why negroes aren't champion swimmers

why negroes aren't champion swimmers

Post by alypius m skinne » Fri, 04 Dec 1998 04:00:00


2 questions:

1. What is racism? It seems to be a handy generic expletive which one can
use against anyone who acknowledges the existence of genetic racial
differences other than the obvious skin, hair, etc.  Why is *no one* willing
to define this word? Is it because it might then lose some of its utility as
an all-purpose expletive to discredit those so labeled?

2.  How much genetic difference exists between the subspecies of other
animal species?  I'll bet the answer is almost none; after all, even the
genetic distance between humans and chimps is astonishingly miniscule.
Moral:  even tiny genetic differences may be important.

The dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about:  acknowledgement of
racial differences is no longer based primarily on anecdote or mindless
prejudice, contemporary scientific research into racial differences is not
"pseudoscience," and belief in racial differences is no longer restricted to
rednecks, hillbillies, or other stereotypes.

Could the new genetic findings destabilize America's multiethnic society?
Potentially, yes, and I suspect this is the underlying cause of opposition
to the new findings.  We may not like what we find out, but, in the words of
one reluctant "convert," "Nature doesn't care what we want!"~Krazyal

 
 
 

why negroes aren't champion swimmers

Post by Wayne Johns » Fri, 04 Dec 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 02:15:13 -0000, "alypius m skinner"

KRAZYAL?

Why did you pick that name?

Quote:
>2 questions:

Neither one of them sensible....

Quote:
>1. What is racism? It seems to be a handy generic expletive which one can
>use against anyone who acknowledges the existence of genetic racial
>differences other than the obvious skin, hair, etc.  Why is *no one* willing
>to define this word? Is it because it might then lose some of its utility as
>an all-purpose expletive to discredit those so labeled?

Damn.  That's three questions already.   Well, to answer your
question, no one seems to be able to define race in any scientific
way.  There are no "genetic racial differences" until you can describe
what race is.  Racism is merely the belief that the concept of race is
valid, which it obviously isn't.

Cultural attributes do not constitute race.  They are simply cultural
attributes, which the simple-minded associate with recognizable
"racial" features.  This simplifies their world, which they find too
complex to deal with.

Quote:
>2.  How much genetic difference exists between the subspecies of other
>animal species?  I'll bet the answer is almost none; after all, even the
>genetic distance between humans and chimps is astonishingly miniscule.
>Moral:  even tiny genetic differences may be important.

"Moral"?  The distance between humans and chimps is so great that a
transfusion of chimp *** would knock you dead; your comment displays
an astonishing lack of knowledge about genetics - information that
dates back for decades, such as chromosome structure.  (I won't
confuse you with big words like DNA).

If you want to try and divide the human race into "subspecies", try
and figure out what the word means.  Do you understand even simple
terms like phylum, genus, or species?  Do you know what they signify?

Quote:
>The dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about:  acknowledgement of
>racial differences is no longer based primarily on anecdote or mindless
>prejudice, contemporary scientific research into racial differences is not
>"pseudoscience," and belief in racial differences is no longer restricted to
>rednecks, hillbillies, or other stereotypes.

No, it's the guys who wear glasses with tape across the bridge, who
wear a gravy-stained tie with a flannel shirt, and carry a pipe to
"look sophisticated" at the local klavern, who rail on and on about
this kind of low-quotient foolishness.  Real science is not conducted
as a "dirty little secret"; it is published and discussed, and you
aren't going to quote a recognized journal of science that published
any ***like that for peer review.

Quote:
>Could the new genetic findings destabilize America's multiethnic society?

Sheeit.

Quote:
>Potentially, yes, and I suspect this is the underlying cause of opposition
>to the new findings.  We may not like what we find out, but, in the words of
>one reluctant "convert," "Nature doesn't care what we want!"~Krazyal

Yep.  Crazy all right.

Wayne "This is the kind of guy that thinks lighting off a fart makes
him a rocket scientist" Johnson


 
 
 

why negroes aren't champion swimmers

Post by Kaij » Fri, 04 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> 2 questions:

> 1. What is racism? It seems to be a handy generic expletive which one can
> use against anyone who acknowledges the existence of genetic racial
> differences other than the obvious skin, hair, etc.  Why is *no one* willing
> to define this word? Is it because it might then lose some of its utility as
> an all-purpose expletive to discredit those so labeled?

Some people use the term "racism" quite properly.  The definition is available
in any English-language dictionary.  I'll provide one for you here:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
racism (ras?zem) noun
1.      The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability
and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.      Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
- racist adjective & noun

The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
copyright ? 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from
INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution restricted in
accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any more questions?

Quote:
> 2.  How much genetic difference exists between the subspecies of other
> animal species?  I'll bet the answer is almost none; after all, even the
> genetic distance between humans and chimps is astonishingly miniscule.
> Moral:  even tiny genetic differences may be important.

Racists think otherwise.  But then that is why they are essentially and
profoundly stupid.  Need I provide a definition for that term?

Quote:
> The dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about:  acknowledgement of
> racial differences is no longer based primarily on anecdote or mindless
> prejudice, contemporary scientific research into racial differences is not
> "pseudoscience," and belief in racial differences is no longer restricted to
> rednecks, hillbillies, or other stereotypes.

Do tell.

Quote:
> Could the new genetic findings destabilize America's multiethnic society?
> Potentially, yes, and I suspect this is the underlying cause of opposition
> to the new findings.  We may not like what we find out, but, in the words of
> one reluctant "convert," "Nature doesn't care what we want!"~Krazyal

Doesn't matter.  I refer you back to the true definition of "racism" provided
above.  If one applies it to an entire "race", (which is not more than
superficially biological or genetic but really a social construct), rather
than acknowledge the characteristics of individuals...that person is
appallingly stupid.

Kaiju <whose only real prejudice is against stupid, albeit race-amorphous
people>

--

Before you think, think.

 
 
 

why negroes aren't champion swimmers

Post by Philip T. Kasiec » Fri, 04 Dec 1998 04:00:00


: On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 02:15:13 -0000, "alypius m skinner"

: KRAZYAL?
:
: Why did you pick that name?

    Guess the troll wanted a name that was accurately descriptive (the
"KRAZY" part).

: >1. What is racism? It seems to be a handy generic expletive which one
: >can use against anyone who acknowledges the existence of genetic racial
: >differences other than the obvious skin, hair, etc.  Why is *no one*
: >willing to define this word? Is it because it might then lose some of
: >its utility as an all-purpose expletive to discredit those so labeled?

: Damn.  That's three questions already.

    But who's counting?  :-)

: Well, to answer your question, no one seems to be able to define race
: in any scientific way.

    That plus "race" among humans always rears itself in a political
fashion, further illustrating that it is merely a political construct
with no valid scientific backing.

: There are no "genetic racial differences" until you can describe what
: race is.  Racism is merely the belief that the concept of race is valid,
: which it obviously isn't.

    Don't you mean "biologically" valid?  We know that there is a political
construct among humans called "race", but we know it's an invalid
scientific concept.

    (I may be just splitting hairs with you on this.)

: Cultural attributes do not constitute race.  They are simply cultural
: attributes

    ...in other words, they are what they are!

: >2.  How much genetic difference exists between the subspecies of other
: >animal species?  I'll bet the answer is almost none; after all, even the
: >genetic distance between humans and chimps is astonishingly miniscule.
: >Moral:  even tiny genetic differences may be important.

: "Moral"?  The distance between humans and chimps is so great that a
: transfusion of chimp *** would knock you dead; your comment displays
: an astonishing lack of knowledge about genetics - information that
: dates back for decades, such as chromosome structure.  (I won't
: confuse you with big words like DNA).

    Or what it stands for.  :-)

: >The dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about:  acknowledgement
: >of racial differences is no longer based primarily on anecdote or mindless
: >prejudice, contemporary scientific research into racial differences is
: >not "pseudoscience," and belief in racial differences is no longer
: >restricted to rednecks, hillbillies, or other stereotypes.

: No, it's the guys who wear glasses with tape across the bridge, who
: wear a gravy-stained tie with a flannel shirt, and carry a pipe to
: "look sophisticated" at the local klavern, who rail on and on about
: this kind of low-quotient foolishness.

    As in, people like Hernstein and Murray.  They published no science-
just extensive collections of data- to back up their assertions, ones which
they sharply qualified; they wouldn't even face up to believing what they
were really trying to assert with "The Bell Curve".  Some sense of integrity
that they shockingly possessed compelled them to backpedal on the assertions
they made quite clear in their writing, instead of owning up to them.
Neither had any credentials in genetics, either.

: Wayne "This is the kind of guy that thinks lighting off a fart makes
: him a rocket scientist" Johnson

    *ROTFLOL*

    Damn, Wayne, I needed that after a long night and having to give a
presentation tomorrow!

        Phil Kasiecki

--
Philip T. Kasiecki
Hardware Engineering Co-op, Cognex Corporation


http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

why negroes aren't champion swimmers

Post by Catherine La » Sat, 05 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
> Damn.  That's three questions already.   Well, to answer your
> question, no one seems to be able to define race in any scientific
> way.  There are no "genetic racial differences"

Well, I don't know.  Are you saying the obvious physical differences
between Blacks and Whites are not genetic?  What are they then, personal
preference?  Random chance?

Quote:
> until you can describe
> what race is.  Racism is merely the belief that the concept of race is
> valid, which it obviously isn't.

Obviously.  Well, that settles that.  

Quote:
> Cultural attributes do not constitute race.  They are simply cultural
> attributes, which the simple-minded associate with recognizable
> "racial" features.  This simplifies their world, which they find too
> complex to deal with.

Now you begin to demonize your debate opponents.
Quote:

> >2.  How much genetic difference exists between the subspecies of other
> >animal species?  I'll bet the answer is almost none; after all, even the
> >genetic distance between humans and chimps is astonishingly miniscule.
> >Moral:  even tiny genetic differences may be important.

> "Moral"?  The distance between humans and chimps is so great that a
> transfusion of chimp *** would knock you dead;

he refers to the % difference in genotype, which is less than 5 per
cent.

 your comment displays

Quote:
> an astonishing lack of knowledge about genetics - information that
> dates back for decades, such as chromosome structure.  (I won't
> confuse you with big words like DNA).

Please argue with facts. not insults.

Quote:
> If you want to try and divide the human race into "subspecies", try
> and figure out what the word means.  Do you understand even simple
> terms like phylum, genus, or species?  Do you know what they signify?

pointless
> >The dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about:  acknowledgement of
> >racial differences is no longer based primarily on anecdote or mindless
> >prejudice, contemporary scientific research into racial differences is not
> >"pseudoscience," and belief in racial differences is no longer restricted to
> >rednecks, hillbillies, or other stereotypes.

> No, it's the guys who wear glasses with tape across the bridge, who
> wear a gravy-stained tie with a flannel shirt, and carry a pipe to
> "look sophisticated" at the local klavern, who rail on and on about
> this kind of low-quotient foolishness.  Real science is not conducted
> as a "dirty little secret"; it is published and discussed, and you
> aren't going to quote a recognized journal of science that published
> any ***like that for peer review.

Unfortunately, there are those in the academic world who would like to
shortcut the 'consensussing' of knowledge or belief through shunning,
ostracism, exclusion, and other PC ways of enforcing the 'obvious'.

Quote:
> >Could the new genetic findings destabilize America's multiethnic society?

> Sheeit.

> >Potentially, yes, and I suspect this is the underlying cause of opposition
> >to the new findings.  We may not like what we find out, but, in the words of
> >one reluctant "convert," "Nature doesn't care what we want!"~Krazyal

> Yep.  Crazy all right.

> Wayne "This is the kind of guy that thinks lighting off a fart makes
> him a rocket scientist" Johnson


The National Alliance is not the voice of all those who find Race a
topic of interest.
 
 
 

why negroes aren't champion swimmers

Post by Peter H.M. Brook » Sat, 05 Dec 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

> Some people use the term "racism" quite properly.  The definition is available
> in any English-language dictionary.  I'll provide one for you here:

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> racism (rb4snz4em) noun
> 1.      The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or
>  ability
> and that a particular race is superior to others.
  ^^^
> 2.      Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
> - rac4ist adjective & noun

I do hope that you note the most important word in the first definition is
'and'. The second most important is 'belief'. Knowing that there are differences
in human ability (like playing basketball for example) is not racism, it is
an understanding of fact - going on to discriminate negatively against people
because of this difference, or believing that people who are better at
basketball (in this example) is racist. This is an important distinction
missed by many.

--
Peter H.M. Brooks

 
 
 

why negroes aren't champion swimmers

Post by Stig-Lennart S?rense » Sat, 05 Dec 1998 04:00:00

--

Quote:

>> Damn.  That's three questions already.   Well, to answer your
>> question, no one seems to be able to define race in any scientific
>> way.  There are no "genetic racial differences"

>Well, I don't know.  Are you saying the obvious physical differences
>between Blacks and Whites are not genetic?  What are they then, personal
>preference?  Random chance?

Race is a cultural terminology. It comes from the time when travelling large
distances
at short times became common. Thus when sea-fares travelled across oceans,
they did not experience the subtle change in skin-colour which occures
becuase of  the
increasing solar exposure. Marco Polo who travelled by foot did not report
of races as
we do today. The reason that we do not have an equal distrubution of
skin-colour across
the globe, is due to geographical boundaries which prevent migration or
subsistence
excistence (mountain ranges or deserts) or historical events (war or
migration).

The few genetic (5-8) codes which stand for skin colour cannot be attributed
to a race. This
is a concept which is un-scientific, because a human being have hundred of
thousands of
genes and if you use skin colour as race indicator, the other genes may vary
wildly. The only thing
that separates black from white is exactly just that, its skin-colour. You
cannot relate anything else
to that concept. You as an individual have genetically more in common with
an west-african shepherd
than  your next-door neighbour. This is because the genetical variance is
greater WITHIN the
'races' than between them. Therefore race doesnt compute.

Iam rather appaled by people who claim that they look scientifically at
things, and then
continue to use archaic terms such as race and evolution. It sounds more to
me like the people
so intent on finding 'scientific' data on this so called "race" issue are
nothing but racists in disguise.
They have nothing to do here in this forum.

Quote:
>Unfortunately, there are those in the academic world who would like to
>shortcut the 'consensussing' of knowledge or belief through shunning,
>ostracism, exclusion, and other PC ways of enforcing the 'obvious'.

This is ridicolous. You obviously dont know anything about scientific
methods. And if
you want I can get very non-pc on you , but that would ruin your day.

Stig,
---
Stig-Lennart S?rensen. Institute of Social Anthropology,
University of Troms?, Norway. [THIS SPACE FOR RENT]
Tlf: +47.776.57.920 (prv), +47.776.46.348 (office)

URL: http://www.isv.uit.no/student/stigls

 
 
 

why negroes aren't champion swimmers

Post by Peter H.M. Brook » Sat, 05 Dec 1998 04:00:00



Quote:
> to that concept. You as an individual have genetically more in common with
> an west-african shepherd
> than  your next-door neighbour. This is because the genetical variance is
> greater WITHIN the
> 'races' than between them. Therefore race doesnt compute.

This is a very old chestnut. The variance in height greater WITHIN pygmies
and masai than between them. Therefore height doesn't compute.

--
Peter H.M. Brooks

 
 
 

why negroes aren't champion swimmers

Post by aslee » Sat, 05 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Stig:  Thank you for making one of the very, very, few intelligent
observations in this thread and its related thread.  
I suggest the others put an end to their drivel and move on to
swimming. -zzzzz
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:42:08 +0100, "Stig-Lennart S?rensen"
 
 
 

why negroes aren't champion swimmers

Post by Michael Ejerci » Sat, 05 Dec 1998 04:00:00

   Is it ecause they are a bunch on inbred,child-molesting failures who
blame their inability to get a job on some worldwide *** run by
Jews ?

 Michael

 CSU College Republicans