Race just another Social construct ?

[Alceste]

Further to the above, when I was in piano lessons it always seemed to me as though the Asians were really lucky. They were so much better than everybody else! In truth, their parents made them practice every day. My mom bribed me, but only asked for half an hour a day. As a music teacher now, I can't help but notice that white parents in general don't even try to make their kids practice. They want me to wave my magic talent wand in half an hour a week, and turn their kids into musicians. Sometimes I try to tell them they're wasting their money, but they don't seem to care.

 

[Storm]

Further to the above, when I was in piano lessons it always seemed to me as though the Asians were really lucky. They were so much better than everybody else! In truth, their parents made them practice every day. My mom bribed me, but only asked for half an hour a day. As a music teacher now, I can't help but notice that white parents in general don't even try to make their kids practice. They want me to wave my magic talent wand in half an hour a week, and turn their kids into musicians. Sometimes I try to tell them they're wasting their money, but they don't seem to care.

I'm curious, is this difference more pronounced over ethnic or national lines?

 

[Alceste]

While its true that genetic diversity may be greater in the same group more than it is between different groups. Today there are people who simply shrug away historical and contemporary social events by dismissing them with the mantra 'there are no races'. In that I mean that saying that there are no races will not make historical transatlantic slave trade disappear. It's a sort of a cop out.
Also, while there is one human race, there is certainly biological diversity. It may be a very small variation, but it does exist. Not enough to create separate races, but enough to show that 'race' is not only a social construct but also a biological one. There are numerous fascinating researches into human genetics, and the genetic of various ethnic groups, their historical migrations, and other aspects. It spans medical researches to archaeological researches.
For example genetic studies to trace Viking movements into the British isles, or genetic studies in the Mediterranean to trace Phoenician movement.

I don't think understanding that race is a social construct is quite the same thing as believing there are no genetic markers that differ between one population and another. It's important to understand that we choose where to draw the lines between one group and another with race, and those lines intersect other populations who sit halfway between the two "groups".

 

[Alceste]

I'm curious, is this difference more pronounced over ethnic or national lines?

Almost everybody around here is white, as are all my students, so I can't really compare, but I do know there is a major philosophical and cultural tradition of cultivating skill through practice in Asia. just look at all those kung fu buddhists!

 

[Storm]

Almost everybody around here is white, as are all my students, so I can't really compare, but I do know there is a major philosophical and cultural tradition of cultivating skill through practice in Asia. just look at all those kung fu buddhists!

Oh, yeah. I wasn't questioning your point. I was just wondering if said tradition was still pronounced after a few generations living in a culture that thinks God's gift is all there is to it.

I would quibble about your use of the word 'talent,' though. If you want me to.

 

[Absolute Zero]

So the general consensus is that there is such a thing as race yet it's so small and subtle that it has no baring on mental abilities or anything else ? Then all functions must come down to nurture then yes ?

 

[Storm]

So the general consensus is that there is such a thing as race yet it's so small and subtle that it has no baring on mental abilities or anything else ? Then all functions must come down to nurture then yes ?

I'll weigh in that the concept of "races" is entirely a social construct with no grounding in biology. Skin pigment is one of many genetic variations, and on the scientific level, a totally arbitrary and meaningless line to draw. Not to mention problematic when confronted with actual people. How much melatonin makes you black, as opposed to Latino?

That said, as mentioned by others, social constructs are not insignificant.

In the end, I regard racial classification as occasionally a handy descriptor, but no more. If I need to describe someone's physical appearance, of course it's useful. That's pretty much the only scenario I can think of where it's solving more problems than it causes. I really don't think I need to point out instances of the idea causing problems.

 

[Alceste]

Oh, yeah. I wasn't questioning your point. I was just wondering if said tradition was still pronounced after a few generations living in a culture that thinks God's gift is all there is to it.

I would quibble about your use of the word 'talent,' though. If you want me to.

I couldn't say how well it endures. Unlike other cultural traditions that seem to fade quickly in the West, like being horrible to your daughters so they won't get prematurely deflowered, the tradition of practice has measurable rewards, such as being the best at what you do. Because of that, I imagine those values will be retained through many generations.

 

[George-ananda]

Black athletes are not evolutionary biologists.

Neither are you, I'm assuming?

Additionally the "African American" and "Asian American" populations are vastly smaller than the "black" and "Asian" races, and have different selection pressures and different historical experiences. The number of short "African American" clients that I work with - who still play basketball for fun, btw - is just as much anecdotal evidence that there's no predisposition to be amazing basketball players. Additionally you ignore all sorts of sociological and economic pressures involved.

But it's sure easy to say "they're tall and have extra strong muscles" right?

Are you saying genetics has nothing to do with someones ability to be a great athlete? We all had an equal chance?

Liberal blinders can make opinions go so far as to be unreasonable. Though I understand your desire to have the world more fair than it really is.

 

[George-ananda]

You sound like someone who has never put in the necessary effort to become really, really good at something. Sometimes, people say to me "oh, you're so talented" and then something like "I don't have a musical bone in my body", as if they think I was born with the ability and they were not so lucky. I say "it's not talent, it's tens of thousands of hours of practice, spread across thirty-three years". Like you, they never believe me. They're lazy. They prefer to believe technical ability is nature, not nurture, so they don't have to do any work - it would be pointless.

If you are going to insist anyone who disagrees with you has liberal blinkers on, I invite you to produce your scientific evidence of black people's genetic predisposition for basketball excellence.

I'll ask the same question. I asked the previous poster.

Do you think genetics is a factor in creating great athletes? Or did we all have an equal chance and environment and effort is the only difference.

I'm saying it's all three; genetics, environment and effort. Can anyone disagree?

 

[George-ananda]

So the general consensus is that there is such a thing as race yet it's so small and subtle that it has no baring on mental abilities or anything else ? Then all functions must come down to nurture then yes ?

Count many of us as not in that consensus. It's nature AND nurture. I see how it would help make the world seem more fair if it were true.

 

[Drolefille]

Are you saying genetics has nothing to do with someones ability to be a great athlete? We all had an equal chance?

Liberal blinders can make opinions go so far as to be unreasonable. Though I understand your desire to have the world more fair than it really is.

Individual genetics, certainly.

There's no evidence that being black makes you better basketball player.
Your snide attempt at insulting people for being liberal - hint, it's not an insult - aside, feel free to define the race you're speaking of: African-Americans? Define it. All black people? Define the race before you try to make claims.

 

[George-ananda]

Individual genetics, certainly.

There's no evidence that being black makes you better basketball player.

Height, bone size, sprinting speed, vertical jump, testosterone levels, muscle mass, physical co-ordination, etc..makes an African-American more likely to be better at basketball than an Asian-American. All the above have been group tested and confirm what appears to be intuitive and observable differences.

Your snide attempt at insulting people for being liberal - hint, it's not an insult - aside, feel free to define the race you're speaking of: African-Americans? Define it. All black people? Define the race before you try to make claims.

I warned myself not to get to into this debate as people get too emotional. You are not addressing or understanding the key point. I politely bow out of this debate.

 

[Drolefille]

Height, bone size, sprinting speed, vertical jump, testosterone levels, muscle mass, physical co-ordination, etc..makes an African-American more likely to be better at basketball than an Asian-American. All the above have been group tested and confirm what appears to be intuitive and observable differences.

So it's about being a certain race and living in America? And there's zero cultural differences? Why aren't African American cyclists the peak of the field as well?
And provide your sources.

I warned myself not to get to into this debate as people get too emotional. You are not addressing or understanding the key point. I politely bow out of this debate.

I addressed your point, I just didn't tell you what you wanted to hear. You decided to make a claim, and apparently are incapable of supporting it.

I'm sure that's just my silly "liberal blinders." Although apparently they let me see matters of socioeconomic status and understand how bell curves work and overlap too! You should buy a pair.

 

[Alceste]

I'll ask the same question. I asked the previous poster.

Do you think genetics is a factor in creating great athletes? Or did we all have an equal chance and environment and effort is the only difference.

I'm saying it's all three; genetics, environment and effort. Can anyone disagree?

I think that there is more genetic variation within any given ethnic group than there is between groups. Tall people have a natural genetic advantage at basketball, assuming they are willing to put in the thousands of hours of practice necessary to be any good at basketball. If not, a midget with thousands of hours of basketball practice under his belt will school them, every time.

 

[Alceste]

Height, bone size, sprinting speed, vertical jump, testosterone levels, muscle mass, physical co-ordination, etc..makes an African-American more likely to be better at basketball than an Asian-American. All the above have been group tested and confirm what appears to be intuitive and observable differences.



I warned myself not to get to into this debate as people get too emotional. You are not addressing or understanding the key point. I politely bow out of this debate.

Accusing others of being emotionally distraught and obtuse for disagreeing with you (after having presented no evidence to support your opinion) is an admission of defeat, particularity when coupled with vow to bow out of the thread. I will chalk that up as a win for the concept "practice makes perfect".

 

[painted wolf]

Race, as it is applied to humans, is a social construct. It's a very powerful one, however, and can't be ignored or downplayed.

The closest you can hope to get in humans is haplogroups either Mitochondrial (maternal) or Y Chromosomal (paternal).

Simply having dark skin or having close ancestors from Africa does not make you a natural born basketball player. There is just as much variation between the indigenous peoples of Africa as there are anywhere else.

Unless the Baka, Efe and other similar ethnic groups are simply keeping their slam dunking talents extremely well hidden.

It also doesn't help that out of the top ten nations at basketball... None of them are African.

In order: USA, Yugoslavia, China, Brazil, Canada, Spain, Australia, Italy, Sweden and Mexico

Yes, genetics plays a role in athletic ability... but race has nothing to do with it.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

OK Painted Wolf, I will re-enter this debate because I trust we will keep it a high-level.

Simply having dark skin or having close ancestors from Africa does not make you a natural born basketball player.

Agreed.

There is just as much variation between the indigenous peoples of Africa as there are anywhere else.

Actually to even add to your point, I think there's more genetic variation in Africa.

Unless the Baka, Efe and other similar ethnic groups are simply keeping their slam dunking talents extremely well hidden.

Yes, I believe people of these groups are less likely than average to be good slam dunkers. (however, in this case you're actually making a point for my argument. You are saying being born into certain groups make you less likely to be a good slam dunker. You're really pointing out that group genetics is a factor.)

It also doesn't help that out of the top ten nations at basketball... None of them are African.

In order: USA, Yugoslavia, China, Brazil, Canada, Spain, Australia, Italy, Sweden and Mexico

I think I could argue the far and away #1 team is overwhelmingly African genetically.

Yes, genetics plays a role in athletic ability... but race has nothing to do with it.

wa:do

Race as you're using the term in the above statement is a very broad term and under that are any number of subgroups; for the black example; Baka, Efe, Bantu, Bushman, African-Americans, etc. each of which primarily inter-bred within their groups and over time show genetic differences as you pointed out for us in pictures.

Now, let's consider the inhumane Atlantic slave trade. Slave sellers had a preference for African groups and individuals that would look best to the buyers (i.e. physically fit and strong for manual labor). Inhumane yes, but it happened and it affected one subgroup's genetics. And slave owners would want their strongest males to reproduce. Inhumane, yes. This selective breeding even further reinforced the genetic differences with the ancestoral population.

So people often correctly state that there is overlap in abilities in all genetic groups. This is true but the key point they're often missing is the average of each traits is different for each group. For example, lets consider the Baka and the African-Americans. The tallest Bakas are probably taller than the shortest African-Americans. That is the overlap people speak of. But on average the African-American can be said to be taller. So in a cool slam dunking contest, an activity greatly influenced by height and genetics, we would expect the number of African-American winners to be disproportiantly high.

So in theory and practice this makes sense. Not all great athletes will be African-American but the percentage will be higher than their percentage of the overall population. This is what we would expect and what we observe.

 

[painted wolf]

OK Painted Wolf, I will re-enter this debate because I trust we will keep it a high-level.

I try.

Actually to even add to your point, I think there's more genetic variation in Africa.

Indeed.

Yes, I believe people of these groups are less likely than average to be good slam dunkers. (however, in this case you're actually making a point for my argument. You are saying being born into certain groups make you less likely to be a good slam dunker. You're really pointing out that group genetics is a factor.)

But not due to race.

I think I could argue the far and away #1 team is overwhelmingly African genetically.

Perhaps... but I would say that they are more likely overwhelmingly mixed heritage.

Race as you're using the term in the above statement is a very broad term and under that are any number of subgroups; for the black example; Baka, Efe, Bantu, Bushman, African-Americans, etc. each of which primarily inter-bred within their groups and over time show genetic differences as you pointed out for us in pictures.

Which is another reason that race is an invalid concept outside of it's existence as a social construct.

Now, let's consider the inhumane Atlantic slave trade. Slave sellers had a preference for African groups and individuals that would look best to the buyers (i.e. physically fit and strong for manual labor). Inhumane yes, but it happened and it affected one subgroup's genetics. And slave owners would want their strongest males to reproduce. Inhumane, yes. This selective breeding even further reinforced the genetic differences with the ancestoral population.

Actually, if you study the history of the slave trade, the people chosen were not chosen due to physical traits. They were the people that were grabbed by more powerful neighboring tribes/ethnic groups and handed over to the slavers.
Slave owners didn't practice "selective breeding" with their slaves... in reality slave owners and their lackeys who oversaw the slaves provided a good deal of parentage to the new generations of young slaves. Every well documented slave owner has been proven to have several of his own children living as his slaves. Thomas Jefferson is a classic example.

So people often correctly state that there is overlap in abilities in all genetic groups. This is true but the key point they're often missing is the average of each traits is different for each group.

Not between races. Sure if you limit it particular ethnic groups and exclude anyone who is of mixed ethnicity (tricky to be sure) you might get such numbers. But that would be heavily massaging the data.

For example, lets consider the Baka and the African-Americans. The tallest Bakas are probably taller than the shortest African-Americans. That is the overlap people speak of. But on average the African-American can be said to be taller. So in a cool slam dunking contest, an activity greatly influenced by height and genetics, we would expect the number of African-American winners to be disproportiantly high.

Or are you suggesting that African-Americans are a different race from the Baka? (Except for the African Americans who are also Baka.)

So in theory and practice this makes sense. Not all great athletes will be African-American but the percentage will be higher than their percentage of the overall population. This is what we would expect and what we observe.

No it isn't. For example the 2010 US Olympic Winter Team was something like 95% European decent.
African-Americans certainly dominate in many of the popular televised sports but that doesn't mean they are over-all better athletes than any other group.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

I try.

Indeed.

But not due to race.

Perhaps... but I would say that they are more likely overwhelmingly mixed heritage.

Which is another reason that race is an invalid concept outside of it's existence as a social construct.

Actually, if you study the history of the slave trade, the people chosen were not chosen due to physical traits. They were the people that were grabbed by more powerful neighboring tribes/ethnic groups and handed over to the slavers.
Slave owners didn't practice "selective breeding" with their slaves... in reality slave owners and their lackeys who oversaw the slaves provided a good deal of parentage to the new generations of young slaves. Every well documented slave owner has been proven to have several of his own children living as his slaves. Thomas Jefferson is a classic example.

Not between races. Sure if you limit it particular ethnic groups and exclude anyone who is of mixed ethnicity (tricky to be sure) you might get such numbers. But that would be heavily massaging the data.


Or are you suggesting that African-Americans are a different race from the Baka? (Except for the African Americans who are also Baka.)

No it isn't. For example the 2010 US Olympic Winter Team was something like 95% European decent.
African-Americans certainly dominate in many of the popular televised sports but that doesn't mean they are over-all better athletes than any other group.

wa:do

Hello Painted Wolf (btw are you Cherokee? full? mixed?),

Traditionally there are considered three macro-races of man (Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid). Under each macro-race there are numerous sub-races/ethnic groups or whatever term you choose to use. As we've both pointed out there can be significant genetic differences between the ethnic groups.

The African-American ethnic group is really a hybrid ethnic group (genetically 80% transatlantic African-slaves; 20% Caucasion and very tiny Native-American).

There is no perfect way to categorize human ethnicities and it certainly is very complicated. However, that doesn't mean there are no genetic differences between let's say the Baka and African-Americans. So even though these categorizations are not perfect they are not meaningless either.

The raw traits that determine your basketball potential are things like height, muscle mass, bone size, reflexes, sprinting speed, vertical jump, physical co-ordination, etc.. The more 'raw' the trait the more genetically influenced it is. In measurement comparisons, the raw traits important to basketball performance favor African-Americans over other groups. Consequently we would expect that not all good basketball players will be African-American but that they will be over-represented.