work on clarity.--
talk
15:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Of course I am not talking about f*cking skin color. Race is defined by ancestry, in fact it essentially synonymous. Individuals can share ancestry and race group and have totally different skin color, such as Caucasoid Dravidians and Europeans. And top level races split into sub-races, such as in the same example. Mikemikev (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- You should not be shocked that people understand your meaning to be the most-common one, rather than the special one in your head. This is why clear expression is important, and why avoiding loaded and silly terminology is a good idea.--
talk
16:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Now the use of the term European in this discussion makes me feel uncomfortable because if we were really talking about race as some narrow definition of ancestry then Scandinavia would not be lumped together with Mediterranean countries.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.
16:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well I would dispute that Nords don't cluster with Meds vis a vis Turks, but if so you could think of European as one end of a continuum. Either way, this is something of a tangent. Do you agree we can meaningfully speak of West African ancestry (as I did in my original edit)? As an aside I think race was always defined by ancestry. The idea that anyone thinks it's "skin color" seems like a ridiculous strawman deployed by Leftists to throw a spanner in the works of honest discussion of human variation. Mikemikev (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should be mature enough to say that some people from some heritages have a slight genetic advantage when it comes to certain physical attributes. Getting away from sprinters for a moment, it is an undeniable fact that kids of polynesian extraction tend to develop a year or two quicker than their white counterparts. It is a massive problem for age group rugby because the average Samoan 15 year old is 10kgs heavier than the average Pakeha 15 year old. You cannot put that down to cultural factors no matter how much one would wish to. Pakeha boys tend to catch up in the late teens/early 20's, but the affect is real. I understand that people feel uncomfortable talking about this sort of stuff, but we really shouldn't. --DamoHi 21:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Even if you're right on this, and without a bunch of studies that take into account things like environmental factors, diet, levels of physical activity and a host of other things, I won't think you are, is this something really worth talking about? Some groups of people are a little heavier at a certain points in their life than other groups of people? People of African descent are more likely to get sickle-cell anemia. Jews are more likely to be lactose intolerant. Those are important things for epidemiologists, public health experts and nutritionists when they're doing their work. They have nothing to do with racism. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, as long as blacks in america (to give one handy example) have to contend with higher incarceration rates and lower incomes, your desire to talk about ideas that inform those sorts of outcomes as though they don't is worrisome. I fucking well should feel uncomfortable talking about racial difference as something with a scientific basis when I enjoy all of the benefits of being on the lucky side of the melanin sweepstakes. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- @Damo: Even if that were true, it doesn't have anything to do with the edit in question, which just repeats the claims made in Jon Entine's Taboo. Hence, my comment above. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, as long as blacks in america (to give one handy example) have to contend with higher incarceration rates and lower incomes, your desire to talk about ideas that inform those sorts of outcomes as though they don't is worrisome. I fucking well should feel uncomfortable talking about racial difference as something with a scientific basis when I enjoy all of the benefits of being on the lucky side of the melanin sweepstakes. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- (EC)I agree, nothing much to do with racism, though they are to do with what is rather crudely called 'race'. Here is an article I found that calls bullshit on the "cultural" theory of athletic traits. [3] I don't know what the motivation for MikeMikeV for putting this into the article, but in my opinion, it should be there because this "cultural effect" is being overplayed to the point of it being a form of liberal woo. --DamoHi 22:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- And... you post a link to a Jon Entine article after I provided one above refuting his claims. Thanks for reading my comments carefully. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Have you actually even read the article that you cited? The author of the article you cited indicates that it is likely true that they have genetic advantages which aid them in sport, but that it is inappropriate to draw attention to it. He seems to think that the stereotype (which he does not deny) is damaging and so should be rejected. Shabby, shabby stuff. IMO Entine does not have "a special moral obligation to show how his conclusions do not contribute more to maintaining barriers of the past than to constructing a more open and just future" just because the author of that article feels that it is counter-productive. DamoHi 22:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- And... you post a link to a Jon Entine article after I provided one above refuting his claims. Thanks for reading my comments carefully. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Even if you're right on this, and without a bunch of studies that take into account things like environmental factors, diet, levels of physical activity and a host of other things, I won't think you are, is this something really worth talking about? Some groups of people are a little heavier at a certain points in their life than other groups of people? People of African descent are more likely to get sickle-cell anemia. Jews are more likely to be lactose intolerant. Those are important things for epidemiologists, public health experts and nutritionists when they're doing their work. They have nothing to do with racism. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Now the use of the term European in this discussion makes me feel uncomfortable because if we were really talking about race as some narrow definition of ancestry then Scandinavia would not be lumped together with Mediterranean countries.
- You should not be shocked that people understand your meaning to be the most-common one, rather than the special one in your head. This is why clear expression is important, and why avoiding loaded and silly terminology is a good idea.--
- As far as I know, and I don't have any evidence other than a documentary about the hurdler Colin Jackson, but there is a genetic "abnormality" for a group of individuals from part of West Africa which confers an advantage for sprinting. Many slaves transported to the West Indies and southern US had this genetic trait. This is why so many of the good sprinters are from Jamaica and the US. This genetic trait is not shared bya lot other Africans so when you talk about race you need to be very careful how you use the word. However, the US and Jamaica do focus heavily on training in sprinting so separating the genetic from the cultural influences is difficult. The main problem is that Mikemikev seems to be focussing so much on these "racial" differences without really specifying what he means by race. Too often it appears that the lowest common denominator being plugged for these differences is skin color and that is patently false.
- Okay. See you in half an hour. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Race is defined as an ancestral group so that's just a semantic quibble. It may be your opinion that West Africans make better sprinters because of their culture, although I think many would question that. Either way, the argument that living in a poor country explains proclivity to sprinting success is demonstrably false. Mikemikev (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is the use of the word "races" - it's easy to say that those with these genetically predisposed attributes have these genetically predisposed attributes but that's just circular reasoning. The added danger is that, while there is an obvious and evident mapping between region of origin and genetic markers, that this becomes the be all and end all. Sprinters come from Jamaica (at the moment) because track and field is their national sport, no because they're darkies. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't associated with racism in the slightest to suggest that certain races have certain physical characteristics. In fact it would only be associated with pig-headedness to deny it. DamoHi 11:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was just thinking while making a cup of tea just now, there are loads of black boxers but few wrestlers. SophieWilder 11:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
No, he does not deny the stereotype but the genetic explanation for it. Specifically: "Entine points out that “All of the thirty-two finalists in the last four Olympic men’s 100 meter races are of West African descent”. But he offers no explanation as to why, if genes rather than training are the crucial variable, no West African’s were among the finalists." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would have thought that relatively obvious. Countries with more money/better programmes do better. But that is not the point. The point is that in those countries with more money the athletes that do the best are all of West African descent (or almost all with a few exceptions). Athletes in the same programmes that are not of West African descent do badly by comparison. Besides, there have been plenty of theories and studies about why this is so. Better fast twitch muscles, higher centres of gravity, the prevalent of the ACTN3 gene amongst others no doubt. I'm no evolutionary biologist so I won't pretend to understand that phenomena but I do think you are being more than a little naieve if you think that it all comes down to cultural factors.
- The real heart of the issue, it seems to me is something PowderSmoke said above, which was seemingly the whole point of that dubious article you cited: "I fucking well should feel uncomfortable talking about racial difference as something with a scientific basis when I enjoy all of the benefits of being on the lucky side of the melanin sweepstakes." In my opinion, that is the issue at play here - people subconsciously don't want to admit that people who happen to have black skin might be good at a particular sport because they think it implies they are less worthy in other areas. Like I said above, I think it is a rather "liberal" form of woo. --DamoHi 03:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't address the article. The key word here is "descent." People of West African descent dominate sprinting, but not West Africans themselves. What happened to all those "sprinting genes" then? I'm not denying that genetics plays no role in athletics -- I'm not holding my breath on the NBA being overrun with Chinese superstars anytime soon. But speaking of basketball, it was once dominated by Jews in the 1930s, but obviously no one talks about Jews' innate superiority at basketball anymore. Perhaps the same thing will apply in this case, as it has in many others. As far as P-Foster's comment goes, we are sliding between "race" and "geographic ancestry" again, but that is beside my point. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Back on the article
I wonder if we have gotten so far off track that we have forgotten what the section is about. The part of the article that I think is nonsense is this paragraph here:
- Any perceived differences between races of people can be explained away by looking at culture and history. For example, nations such as Jamaica, with large black populations, have been successful at running sports. A racist would chalk this up to black skinned people being naturally good runners, when in fact the success is an outcome of the fact that poorer nations such as Jamaica have comparatively little money for elaborate training centers, which means their aspiring athletes are more likely to pursue sports such as running, which can be done with little equipment, then they are, say, golf, which requires acres of professionally-tended land. Moreover, success begets popularity. A Jamaican kid watching Usain Bolt set world records is likely to want to be the next Usain Bolt.
Now that paragraph is nonsense almost from start to finish.
- "Any perceived differences can be explained by culture" Rubbish. Some can but some cannot - sports prowess being a classic example
- "A racist would chalk this up to black skinned people..." Or someone who watches sprints and notices that people from a certain heritage do better than others, particularly against others with the same access to training. That isn't racism
and you could go on and on. We are bending so far over backwards to not appear racist due to the sentiments I quoted from PS above, that we have lost track of reality. You guys do what you want, but that paragraph is not good. --DamoHi 06:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would be curious to know what differences between races - speaking of race specifically! - cannot be explained by culture. If black people are natural runners because of their race, then why have Kenya and Ethiopia dominated recent marathons, while other countries chock-full of people with black skin continue to do poorly?
- Or perhaps you are again confusing the cultural concept of "race" with something meaningful, like specific genetic traits strongly associated with geography (i.e. the Sherpa peoples of the Himalyas and endurance of high altitudes, or East Africans with long-running)?
- "Or someone who watches sprints and notices that people from a certain heritage do better than others, particularly against others with the same access to training. That isn't racism"
- Actually, if you look at groups of people, segregate them by their most visible physical characteristic, and then assign traits to people according to that characteristic and your immediate perceptions, then... well, that's actually the very definition of racism. It is exactly the same as "observing" that several Asian women were driving too slowly on the road and deciding that their "heritage" makes them bad drivers, ergo "Asians are bad drivers." "Black people are natural runners" is racist. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.--
talk
09:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so AD. For a start, we are all aware that we are referring to a particular group of people (in this case people of Western African descent) and saying that for whatever reason they tend to produce better runners than others, whether it be the fast twitch muscles or whatever. Now if you want to be like the article and say that this is imaginary and that there are no genetic differences at all, I say that is a little silly. On the other hand if one were to say that "look at the black man, he must be a fast runner" then that would be racist, obviously. But nobody in this discussion is doing that. That is obvious. If you want to have a discussion about the evolutionary qualities of Kenyan runners, then fair enough, but we would then be talking about a different group of people. What is wrong, and what the article should not say is that it all comes down to cultural factors like availability of sports grounds or heroes or whatever, with no genetic component at all which I think is poppy cock, and I understand is accepted to be poppy cock by sports scientists. DamoHi 10:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- You have elegantly demonstrated the problem with discussing "race" in such terms - you think it's obvious that it isn't as crude as saying that "black people are better runners," but it's not. That's because "race" is a hugely inexact, heavily loaded, and absurdly useless term to use. You are perhaps making an argument for increased clarity in this section of the article, but neither nor anyone else nor the article are saying that there is no such thing as hereditary physical traits. That's because "race" doesn't mean that to most people: it means black people, white people, Asian people, and so on. Or maybe Mexicans, white people, Chinese people, and so on.
- To put it another way: you insist that "race" is as granular as you mean. But it's not, not to almost everyone. As I said before to someone else: we have no access to your special meaning of the word, only to the way it's been used historically and currently by most folks. If you want to indicate a different meaning, then you're not talking about race.--
talk
16:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Damo, instead of focusing on using race as a way to explain why certain people do well do well at running, how about you focus on using race as a way to explain why certain people do well at winning chess championships or getting doctorates in math. Then we can see exactly what kind of argument you're trying to make. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 12:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Damo is making a case for race explaining how some people do well at running but rather how a certain genetic factor helps some people. The problem is that because a lot of people with this "fast-twitch muscle gene" trait also have another trait, i.e. greater eumelanin, many people immediately assume that the two are linked and make it Racial. Bringing in chess or maths is a Schlaflyesque red herring because I don't believe Damo is making any claims for race in those fields.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.
13:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. In a broader sense, the argument is that "race" is not a social construct but a biological fact that plays a role in shaping individual abilities. And that's an argument that shares a history with similar arguments.If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- All I'm saying is that for all the claims that the article doesn't say that genetic traits make no difference, that is exactly what it does say. As for winning tournaments in chess or mathemetics or whatever, that is pretty shabby stuff. It is possible that a group of people that evolved in a particular environment might tend to be better at logic or spatial reasoning etc, but I am not aware of anyone who claims that this is true. --DamoHi 21:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. In a broader sense, the argument is that "race" is not a social construct but a biological fact that plays a role in shaping individual abilities. And that's an argument that shares a history with similar arguments.If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Damo is making a case for race explaining how some people do well at running but rather how a certain genetic factor helps some people. The problem is that because a lot of people with this "fast-twitch muscle gene" trait also have another trait, i.e. greater eumelanin, many people immediately assume that the two are linked and make it Racial. Bringing in chess or maths is a Schlaflyesque red herring because I don't believe Damo is making any claims for race in those fields.
- I don't think so AD. For a start, we are all aware that we are referring to a particular group of people (in this case people of Western African descent) and saying that for whatever reason they tend to produce better runners than others, whether it be the fast twitch muscles or whatever. Now if you want to be like the article and say that this is imaginary and that there are no genetic differences at all, I say that is a little silly. On the other hand if one were to say that "look at the black man, he must be a fast runner" then that would be racist, obviously. But nobody in this discussion is doing that. That is obvious. If you want to have a discussion about the evolutionary qualities of Kenyan runners, then fair enough, but we would then be talking about a different group of people. What is wrong, and what the article should not say is that it all comes down to cultural factors like availability of sports grounds or heroes or whatever, with no genetic component at all which I think is poppy cock, and I understand is accepted to be poppy cock by sports scientists. DamoHi 10:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, I see a lot of "for whatever reason" "be that fast twitch muscles or whatever" and "I understand" that's what "sports scientists" say. If someone wants to make an argument about a scientific basis for understanding a certain group of people's skill set, I'd like to see some references to actual science that says that. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why are Jamaicans so good at sprinting?
- The Story Behind the Amazing Success of Black Athletes (1)
- The Story Behind the Amazing Success of Black Athletes (2)
Генгисmarauding
14:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The Slate article mentions genetics, and also talks about training and "cultural factors." The piece in the running blog (which I did not read closely) makes a lot of claims that aren't referenced, and spends a lot of its time cataloguing achievements and then using those numbers as a way to suggest that there "must" be something to this. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 14:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The least you could do is follow the references from the Slate article. Science and American Journal of Human Genetics, although the Science article is behind an academic paywall.
Генгисmutating
15:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did. Even the one behind the paywall. But like I said, the Slate article is very careful to hedge its bets and frame the discussion as one that has to address factors beyond "race." Edit: but at the end of the day -- so what? Some groups may have a genetic predisposition to having certain types of muscular structures. Just like certain groups have a predisposition to have light-coloured skin or Tay-Sachs. What this has to do with an article on creating groups according to the construct of "race" and treating them differently as members of said "race" is beyond me. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 15:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I propose we just delete the offending section altogether. The existence of race is better dealt with in the race article itself. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did. Even the one behind the paywall. But like I said, the Slate article is very careful to hedge its bets and frame the discussion as one that has to address factors beyond "race." Edit: but at the end of the day -- so what? Some groups may have a genetic predisposition to having certain types of muscular structures. Just like certain groups have a predisposition to have light-coloured skin or Tay-Sachs. What this has to do with an article on creating groups according to the construct of "race" and treating them differently as members of said "race" is beyond me. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 15:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The least you could do is follow the references from the Slate article. Science and American Journal of Human Genetics, although the Science article is behind an academic paywall.
- The Slate article mentions genetics, and also talks about training and "cultural factors." The piece in the running blog (which I did not read closely) makes a lot of claims that aren't referenced, and spends a lot of its time cataloguing achievements and then using those numbers as a way to suggest that there "must" be something to this. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 14:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Race and genes
What is the truth about this? It seems to me that "race" is arbitary and based on appearance, but genes determine our appearance. I look like some of my cousins - genes obviously, but I've got so called mixed race cousins whose African heritage is obvious - genes again. So even if race is largely artificial, genes do come into it somewhere. A bushman, an Inuit, a native Swede, a Tamil and a native Australian and a Sicilian (from old roots) all look different, and it's down to genes.-Albannach (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody denies that there are phenological characteristics shared by different population groups that are passed on genetically. Race is the politicization of phenological characteristics. We attach significance to the fact that my skin is a different colour than that guy's skin, and we are very likely, both historically speaking and in the contemporary world, to live very different lives because of the significance attached to skin colour. We do not attach much significance to eye colour, and there is little chance that my blue eyes and your brown eyes, all other things being equal, will play much of a role in shaping our specific outcomes. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 17:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I guess you mean phenotypic and not phenologic. Of course race is defined by ancestry and is a biological phenomenon, as it is in other species. Whether or not that is politicised in humans is a separate matter. In fact it often is politicised: many countries have jus sanguinis naturalisation laws. Mikemikev (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Race" is an indeterminate and variable grouping of a few immediately obvious physical characteristics. It is not very useful except in the crudest way - "Asian" as a race seems to embrace Nepalese, Uighur, Han Chinese, Korean, and Ainu Japanese. That's because "Asian" means little or no epicanthal fold over the eyes, a broader face, black hair, and skin that is slightly darker than what would be typical for someone from northern Europe. Yet those traits are not particularly meaningful, and don't correlate very well with anything meaningful. In addition, they have the nastiest of histories and worst connotations. If you want to chop vegetables, you don't use the huge, unwieldy, and bloody axe - you use a chef's knife: it's more useful and less ugly. You only use the axe if you want to bludgeon your vegetables into a muck out of a contrarian insistence that axes do cut things. Which is true, but we actually want useful statements - we want to eat.--
talk
10:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to reply late, just off a block. Actually the East Asian ancestral group does not include Uyghurs or Nepalese, who are mixed, or the Japanese Ainu, whose ancestry is uncertain and possibly Caucasoid. Race is not defined by superficial characteristics but by ancestry. This is why Negritos, who look Negroid, are classified with East Asians. And yes, it correlates with a lot of things, at multiple levels. You use an axe when you don't have a knife. Similarly, we would love to know the specific genes which cause West African sprinting ability. We don't. So we can only say that West Africans are predisposed to sprinting, and genetic causality is possible. These are facts. Mikemikev (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that you are using your own specialized terminologies, and so when I say "Asian" you hear "East Asian." But surely that indicates the problem! While to you, "race is not defined by superficial characteristics," that is not true for almost everyone else!
- To me, it's as though someone is saying, "I didn't dream last night," and you are snapping off in reply, "Actually, you did dream. You just don't remember it." But in neither case are you correcting someone, you're just willfully avoiding communication. You actually know that the person means that they don't remember their dream and that the technical reality of REM-cycles is not to what they were referring, just as you know that saying "race" does not refer to delicately granulated ethnic groups to most people, but rather "black," "white," "Asian," etc.
- So yes, you have listed some facts. My question is why you insist on willfully stating them in the least useful, most confusing, and nastiest way?--
talk
11:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually race was always defined by ancestry.
- "For example, in 1822 Virginia, a person was considered legally white with up to one-fourth African ancestry (equivalent to one grandparent). Under its Racial Integrity Act of 1924, Virginia defined as black a person with any known African ancestry, no matter how many generations in the past."
- You are attacking a strawman version of the race concept.
- When you say "Asian" I hear "Asian", and I have no idea what you are talking about.
- Rushton and Jensen also define race by ancestry:
- "In Section 8, we discussed the DNA methods that can ascertain degree of White ancestry in Black populations. Many other DNA markers identify Black–White differences regardless of how divergent the African ancestry."
- The great thing about terminology is that you get to define what you mean by it. 61.41.36.44 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- So to argue that race isn't grossly simplified to large categories of physical appearance, you cite several incidents wherein enormous and complex populations are called "black" and "white."
- Yeah. You sure got me.--
talk
15:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to reply late, just off a block. Actually the East Asian ancestral group does not include Uyghurs or Nepalese, who are mixed, or the Japanese Ainu, whose ancestry is uncertain and possibly Caucasoid. Race is not defined by superficial characteristics but by ancestry. This is why Negritos, who look Negroid, are classified with East Asians. And yes, it correlates with a lot of things, at multiple levels. You use an axe when you don't have a knife. Similarly, we would love to know the specific genes which cause West African sprinting ability. We don't. So we can only say that West Africans are predisposed to sprinting, and genetic causality is possible. These are facts. Mikemikev (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
"When you say "Asian" I hear "Asian", and I have no idea what you are talking about." - When I hear "Asian", I think of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. It's not a good descriptor for that very reason. African isn't a good descriptor for blacks either, for a similar reason - Libyans and modern Egyptians are African...-Albannach (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)