Is Hayward a victim of reverse racism on this board?

[Slappfisk]

Feel free to apply it to any physical or mental attribute. Just replace tallest with shortest, lowest IQ, Highest IQ, biggest ears, smallest feet, worst vision, eye color, hair color, whatever.

That isn't my point.

My point is that I have heard this particular nonsense before. What I find amusing about it as stated previously is that its a bit of a funny theory in that it can apparently be only applied positively to justify black superiority but never negatively to justify the lack of African-American success in American society.

My issue is twofold:

One that its race based psudo-science no better than what you hear coming out of the white supremacist camp.

Secondly, that it is selectively applied to create a seemingly legitimate justification for black superiority.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Mr Edwards should look at some modern day studies. Yes in slavery days what physically gifted people were more likely to survive then. This is also true of many people. Studies do not prove that black people are faster stronger or capable of jumping higher than white people. Plus hate to burst your bubble but a lot of great black athletes are not ancestors of slaves.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

You don't know where to begin because of the paragraphs, or because you don't know anything about biology?

*sigh*

One's height is not solely dependent on his/her parent's genes. There are other factors that go into how tall a person guess. Two individuals with the same genetic makeup can be different heights because of a human's plasticity. Environment, social factors, diet and health all affect height. Overall height will likely in the long run, but you'd need many generations to see a palpable change.

And strength has very little to do with genetics. Top 25 in a group of 100 wouldn't change how strong people are. Neither would the concept of "athletic ability," which is completely subjective to measure what "athletic ability" is. It's a ridiculous argument.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

My point is that I have heard this particular nonsense before. What I find amusing about it as stated previously is that its a bit of a funny theory in that it can apparently be only applied positively to justify black superiority but never negatively to justify the lack of African-American success in American society.

Well, I don't recall reading in history books that slave owners forced slaves with the lowest IQs to mate and have children. They simply chose the biggest and strongest. My understanding is that lack of success stems from the unfortunate fact that the US government has not done enough to help African-Americans to rebound from difficult circumstances following the end of slavery. That, in addition to the "separate but equal" fiasco really put many Black Americans at a disadvantage socioeconomically.

One that its race based psudo-science no better than what you hear coming out of the white supremacist camp.

Since when is the FACT that we all inherit our DNA from both our mother and father psudo-science?

Secondly, that it is selectively applied to create a seemingly legitimate justification for black superiority.

I'm not trying to "justify" anything. Anyone who has made it in professional sports has put in a lot of work and dedication. They DESERVE everything they have earned.

Should we be afraid to talk about this? Should we not study things like this in order to not offend anyone? Should I be compared to a racist or a white supremacist because I am interested in chatting about it? I'm open to other people's opinions, and if there is another explanation to this phenomenon, I would love to hear it.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

This discussion is leading too far away from the originator's intentions. It seems like one of those topics where no one is open-minded, maybe myself included. I will remove myself from the discussion now.


GORDON HAYWARD for MVP!!!

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Should we be afraid to talk about this? Should we not study things like this in order to not offend anyone? Should I be compared to a racist or a white supremacist because I am interested in chatting about it? I'm open to other people's opinions, and if there is another explanation to this phenomenon, I would love to hear it.

No problem talking about it, but scientifically it won't hold up. Not enough gene isolation. Not enough generations. Small blip, time-wise, in gene flow. Not enough change to the gene pool.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

No problem talking about it, but scientifically it won't hold up. Not enough gene isolation. Not enough generations. Small blip, time-wise, in gene flow. Not enough change to the gene pool.

I wish I understood better what you're talking about. I'll have to do some independent study. Can I ask if you have a theory as to why Black Americans are so prominent in professional sports, especially basketball? Lack of academic options? Random chance? Culture?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I wish I understood better what you're talking about. I'll have to do some independent study. Can I ask if you have a theory as to why Black Americans are so prominent in professional sports, especially basketball? Lack of academic options? Random chance? Culture?

Purely cultural and societal based.

 

[The Ghost of Blue Edwards]

What a frick'n moron. My guess is that your knowledge of genetic economics (if there's even such a field--I'd guess you're pulling that one out of your backside too) is approximately equivalent to Paris Hilton's knowledge of quantum physics.

This, of course, explains the domination of white players in sports such as hockey, swimming, cycling, skiing, etc., and the large number of world class white players in soccer. (The widely considered best team in the world, Spain, is full of whiteys too.)

Now, if you'd like to float a theory about sociological determinants of racial concentration in certain sports, that might be worth considering, but your silly, stupid, ignorant racial breeding theory is pure crap.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively about selectively breeding slaves. Are you calling Thomas Jefferson a liar?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

What a frick'n moron...This, of course, explains the domination of white players in sports such as hockey, swimming, cycling, skiing, etc., and the large number of world class white players in soccer. (The widely considered best team in the world, Spain, is full of whiteys too.)

Pop Quiz hot shot. How many soccer fields, hockey rinks, swimming pools, cycling friendly areas/sidewalks, and ski slopes are there in predominantly black areas?

That's what I thought.

 

[The Ghost of Blue Edwards]

This smacks of psuedo-science to me.

If this nonsense is correct then wouldn't it also apply to mental and emotional attributes. African americans were bred to be subservient to authority, less intelligent, less independent and less intellectually curious?

I highly doubt that a few centuries is anywhere near long enough to affect such a substantial change in the genetic makeup of a people.

"I know these facts will seem too awful to relate," warns former slave William J. Anderson in his 1857 narrative, ". . . as they are some of the real 'dark deeds of American Slavery.'" Enslaved women were forced to submit to their masters' sexual advances, perhaps bearing children who would engender the rage of a master's wife, and from whom they might be separated forever as a result. Masters forcibly paired "good breeders" to produce strong children they could sell at a high price. "Forced breeding in the slave quarters manifested itself as an indirect form of rape," writes Daina R. Berry, a scholar of African American history, "where powerless enslaved males and females became the victims of reproductive abuse to which they did not willingly give their consent."2 Resistance brought severe punishment, often death. These selections are drawn from the nineteenth-century published narratives as well as the twentieth-century interviews of former slaves compiled in the 1930s by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) Slave Narrative Project.

https://webcache.googleusercontent....on+on+slave+breeding&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


Are former slave William J. Anderson and African American history scholar Daina r. Berry psuedoscientists?

 

[The Ghost of Blue Edwards]

That isn't my point.

My point is that I have heard this particular nonsense before. What I find amusing about it as stated previously is that its a bit of a funny theory in that it can apparently be only applied positively to justify black superiority but never negatively to justify the lack of African-American success in American society.

My issue is twofold:

One that its race based psudo-science no better than what you hear coming out of the white supremacist camp.

Secondly, that it is selectively applied to create a seemingly legitimate justification for black superiority.

LOL. What the hell are you talking about? Are you jealous of black men?

Also, that's why we use the word "economics" in the phrase genetic economics. Slave buyers valued physical strength much more than they did mental weakness. I'm sure it did matter to a point, but just not nearly as much as the physical part.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

LOL. What the hell are you talking about? Are you jealous of black men?

Now you're just speaking silliness.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Wow, just wow. To think that "forcible breeding" actually did ANYTHING to the gene pool of today's America is downright asinine.

 

[LiemD]

It's not that Hayward is white that bothers me, it's the fact that he looks like an elf from Lord of the Rings that does.

AK looks somewhat like he can be in that movie as well

 

[Harcher]

Wow, just wow. To think that "forcible breeding" actually did ANYTHING to the gene pool of today's America is downright asinine.

Duck,

I think the disconnect is the method of the gene pool selection/adjustment. So if you only put tall people on the island then that island would only have tall people for generations. In this case the gene pool is not randomly mutating, or mutating overall long period inwhich the people were exposed to a envronmental element, rather, it is preselected. Just like dog breeders at the dog shows, horse breeders who want the next Secrateriat. And you'll say "well that is just ONE sample of parents chosen to get one offspring." So it doesn't seem asinine to me that breeding the slaves for strenght and durability had an effect.

I'm no historian, but i'm guessing that there are three reasons for the choice of slaves - ability to identify, ability to obtain, ability to work/perform. This helps us answer: why did the early Americans (Northern Europeans) did not go to Asia and create slaves out of Asians? Why not out of Native American, they were right here? They were identifiable, and they were 'captured' essentially. Was the work capabilities of Africans a factor?

In this debate, i'm not sure why this is such a bad thing to say an African American, as a general populace is a strong atheletic sort?

When we consider that American Football is a cultuarally "equal" sport between blacks and whites today, (as compared to hockey as noted earlier in the thread) and that there is probably a huge majority of High School Players who are white, but that's not the case at the collegiate level and that's even more not the case (complete opposite) at the NFL level, then how is that not a significant indicator that the African American has some God given skills in this regard.

So then is the African american "blessed with skills" in this case (Q1) and did selective breeding in the slave era have an effect on African AMERICANS (Q2)

So does this make me a racist for thinking these things? (Q3...)

 

[The Thriller]

What's reverse racism? Is racism only racism when it's Caucasians being racist against others of different races? So when other races are racist against Caucasians or when Caucasians are racist against themselves it's called "Reverse Racism?"

Interesting.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

It's ten to twelve generations, Harcher. And besides, I would think ALL slaves would have been procreating. This concept of a set of super beings and then the regular beings off to the side is just not going to happen. The relative high ratio of black people in the NBA/NFL to percentage of total population is purely societal.

As for why Africans? Cheaper and easier. The African tribes in Western and Central Africa in that time were high practitioners of slavery. The difference was that slavery was based on tribal affiliation and nothing to do with the fancy notion of race. Europeans would offer valuable goods to the tribes in exchange for the slaves. The African tribes thought nothing of it. Given the militaristic inferiority of Africans to Europeans, especially when compared to Asians, who were incredibly far away anyway to viably use, much less more difficult to obtain, made Africans the easy way to go to get cheap labor.

 

[The Thriller]

Wow...

You really believe that?

Google "Natural Selection."

A. The environment that Africans were subjected to already would help filter some out. Survival of the fittest.
B. The environment that African-Americans were placed into during the 17th and 18th centuries particularly in the United States also helped filter some out.
C. Africans in coastal areas naturally have a greater abundance of white muscle fibers, a direct result of natural selection. This helps them to have the "fast twitch" ability.

Those of darker pigmentation aren't dominating the sports arena by accident folks.

 

[The Thriller]

It's ten to twelve generations, Harcher. And besides, I would think ALL slaves would have been procreating. This concept of a set of super beings and then the regular beings off to the side is just not going to happen. The relative high ratio of black people in the NBA/NFL to percentage of total population is purely societal.

Why would the number of generations passed make much of a difference as long as they're not procreating with different races? In the Atlantic ocean there was an island whose population largely shared a recessive trait disorder that resulted in blindness. Even after hundreds of years (several generations) this population still suffered with this disease. Why? Because they weren't procreating with those of other races. The gene pool was extremely small.

Genetic drift by intermixing with those of different races would have the effect that you seem to be suggesting.

However, not much procreating was done between whites and blacks in the United States until recently. The traits that we seem to be discussing today are commonly found in African Americans today not by accident at all.