moshimoshi wrote:And were those British plantations? I think not. Why don't you try again.
moron
slavery went on for 300y+
& the spanish slaved to cuba, 110 k^2 compared to jamaica at 11 k^2
you think also jamaica has bigger area than the carolinas at 221 k^2 ???
idiot
What race gives the best directions? This is an ll time favorite:
What was the name of the sports commentator who was fired for comments about how he believed the slaves who survived the trip from Africa and then bred for size and strength created genetically superior Black athletes? This was quite a few years ago. He really got slammed for his "personal opinion". I am not sure his exact words on air but he said what quite a few people already believed. Now they think it might be scientifically proven? Go figure. Not rocket science folks. Sad history but true.
His theory is wrong.
1. American runners do well because the USA has excellent track and field facilities plus the possibility of scholarship keeps many motivated.
Also American runners have access to the best chemists: Gatlin, Jeter etc are all doped to the gills as were Carl Lewis, Flo-Jo, Marion Jones, Burrell, Watts, butch reynolds etc
2. Carribeans do well because track and field us the most important sport in places like Jamaica and Trinidad and they have semi decent facilties and very good coaching.
A country like Nigeria, CIV, Ghana etc would do just as well as the US or Jamaica if they had access to good coaching, facilities and chemists and if their runners were as motivated to succeed. Theres plenty of talent going to waste there
Secretariat may have been a freak but he was a deliberately bred freak. The cross which produced him was a combination of one of the great middle distance horses(Bold Ruler) from the '54 crop(which was one of the deepest in history) out of a mare who was sired by one of the great long distance runners(Princequillo) of the last century. An identical cross produced the American born/European raced legend Mill Reef who had an even larger heart than Secretariat relative to his lower body mass.
Most great racehorses are bred to be great. The true freaks with no pedigree are actually exceptionally rare.
Even those horses will trace to a superstar within a few generations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_%22The_Greek%22_SnyderFired for slave breeding talk wrote:
What was the name of the sports commentator who was fired for comments about how he believed the slaves who survived the trip from Africa and then bred for size and strength created genetically superior Black athletes? This was quite a few years ago. He really got slammed for his "personal opinion". I am not sure his exact words on air but he said what quite a few people already believed. Now they think it might be scientifically proven? Go figure. Not rocket science folks. Sad history but true.
Jimmy The Greeek wrote:
Why hasn't he been fired?
because we in this country have evolved to the point where we can civily and intelligently talk about, discuss, agree or argue topics once considered taboo.
Joeplus wrote:
His theory is wrong.
1. American runners do well because the USA has excellent track and field facilities plus the possibility of scholarship keeps many motivated.
Also American runners have access to the best chemists: Gatlin, Jeter etc are all doped to the gills as were Carl Lewis, Flo-Jo, Marion Jones, Burrell, Watts, butch reynolds etc
2. Carribeans do well because track and field us the most important sport in places like Jamaica and Trinidad and they have semi decent facilties and very good coaching.
A country like Nigeria, CIV, Ghana etc would do just as well as the US or Jamaica if they had access to good coaching, facilities and chemists and if their runners were as motivated to succeed. Theres plenty of talent going to waste there
Agreed.
Two points -
1. I doubt the ability to survive slavery is highly correlated to great speed.
2. The greatest selective pressure for even better athletes comes care of the megabucks pro athletes earn and the outsized number of sexual conquests this status enables.
La Kwinta Inn wrote:
What race gives the best directions? This is an ll time favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCXE9ZJb-RI
From National Lampoon's Vacation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwBoa-NbNL8SMJO wrote:Secretariat may have been a freak but he was a deliberately bred freak
drivel
his dam raced once & didn't place !
idiot
rest of drivel is already worthless
The cross which produced him was a combination of one of the great middle distance horses(Bold Ruler) from the '54 crop(which was one of the deepest in history)
2nd raters - plenty of preakness winners
if you had money - you went to the goldmine
northern dancer
out of a mare who was sired by one of the great long distance runners(Princequillo) of the last century
from a dam who ran once & didn't place you idiot
the mother coudn't run
An identical cross produced the American born/European raced legend Mill Reef who had an even larger heart than Secretariat relative to his lower body mass
eh ???
moron
mill reef was not out of same dam
only a moron woud post above
i've never heard mill reef ever having ultrasound or autopsy result as having Secretariat sized proportioned heart
post it !
as for mill reef, his lasting memory to fans is his 1st big race
slaughtered by the brigadier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es28rlQXdiIno matter, what you win after that, you are f*cked in all-time by crushing loss of that
Most great racehorses are bred to be great. The true freaks with no pedigree are actually exceptionally rare
idiot
that applies to multi-millionaire bidders & even if they win classics, few are legends
any classic winner of last 30y+ will have an ancestor who won a classic if you looked far enough back, but only an idiot/ignorant wouda actually thinka posting it
Even those horses will trace to a superstar within a few generations.
moron
read above
all pro racing developed from 3 stallions
byerley turk
darley arabian
godolphin arabian
Calvin Johnson is a good example. There isn't anyone white that comes close in terms of freakish athleticism.
Joeplus wrote:
His theory is wrong.
1. American runners do well because the USA has excellent track and field facilities plus the possibility of scholarship keeps many motivated.
Also American runners have access to the best chemists: Gatlin, Jeter etc are all doped to the gills as were Carl Lewis, Flo-Jo, Marion Jones, Burrell, Watts, butch reynolds etc
2. Carribeans do well because track and field us the most important sport in places like Jamaica and Trinidad..
ufgjuvgjv wrote:
Agreed.
Two points -
1. I doubt the ability to survive slavery is highly correlated to great speed.
2. The greatest selective pressure for even better athletes comes care of the megabucks pro athletes earn and the outsized number of sexual conquests this status enables.
True, the US has the best collegiate system today. However, the former Soviet States take all Olympic sports seriously and make them compulsory in schools. Where they have talent they maximise it. This is why there are maybe 10 Russian 800m girls with the Olympic A standard (vs maybe 5 USA). In the old days the Soviets had the best system; sports academies for school kids, athletes put on the military payroll or given other government 'jobs' so they could train full-time.
Track and Field is not the most important sport in the Caribbean. Bolt and Blake wanted to be cricketers. They just happened to be better sprinters.
Surviving slavery correlates to health and strength, judging by the physiques of most sprinters strength has a bearing on speed, there must be some relationship, to what degree may be debateable.
There are very few professional sportsmen in the world, and a tiny number of them earn megabucks. There are far more lawyers earning on the whole much, much more.
2 questions:
- My formal American history understanding dates back to 10th grade. How many generation of selectively-bred slaves were created during american slavery?
- While east africans have been living at altitude for centuries; how many selective breeding cycles would it take to match their inherent abilities? I ask this because I see several/a lot of successful European-decendent runners breeding (for lack of a better word) or at least, at this time, getting together. (ex: hall's, goucher's, carroll's) Unfortunately, because of "later" breeding cycles (ie. waiting to have kids till late20's/30s) this might take a while/fizzle out.
ventolin^3 wrote:
SMJO wrote:Secretariat may have been a freak but he was a deliberately bred freakdrivel
his dam raced once & didn't place !
idiot
rest of drivel is already worthless
The cross which produced him was a combination of one of the great middle distance horses(Bold Ruler) from the '54 crop(which was one of the deepest in history)
2nd raters - plenty of preakness winners
if you had money - you went to the goldmine
northern dancer
out of a mare who was sired by one of the great long distance runners(Princequillo) of the last century
from a dam who ran once & didn't place you idiot
the mother coudn't run
An identical cross produced the American born/European raced legend Mill Reef who had an even larger heart than Secretariat relative to his lower body mass
eh ???
moron
mill reef was not out of same dam
only a moron woud post above
i've never heard mill reef ever having ultrasound or autopsy result as having Secretariat sized proportioned heart
post it !
as for mill reef, his lasting memory to fans is his 1st big race
slaughtered by the brigadier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es28rlQXdiIno matter, what you win after that, you are f*cked in all-time by crushing loss of that
Most great racehorses are bred to be great. The true freaks with no pedigree are actually exceptionally rare
idiot
that applies to multi-millionaire bidders & even if they win classics, few are legends
any classic winner of last 30y+ will have an ancestor who won a classic if you looked far enough back, but only an idiot/ignorant wouda actually thinka posting it
Even those horses will trace to a superstar within a few generations.
moron
read above
all pro racing developed from 3 stallions
byerley turk
darley arabian
godolphin arabian
Once again the cream of the morons rises to the top. Mill Reef is the same cross as Secretariat. By a son of Nasrullah out of a Princequillo mare. It's what they call a "nick" in breeding. Suck it.
In truth breeding slightly below the best(Bold Ruler) to a well bred(if not race-proven mare) results in potential for improvement. Breeding the absolute best leaves nowhere to go but down.
Needless to say Secretariat had a half brother by Northern Dancer.
Didn't amount to anything.
You should stick to arguing about things you know a tiny bit about rather than absolutely nothing.
moshimoshi wrote:Track and Field is not the most important sport in the Caribbean
yes
it's kick ball
Bolt and Blake wanted to be cricketers
they wanted to be kick ballers or dunk-ballers even more
They just happened to be better sprinters
& countless better talents have been lost to 'ball
Surviving slavery correlates to health and strength
no
i'd add luck + smarts
that gets you better chance of food/water on boat
judging by the physiques of most sprinters strength has a bearing on speed, there must be some relationship, to what degree may be debateable
moron
blake looks about 5'9/170
he gonna frighten any 'ball player ???
There are very few professional sportsmen in the world, and a tiny number of them earn megabucks. There are far more lawyers earning on the whole much, much more.
moron
the most aspirational career in west africa is to be an accountant
athletics is frowned upon - it's for nobodies
trance dance turn in shawowski wrote:
2 questions:
- My formal American history understanding dates back to 10th grade. How many generation of selectively-bred slaves were created during american slavery?
Pretty much none. There was only so much control an owner could exercise over the slaves and this was beyond what was practical. The idea was not unknown, indeed Jefferson wrote a treatise on it. Like Jefferson, though, the closest most owners got to selective breeding with their slaves was picking out which ones they bred with. Although intentional selective breeding was virtually unknown it is possible to argue that slavery functioned as a highly selective environment which did have the effect of increasing immensely the importance of certain genes (this is theoretical argument only, though). Interestingly this argument would be more true in the Carribean than in America. The Carribean never even achieved replacement level reproduction in their slave while USA had an enormous number more slaves born on the plantation. This is due to the much harsher conditions of farming sugar cane vs. tobacco and cotton.
I'm not a geneticist, so somebody else can take a whack at your second question.
Davy Davy wrote:
Giant Johnson wrote:Slaves were bred to be stronger back in the day. America basically practiced eugenics. It's obvious that blacks are genetically superior in sprinting. Of the 76 runners that have broken 10 for the 100, only four are not west african. If only we could all just admit that people who have descended from a high altitude herding culture might be genetically superior at distance running...
Studies have shown that certain groups of Mongolians have a set of genetic alleles that allow them to survive in ultra-low oxygen environments (>15,000 ft altitude).
We've all heard stories about 16 year old East Africans playing soccer and then start running and run 13:30 a year later. The rest of us simply can't physically do this. I simply can't understand how libtards can deny this.
Sweet Jesus. I'm "liberal", you idiot. What about this strikes you as a political debate? It's science.
SMJO wrote:Once again the cream of the morons rises to the top.
coming from an imbecile
Mill Reef is the same cross as Secretariat
moron
the lines are so far apart no one but an idiot woud even look at them
By a son of Nasrullah out of a Princequillo mare. It's what they call a "nick" in breeding. Suck it
moron
his sire was
never bend
a horse that lost every classic
this "nick" shit is pure crap spouted by thieves trying to bump up stud fees
a loser horse, but his grandpa's uncle once came 5th in a classic
In truth breeding slightly below the best(Bold Ruler) to a well bred(if not race-proven mare) results in potential for improvement
no
it's a gamble & go nowhere
it's cheaper than breeding to an 1000g/oaks winner
x5 stud fee if you want covering a 1000g/oaks
Breeding the absolute best leaves nowhere to go but down
idiot
you woud have to do it 1/2 dozen times between
derby - oaks/1k guineas winner
you probably woud get a classic winner
but that's not how business works
Needless to say Secretariat had a half brother by Northern Dancer
moron
secretariat sired nothing because he was a mutation of cardiology
idiot
the sire line of the dancer is what all breeders want
You should stick to arguing about things you know a tiny bit about rather than absolutely nothing.
moron
you know shit
offer me a timeform for secretariat/frankel/sea-bird
impress
idiot
ventolin^3, you don't seem entirely well my friend. Take a break, sort yourself out.
Amazing that he had access to such a wide range of black brains, enough to form the opinions he paints as facts. Wonder how he would explain the accomplishments of blacks in the past, such as the Egyptians and the kingdoms of Kush and Nubia? What happened along the way, pray tell?So how about that man who is your president today? Or are you just speaking of very dark blacks or the whitest of whites? What constitutes black and white in this study then? In this thread we see all this talk of genetics and what "breeding" did to enhance the physical prowess of blacks, yet no one speaks of what over 300 years of slavery has done mentally. And I'm not speaking of intelligence; I'm speaking of knowledge which is imparted by education. "What they don't teach you".... is that for over 300 years, blacks were denied an education on top of all the abuse, rape and family splintering they were already going through. Yes, as a slave, if you were caught with a book or trying to learn, you were whipped! Whites tried their best to stunt their knowledge/intelligence as a form of control. So we are speaking of MANY generations of ancestors who lacked even a basic education. What does that do to a race and their culture? You (people on this thread) cannot apply the genetics argument and leave behind the degradation caused by abuse and lack of education.Now, in just a few generations since the end of slavery (the last former slaves died in the fifties and sixties), we are expected to believe that blacks on a whole, should perform equally well on IQ tests designed by whites for whites? Let me not even bring up segregation on top of it all. You and Coon are living proof that he is wrong.
what they dont teach you wrote:
If there are this many physical differences, it would be silly to think that there would be no mental differences, and indeed we do find that they not only exist, but are of great significance.
The brain is the most important organ in the human body. It comprises only 2% of our total body weight but uses 25% of all the calories we consume. The brain never sleeps; it works around the clock keeping the body functioning. Besides the thinking process, it operates the heart, respiratory and digestive systems, and directs the body’s resistance to disease.
In his epic book The Story of Man, Professor Carleton S. Coon (former President of the American Association of Anthropologists) wrote that the weight of the average Black brain is 1249 grams, compared to the weight of 1380 grams of the average White brain, and that the average cubic capacity of the Black brain is 1316 cubic centimeters, and was 1481 cubic centimeters in the White Man. He also found that brain weight and size is greatest in Whites, with Orientals second, Blacks third, and Australian aborigines last.
The differences in brain size between the races is in large part due to the differing sizes and shapes of the skull. Any anatomist, for example, can look at a skull and instantly tell you if it belongs to the White or Black race, and this is borne out by the fact that when a person’s body is found, that person’s race can be determined even if it is completely decomposed and only the skeleton is remaining.
The Black skull is narrow with a low forehead. It is not only smaller but is thicker than that of the average White. The hardness and thickness of the Black skull has much to do with their success as boxers, for they can generally absorb more blows to the head than their White counterparts. The area of the brain termed the cerebral cortex is the most recently evolved and most complex part of the brain. It governs the most advanced types of mental activity, such as mathematical ability and other forms of abstract reasoning.
Dr. Coon wrote that there is a considerable difference between the Black brain and the White. The frontal lobe of the Black forebrain is less developed than that of the White. Thus, their ability in the performance of thinking, planning, communication, and behavior is more limited than in Whites.
Professor Coon also found that this area of the Black brain is thinner and less grooved on the outer surface than in that of a White person, and that the development of this part of the brain ceases at an earlier age in the Black, thus limiting further intellectual advancement. Nor is Dr. Coon alone in his conclusions.
The following researchers, in the listed years, using different procedures, showed the differences to run from 2.6 to 7.9% in favor of Whites: Todd (1923), Pearl (1934), Simmons (1942), and Connolly (1950). In 1980, Khang-cheng Ho and associates, working at the Case Western Institute of Pathology, determined that White men had brains 8.2% larger than those of Black men, while White women had brains 8.1% larger than those of Black women. (Women’s brains are smaller than men’s if measured absolutely, but larger in proportion to their body size).
Even more important than brain size are differences in brain shape, fissuration, the number of pyramidal neurons, and supra-grandular layer thickness. It has long been known that the depth of fissuration is related to superior intelligence, and the brains of Whites have deeper fissures in the frontal and occipital regions. In 1932 and 1934, studies by F.W. Vint showed that the supra-grandular layer of Black brains is 16% smaller than it is for White brains.
Black infants mature faster than White infants. Their motor skills develop earlier, along with their mental alertness, but they later start falling behind, so that by the age of five, Whites have not only caught up, but have developed a 15 point I.Q. advantage. By age six, the larger brain size of young Whites is clearly evident. (Of all the I.Q. tests that have ever been given, most show the I.Q. differences to run from 15% to 23% with 15% being the more common).
Studies by Todd (1923), Vint (1932 & 1934), Pearl (1934), Simmons (1942), Connolly (1950), and Ho (1980 & 1981) showed major differences between the races in both brain size and development, and hundreds of psychometric experiments have again and again confirmed the 15 point average I.Q. advantage that Whites hold over Blacks. However, such studies are very much discouraged today and there would be a frenzied effort to suppress them if they did take place.
Indeed, studying the biological differences between the races seems to be one of the only topics in our country that is “off limits” to talk about. The findings of Professor Audrey Shuey, in a monumental compendium of 50 years of I.Q. tests entitled, The Testing of Negro Intelligence, are that the Black, on the average, scores 15 to 20 points lower than Whites. This research has recently been confirmed by the bestseller, The Bell Curve.
The average overlap (in which exceptional Blacks score the same as Whites) is only 11%. Equality would require a 50% overlap. According to Professor Henry Garrett, author of Children: Black and White, for every one gifted Black, there are 7 to 8 gifted Whites. He also states that 80% of gifted Blacks are of mixed blood. In addition, the researchers Baker, Eyseneck, Jensen, Peterson, Garrett, Pinter, Shuey, Tyler, and Yerkes all agree that Blacks are inferior in reasoning and abstract thought, numerical calculation and conceptual memory.
It should also be noted that those of mixed blood score higher than those of pure Black ancestry but lower than those of pure White ancestry. This explains why light-skinned Blacks are almost always more intelligent than dark-skinned. An easy way for you to examine whether this is true or not is to look at the “Blacks” on television, particularly on news programs. Many of them have as much or more White blood than Black, and as a result, are more capable of communication more on a par with Whites.
The argument has been made that I.Q. tests are somehow “culturally biased.” However, this can be easily refuted by the fact Asians right off the boat from Asia, totally unaccustomed to our culture (which certainly cannot be said of American Blacks), outperform Blacks on these tests. Also, American Indians, who clearly are the most socially disadvantaged group in America, also outperform Blacks. Lastly, poor Whites with few advantages still outperform upper class Blacks who have been thoroughly integrated into our culture.
Furthermore, every I.Q. test which has been given by the U.S. Dept. of Education, all branches of the Armed Forces, state, county, and city boards of education, have always found that Blacks test on an average of 15 points lower than White children. If the tests were culturally biased, it would be practically impossible that each test, which contains a great variety of questions, could possibly be biased to such a precise degree.
The chart below from the Society for Research on Child Development demonstrates that the vast majority of Black children score in the lower range on I.Q. tests.
As an I.Q. of 85 to 115 is considered normal, it can be seen that the majority of Black children fall below this. It can also be seen that many more White children than Black have I.Q.’s of more than 100.
The difference in raw brainpower is not the only mental difference between Whites and Blacks. According to J.P. Rushton’s analysis, Blacks are more excitable, more violent, less sexually restrained, more impulsive, more prone to crime, less altruistic, less inclined to follow rules, and less cooperative. The crime statistics, the impulsive and violent nature of most crimes that Blacks commit, the fact that integrated schools require more discipline and oftentimes the presence of police than do all-white schools, and the more willingness on the part of Blacks to participate in riots would all seem to confirm Mr. Rushton’s observations.