Question about race

[Bono]

Why is it not racist to say blacks are better in certain fields, such as athlethics, but it is racist to say whites are better at reason?

[Rin-chan]

I don't know, but I think it's annoying.

Rin-chan

[patrick1]

Both are broad generalizations with many examples to go against them.  I presume one is considered more racist because it is spoken from a traditional position of power. 

[Yates]

You, Bono, ask one of the great unanswered questions of our time.

[dazzleman]

The doctrine of political correctness holds that a group that is 'powerless' cannot be racist or prejudiced.

Therefore, since blacks are a 'powerless' group, they may say out in the open that they are better than whites at athletics.  But whites may not respond in kind with respect to other endeavors, since whites are 'in power' and therefore capable of prejudice.

The same thing holds true for men and women, BTW.  Women are allowed to say that men are bad communicators, but men cannot claim to be better at math or science.

It has brilliant logic to it.

[Gabu]

The main reason is that white men are largely seen as the most powerful humans on the planet.  Hence, disparaging remarks against white men are largely seen as being okay, because the white men are seen as already having so many things in the world that they can afford to have a few jabs aimed at them.  Conversely, disparaging remarks against people who are not white men are largely seen as being not okay, because these people are seen as having not as much in the world, so these remarks are more seen as kicking people while they're down.

Not to say that this is using impeccable logic, but that's what the main idea is, as I understand it.  The place where the logic really falls down is when, say, a disadvantaged white man makes a jab at a highly successful black man, but humans are so prone to view the world in generalities that most don't find a problem with objecting to this jab, as well.

[Hatman 🍁]

Why is it not racist to say blacks are better in certain fields, such as athlethics,

Since when is that not racist? What are you smoking in Portugaland?

[afleitch]

I don't know, but I think it's annoying.

Rin-chan

It is annoying. It's also annoying when you can't say that men have higher IQ's than women, White people have higher IQ's than Black people and Asians have higher IQ's than just about everyone, based on cumulative evidence.

When evidence is deemed 'racist', we are in on a dangerous road.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why is it not racist to say blacks are better in certain fields, such as athlethics, but it is racist to say whites are better at reason?

Both remarks are racist (and untrue actually). I've no idea why the first remark might be considered acceptable, then again I've never actually heard anyone say that.

[Alcon]

Why is it not racist to say blacks are better in certain fields, such as athlethics, but it is racist to say whites are better at reason?

Both remarks are racist (and untrue actually). I've no idea why the first remark might be considered acceptable, then again I've never actually heard anyone say that.

I have seen some pretty convincing evidence that goes a long way to explaining why so many track champions hail from Africa.  Unless I'm going crazy?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have seen some pretty convincing evidence that goes a long way to explaining why so many track champions hail from Africa.  Unless I'm going crazy?

Not the same thing though

[afleitch]

I have seen some pretty convincing evidence that goes a long way to explaining why so many track champions hail from Africa.  Unless I'm going crazy?

Not the same thing though

I think it can be taken as a rule of thumb though; but it depends on altitude and under what conditions an athlete trains at and then performs at (If we had the Olympics in Quito for example everyone would be out of breath ). Likewise it would also be valid to say the Nepalese are adept at working at high altitudes and thus make good mountineers. But take them to the Dead Sea and they would fel a little off balance.

[Platypus]

Asians don't really have a higher IQ, they generally just have more personal and community motivation-that's almost certainly cultural.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think it can be taken as a rule of thumb though;

But it has absolutely nothing to do with *race*. It's silly to think that someone is a better runner than someone else just because they have a different skin colour.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with race, more the fact that Nepal happens to be a very, very mountainous country.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Both statements are racist and shouldn't be uttered by respectable people.

[afleitch]

I think it can be taken as a rule of thumb though;

But it has absolutely nothing to do with *race*. It's silly to think that someone is a better runner than someone else just because they have a different skin colour.

I wasn't really talking about 'race'; I was talking about altitude and conditions which North African runners take advantage of from birth. Thats why I also brough in the Nepalese argument. If you were to take a white baby from Chigaco and have him live in Morocco he would have the same chance of being a long distance runner as a native born Moroccan

[angus]

Why is it not racist to say blacks are better in certain fields, such as athlethics, but it is racist to say whites are better at reason?

Both remarks are racist

They are. 

Many remarks are racist.  One problem is that "racist" has become such an emotionally charged word.  Like Socialism.  Or abortion.  But sometimes racism can be beneficial.  In fact, racist policies can help to save lives.  Given that blacks suffer a much higher incidence of sickle-cell anemia than other demographics, physicians will often test patients for this when brought to emergency rooms before administering anasthesia, which can be fatal for a patient already suffering from low oxygen levels.  Of course, there may not be time for a genetic screening in case of an emergency, which is why genetic screening beforehand is recommended for all black people.  Obviously such a policy is racist.  By definition.  But it may also save a life. 

Anyway, both statements are racist.  Whether either is true is another matter.  And as for that matter, they may well be true for reasons unrelated to race.  White Anglo-Saxon Protestants from New England traditionally designed most tests used in the United States.  Though that is less true today than it would have been 50 or 100 years ago.  And so the fact that WASP/Yankees perform better than other demographics on these standardized tests should not come as a surprise.  It may be explained by the fact that cultural and educational similarities between the testmaker and the testtaker mean that those most dissimilar culturally, educationally, and economically will score the worst.  Similarly, Blacks in the USA are not a representative sampling of Africans.  For years, their white owners bred only the tallest, strongest, fastest negroes.  And the prettiest too!  Don't forget that many a fine English gentleman/planter had a little Jungle Fever from time to time.  As a result, blacks in the USA are lighter-skinned, taller, and stronger than African populations, on average.  Thus the athletic prowess of American blacks over American whites, American mongoloids, and Amerindians may be a historical consequence, rather than a racial effect.

[patrick1]

I think it can be taken as a rule of thumb though;

But it has absolutely nothing to do with *race*. It's silly to think that someone is a better runner than someone else just because they have a different skin colour.

I wasn't really talking about 'race'; I was talking about altitude and conditions which North African runners take advantage of from birth. Thats why I also brough in the Nepalese argument. If you were to take a white baby from Chigaco and have him live in Morocco he would have the same chance of being a long distance runner as a native born Moroccan

Don't back peddle to Al so fast Afleitch.  Genetics or race if you will definitely is a factor in athletics.  Man is an animal after all and beneficial traits tend to be passed down the generations.  Some Sherpa descended baby adopted by Angelia Jolie is likely to have a greater lung capacity at altitude than some average white kid from Chicago.  Now that does not necessarily mean the Sherpa kid will be a better climber when they are adults. 
I don't think it is necessarily racist to point at that certain "races" or genetic types have advantages.  Black people are superior in warding off a sunburn.  Your average inuit conserves heat better.  These do not need to be controversial things: they are generalities and not solid rules. 

[angus]

Fine points all.  And this is a good segueway to a much more interesting debate:  nature versus nurture.  I'm not talking about the fact that white people are better suited for living in cold climates and blacks in sunny climates.  To be sure melanocytes prevent sunburn because they contain melanin, which absorbs UV radiation better than other components of the epidermis.  But melanin also has a higher melting point than other components of the epidermis.  Therefore, white folks get skin cancer, but they don't get frost bite as easily as black folks.  This is simple physics, and is not really a matter of debate.  Perhaps more suitable to a debate forum, consider this:  For over 600 years the Europeans claimed racial, religious, and moral superiority over the rest of the world.  But did his dominance, due to the greater sophistication in communications and weaponry, arise as a result of some intrinsic racial superiority?  Or simply because of the wisdom that comes from the travails of spending 40 thousand years in permafrost and ice-age hunting expeditions imparts a technology that spending 40 thousand years in tropical paradise does not?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Genetics or race if you will definitely is a factor in athletics.

Genetics yes (although not to the extent that most people think) but as "race" (at least in this context) doesn't mean anything more than skin colour, it clearly isn't.

[minionofmidas]

Why is it not racist to say blacks are better in certain fields, such as athlethics, but it is racist to say whites are better at reason?

Because the one is - up to a certain point, and once you add a lot of qualifiers about averages etc, which however are always understood when someone says this anyways - verifiable.
While the other is not.

[angus]

Because the one is - up to a certain point, and once you add a lot of qualifiers about averages etc, which however are always understood when someone says this anyways - verifiable.
While the other is not.

I think that's absolutely false Lewis.  (Not the part about one of the statements being easier to verify, but the part during which you tacitly equate accuracy with a statement's ability to be racist)  That's like comparing apples to oranges.  Or better yet, like comparing acidity to salinity.  Whether a statement is accurate has nothing to do with whether a statement is racist.  One concerns a statement's validity, and the other simply asks whether race is involved.  A statement may be racist and accurate, racist and inaccurate, not racist but accurate, not racist and innacurate. 

[minionofmidas]

I think that's absolutely false Lewis.  (Not the part about one of the statements being easier to verify, but the part during which you tacitly equate accuracy with a statement's ability to be racist)  That's like comparing apples to oranges.  Or better yet, like comparing acidity to salinity.  Whether a statement is accurate has nothing to do with whether a statement is racist.  One concerns a statement's validity, and the other simply asks whether race is involved.  A statement may be racist and accurate, racist and inaccurate, not racist but accurate, not racist and innacurate. 

Okay ... I would disagree with your definition of "racist statement" here. If any statement wherein "race" is involved is inherently racist, the term is effectively rendered meaningless. (Certainly it wouldn't have very much of a negative connotation left.)
Admittedly the definition of "racist" isn't horribly clearcut, but then language is seldom logical. "Racist" is a speech convention, not a logical category.
Working definition for my use of "racist" in the quoted bit above: I would consider any statement "racist" by which somebody with racist prejudices gives vent to these prejudices, or a statement that will be widely mistaken for such a statement. Will that do or do I need to create a definition for "racist prejudice" as well? That'd probably be beyond me...
And now I'll go read the entire thread.

My initial reply was actually about logic too in a sense - about why the analogy in the opening post is wrong.

[minionofmidas]

I have seen some pretty convincing evidence that goes a long way to explaining why so many track champions hail from Africa.  Unless I'm going crazy?

Not the same thing though

Al's right here, "many of those who excel at athletics are Black" is not the same statement *at all* as "Blacks in general are on average much better at athletics than White in general."
And "Whites do better on IQ tests" is a totally different statement than "Whites are more intelligent" btw, since IQ tests test a hell of a lot more than "reason".

[patrick1]

:  For over 600 years the Europeans claimed racial, religious, and moral superiority over the rest of the world.  But did his dominance, due to the greater sophistication in communications and weaponry, arise as a result of some intrinsic racial superiority?  Or simply because of the wisdom that comes from the travails of spending 40 thousand years in permafrost and ice-age hunting expeditions imparts a technology that spending 40 thousand years in tropical paradise does not?

The PBS program Guns, Germs and Steels comes to the conclusion that Western sucess was merely an accident of geography.  (I didn't get a chance to read the book but I am sure it comes to the same conclusion)
It basically states how climate in the Middle East was beneficial to raising grain and this led to animal husbandry.  These techniques then spread to Europe which had a suitable climate.   It was a very fine program.  I'll try to give you a programming alert next time the series is on...although I'm not sure what Mississippi PBS is like.