Why is it racist to say that blacks are faster than whites?

And was that a joke to call wariner breaking dominance? So basically what you're saying is that since wariner is in 4th place in history right now and almost every single place after that up to 2100 places is held by brown people that wariner has single handedly broke dominance?

That's a joke right?

Wow make me laugh even harder at your attempt to justify this.

Wariner is a really good runner but he's still in 4th place now almost a half second behind. That much of a time gap in that short of a race is pretty far behind..

Maybe true and probably racist, but harder to validate. Stopwatch and 8 finalists at olympic games pretty cut and dried.

Louie G wrote:

Why is it considered a racist statement to say that blacks are faster runners than whites?

That isn't a put down at all. How can it be a put down when speed brings success and millions of dollars to hundreds of black athletes?

It's also the truth. They rule the sprinting world. They are a relatively small percentage of the world's population yet they rule sprinting.

Football coaches have been fired for saying the other team had faster black athletes than he did. Pete Rose got blasted for saying his hit record was more impressive because Ty Cobb didn't have black outfielders chasing down his stuff.

Just curious why that is so offensive.

Because it's a generalization. Anytime someone makes a generalization he/she can get into trouble.

It's hard to say anything that covers it all. No book can tell all about any subject.

Everyone one seems to be referring to men. Not so clear cut on the women's side.

Why do people think continue to think that there is such a thing as race?

A group of human beings who happen to have black pigmented skin, for reasons that are very well understood, are proving to be fast sprinters because their ancestors were bred for strength. The thing is, this stuff only genetic concentration of traits in groups of people of one race, us.

Regardless of whether it's racist, it's false.

If African genes were such an advantage, Africans would be much better than African Americans who have other genes mixed in. Africans have been in the game for a long time now, and Van Niekirk is the first to hit it big, and he looks to have some non-African ancestry anyhow.

African-Americans have succeeded more at sprinting for the following obvious reasons:

1) many live in the south, where weather is good for sprinting all year

2) many are poor and have worse educational opportunities, thus more incentive to take sports seriously

3) American football is perfect off-season sprinter prep, with short bursts of energy and long breaks. Other countries play soccer which requires endurance.

So, America because of football; AfAm because of south and economy.

It is racist because it implies that Black people are different beings to Caucasian people. That they have different flesh and blood, are a different species almost.

You get fast White guys and fast Black guys. There's a culture around sprinting, as there is in basketball for example.

Also WVN and Wariner aren't Black.

"Black" in the USA means the same as both "black" and "coloured" in SA. "Colored" is a slur in USA and no longer used. "Caucasian" is an idiotic theory debunked in the 19th century, based on skull shapes, that white people originated in the Caucusus region. There is no "Caucasian" race and it is disgraceful that anyone still uses the term.

blah blah blah...

there has not been a single white man in an Olympic 100m final since 1980. Bleat on all you like about social factors, but it boils down to one thing....genetics.

you know nothing about genetics

Bad Wigins wrote:

"Black" in the USA means the same as both "black" and "coloured" in SA. "Colored" is a slur in USA and no longer used. "Caucasian" is an idiotic theory debunked in the 19th century, based on skull shapes, that white people originated in the Caucusus region. There is no "Caucasian" race and it is disgraceful that anyone still uses the term.

Wayde is Cape Coloured. These people have distinct roots from Black people. There is a Malasian, Indian, Indonesian etc. influence in their ethnicity.

It it like trying to say Sri Lankans are Black also.

the430miler is wrong wrote:

and well.....Jimmy was actually somewhat right. Slaves were looked at like animals to be bred for certain characteristics (like musculature). After all, a slave owner wanted that slave to be able to do as much hard work as possible. You wouldn't want some weakling, right? Over the span of a couple of centuries of "breeding," the average african american is much better built for athletics than the average caucasian, native, or asian american. But that statement still pisses people off, because of how vile the slave trade was.

Unless a slave was bred for heavy lifting than this statement is false and very simplistic. Being "big" doesn't make you athletic nor strong. I tend to not base assumptions on 1600 males over a general population of millions of people but maybe you do.

I doth protest! wrote:

the430miler is wrong wrote:

and well.....Jimmy was actually somewhat right. Slaves were looked at like animals to be bred for certain characteristics (like musculature). After all, a slave owner wanted that slave to be able to do as much hard work as possible. You wouldn't want some weakling, right? Over the span of a couple of centuries of "breeding," the average african american is much better built for athletics than the average caucasian, native, or asian american. But that statement still pisses people off, because of how vile the slave trade was.

Unless a slave was bred for heavy lifting than this statement is false and very simplistic. Being "big" doesn't make you athletic nor strong. I tend to not base assumptions on 1600 males over a general population of millions of people but maybe you do.

You are a racist!

Think deeper wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

"Black" in the USA means the same as both "black" and "coloured" in SA. "Colored" is a slur in USA and no longer used. "Caucasian" is an idiotic theory debunked in the 19th century, based on skull shapes, that white people originated in the Caucusus region. There is no "Caucasian" race and it is disgraceful that anyone still uses the term.

Wayde is Cape Coloured. These people have distinct roots from Black people. There is a Malasian, Indian, Indonesian etc. influence in their ethnicity.

It it like trying to say Sri Lankans are Black also.

More than that in his case. He probably has more Asian ancestry than African or European but he does have some African and probably European. But basing his results on pure genetics is a joke as his world record run defies what 400 meter runners have been taught about lactic acid build up. He must be on a new drug protocol. If WVN was a blonde Dutch Man I doubt people would be able to pidgeon hole him as easily on some racial theory.

I agree with everything Bad Wigins states on this issue. I will also add: There are more differences WITHIN every race than differences BETWEEN races. Most males of any race cannot race sub-10.50 100 metres. Many (not most) people of all races have demonstrated the ability to race sub-10.25 100 metres. I would rather argue environmental factors of the fastest 100 metres athletes that attempt to identify a gene. I would rather argue psychological factors possessed by outstanding sprinters than to identify a gene.

It's racist because if you had to pick a random black guy from a crowd of 100 black men and a random white guy from a crowd of100 white men and have them race 100 meters, would you bet your life that the black guy would win?

The answer is fing No!! Cause there are plenty of fast white men and plenty of slow black guys.

It's a stereotype, and even if people think they might have a basis of why they think a certain way, you can't go by that cause humans are impossible to put in a box!

Hence, racist!!

Period!

It's polite racism