100m WR progression and slavery

We talk about obesity alot on these boards and I think the same dynamic is at work in trying to get obese people to lose weight. I am not at all deluded to imagine it is somehow my self-created superior will that makes it so I just don't want to eat excessively and sit on my ass. But the only way to get people to change their behavior is to get them to feel like a change is possible and to make that change through personal responsibility even though we know deep down that some people just don't have what it takes to make that change. Do you really delude yourself with a narrative that puts your out-of-thin-air choices at the center of who you are rather than recognizing that your choices come from somewhere and you just aren't privy to the psychological processes that led to them?

At some point we should change the subject back to West African sprinters. There have been plenty. I recall some guy from Ghana or somewhere that ran for Portugal later in his career. I also recall Frankie Fredericks, who raced a cheetah once, as well as a handful of guys from the Ivory Coast, Senegal, and other West African countries. I bet you'd find a solid handful of West African sprinters who have run sub 10.00 in the 100m. There has to be some such list somewhere.

And nobody even mentioned women's running where the ethnic dynamics are a bit different.

I'm going to make this as simple as possible, although I don't think you're going to be able to comprehend it.

Black people aren't poor because of slavery. I ask you again, what does slavery have to do with black people murdering each other, having children by the busload out of wedlock and not going to college?

I saw a black person today. Several, actually. I didn't see a single one bound by chains.

They are free to achieve the same success as everone else in this country. In fact, the affirmative action programs in colleges and the corporate world make it easier than white people to achieve those dreams.

But, they aren't taking advantage of those opportunities, are they? Nope, they're dealing drugs, killing each other, going to prison and being a "man" by having a ton of kids. They're in a cycle created by their own irresponsibility.

Your response to all of that? Slavery and Whitey causes it.

Brilliant. Absolutely fu**ing brilliant. Al and Jesse would be proud of you.

I am going to make this absolutely clear to you - behaviors come from somewhere, not out of thin air. It is no damn mystery that poverty causes a disproportion of certain behaviors on a group level. Ever been to the poor rural white south?

So you think on April 20, 1865, since black people were no longer in chains, they should have had parity with white folks and not exhibited any of the problems associated with poverty? You are just really acting dimly out of some sort of misplaced resentment here. There is nothing in my argument that implies patience with the actions of people, merely that there are causes of those actions. I am personally pretty pitiless about punishing actions and expecting responsible behavior, but I don't have to invent illogical narratives to do so that make me feel justified - they just aren't necessary.

You know, the things you do have causes as well. You are not a self-caused being. I wish you would explain to me where your choices come from, if not from the dynamic I describe. If you think certain experieinces don't result in negative causes, you have yet to explain to me why you'd pay any attention at all to how you raised your kids. They are free to make whatever choices they want.

sirbek wrote:

.... sorry but you're an idiot.

Let's settle this the old-fashioned way. Let's race. Name your distance and I'll spank you. You little Nancy.

Let me start by saying I hate this topic.

This is a very difficult topic to discuss on a message board w/o getting long winded, but anyone who credits genetics for the success of any particular group does an extreme disservice to that group. Certainly there are slight genetic differences between groups; genetics and physiology are not exact sciences; you will always find differences if try to reduce groups of people to muscle types, lung size and leg lengths, etc. And, the discussion about selection during slavery is no different than the natural selection process which takes place in all species. There is a lot of sub consciousness, instinct and biology that takes place in selecting a mate; if you can manage to strip away the influences of Madison Avenue and Howard Stern.

Btw - What is a race? What is an African American? Not all Kenyans and Ethiopians are great distance runners, the Komens, Lagats, Cheruiyots; Bekele and Dibabas are from a couple of specific sub groups. How do you account for the great Finns, or the great South Americans of the 1980s? Or-the great Ugandans, Tanzanians or the great North Africans. What did you think of Chinese before Yoa Ming or Liu Xiang? Great Britain dominated middle distance and had outstanding long distance runners during the 1980s? Coe ran a 1:41x 800m in 1981, Cram ran a 3:46x mile in 1985, Dave Moorcroft ran a 13:00x 5000 in 1982 and Nick Rose ran a 27:31 10K in 1983. These performances are excellent even by today’s standards; now extrapolate what you would expect to be a modest improvement over the last 25 years and British athletes would be right were the Africans are today.

You can’t discount the effects of culture, environment, socialization, tradition, economic status. Perhaps Asian Americans excel at math and science because it is as simple as they try harder. Perhaps African Americans excel at basketball because intercity kids play basketball everyday, much like Brazilians, who excel at soccer play everyday. Perhaps Africans excel in distance running for the same reasons they don’t excel at cycling and swimming. Perhaps when you get beat, it is too convenient to place limits on your group and think your component has some inherent advantage. Perhaps any group can achieve success at anything if they really focus on and perhaps this topic needs to stop coming up because any attempt to have an intelligent conversation will always get hijacked by the racists who will use disparage minorities.

those are the types of posts i was looking for when i originally made the thread. and maybe your idea of "placing limits on your group because of previous failures (or successes" holds some water..

in response to an earlier post who said that it was all societal and that these people have been as fast as they are because they work and train harder... while work ethic surely is a part to becoming an elite athlete in any sport or event, the fact that 19 of the past 20 record holders are black and of American or Jamaican descent is a trend that can't just be by accident.

to most other posters on here: your "pitty the negro" and opposing racist ideologies have absoolutely nothing to do with the original post

(Reposted with some grammar corrections; I don\'t know how to use the edit funtion.)

Let me start by saying I hate this topic.

This is a very difficult topic to discuss on a message board w/o getting long winded, but anyone who credits genetics for the success of any particular group does an extreme disservice to that group. Certainly there are slight genetic differences between groups. Genetics and physiology are not exact sciences; you will always find differences if you try to reduce groups of people to muscle types, lung size, leg lengths and the fact that they eat grits everyday, etc. And, the discussion about selection during slavery is no different than the natural selection process which takes place in all species. There is a lot of sub consciousness, instinct and biology that takes place in selecting a mate; if you can manage to strip away the influences of Madison Avenue and Howard Stern. (A clean shaven waif is not the biological standard.)

Btw - What is a race? What is an African American? Not all Kenyans and Ethiopians are great distance runners, the Komens, Lagats, Cheruiyots; Bekele and Dibabas are from a couple of specific sub groups. How do you account for the great Finns, or the great South Americans of the 1980s? Or - the great Ugandans, Tanzanians or the great North Africans. What did you think of Chinese people before Yoa Ming or Liu Xiang? Great Britain dominated middle distance and had outstanding long distance runners during the 1980s? Coe ran a 1:41x 800m in 1981, Cram ran a 3:46x mile in 1985, Dave Moorcroft ran a 13:00x 5000 in 1982 and Nick Rose ran a 27:31 10K in 1983. These performances are excellent even by today’s standards; now extrapolate what you would expect to be a modest improvement over the last 25 years and British athletes would be right were the Africans are today. (Unfortunately, British athletes actually went backwards.)

You can’t discount the effects of culture, environment, socialization, tradition, economic status. Perhaps Asian Americans excel at math and science because it is as simple as they try harder. Perhaps African Americans excel at basketball because intercity kids play basketball everyday, much like Brazilians who excel at soccer because they play everyday. Perhaps Africans excel in distance running for the same reasons they don’t excel at cycling and swimming. Perhaps when you get beat, it is too convenient to place limits on your group and think your opponent has some inherent advantage. Perhaps any group can achieve success at anything if they really focus on it and perhaps this topic needs to stop coming up because any attempt to have an intelligent conversation will always get hijacked by the racists who will use it to disparage minorities.

threads like this that generalize an entire race of people is really unsettling and unfair. i really wish i could sit down and have a heart to heart with all those that feel that all black people are dangerous criminals and such. do a background check on me bud, i think i fall very far from your stereotype of what a black male should be, and i know plenty of others that are. yea, there are rotten apples, as there are in every race, but that shouldn't be a deciding factor in the way you treat and think about an ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE.

I won't participate in the genetics vs. conditioning debate again. I absolutely refuse. Everything that can be said on this subject already has been said at least 40,000 times on this board alone and yet you idiots keep carrying on as if this is the magic "time" we're finally going to get to the bottom of the issue. I'd rather read another thread on the existence of God than go over this shit again.

I will say, however, that black people are not solely to blame for their habit of complaining about their economics conditions rather than pulling themselves up. Quite frankly the establishment thoroughly enables them. We have a system in place which both makes it difficult to get out of poverty and encourages black people to organize along racial lines to petition the government for benefits. Ypu can thank liberals for that.

Yeah So wrote:

You are ridiculous.

To argue that people aren't personally responsible because of something that happended 100 or even 40 years ago is laughable.

The last time I checked, no one is making black people kill other black people.

No one is making them have babies out of wedlock 80% of the time, then completely abandoning their responsiblity (OOPS! Did I say a dirty word?) to provide and raise that child.

No one is keeping them from attending college and making something of themselves.

The only thing holding black people down is themselves. And people like you, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who continaully feed them the line of bullshit that they aren't responsible for their plight and that it all falls on Whitey.

Until they acknowledge that they are responsible for what they become, they will remain what they are.

Case closed!

You're a master of dialectical thinking, my brother. When it comes to the old both/and model, you put all those either/or idiots to shame.

In fact, every time I re-read your post, I gain new appreciation for the ironies evoked by it.

The subtleties of your argumentation are beyond reproach.

You argue like a jazzman.

You rhapsodize the way John Coltrane wipes the sweat off his face after a particularly energetic solo.

White people definitely have something to learn from the way you deploy your rhetorical gifts.

sweaty shorts wrote:

Surely, you don't think that black people in England act the same way

now you have opened the door

roboto wrote:

Let's settle this the old-fashioned way. Let's race. Name your distance and I'll spank you. You little Nancy.

damn you're just wrong all over the place.

If you're ever in the Southern Indiana area, I'll be willing to spank you in the 5 or 10k.

don't be upset because anyone that know anything about biology knows you know nothing about biology.

marijuologist,

Not to hijack the thread (as if it hasn't already digressed), but how is your heart doing? Didn't you post something last week about having some kind of weird arrythmia? I couldn't find the original thread and wondered if you got it sorted out.

Asian kids are good at spelling bees, and white people like to watch Friends.

Sirbek,

For biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. So actually, I was right. You're a blowhard. And if I'm ever in Southern Indiana, I'll shoot myself out of sheer boredom, not race you.

Sincerely,

roboto

Sangdri wrote:

sweaty shorts wrote:

Surely, you don't think that black people in England act the same way

now you have opened the door

what's that mean?

Sirbek, U of Southern Indiana has never heard of Stephen Gould apparently?

http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm

So you're saying blacks are a different species... and/or also that any slaves that were not fast runners were killed.

too bad thats not the case. There is a BIG difference between the body type that a slave owner would want and a sprinter's body type. Thats a big disadvantage there. So the change is not even directly linked to the change that is said to occur.

Secondly they were not killed if they were not fast or strong, they were just worth less in trade. Not being selected out makes selection very hard.

This whole mating the best slaves idea, get real. People are going to f*** if you want them to or not.

Great link, I'm might even you it to debate the red necks I have to live around. But it simply does not apply to this because it speaks of situations of strong selective forces which just didn't exist.

sirbek, you are vastly confused. evolution and selective breeding/natural selection are two completely different things. please do not confuse the two. it makes you look stupid.