Can only whites be racists and is Africa no place for whites?

[red_elk]

Nah, this one is obvious.

 

[Gorbles]

Google "Michael Phelps genetics."

Anything plus "genetics" can significantly refine the results. A bunch of the hits I got where from the BBC or the Telegraph for "ability", because when it comes to news coverage (and mainstream awareness) people aren't necessarily into the science of it.

For rigour I did, and the top-ranked results (on a different browser on my home PC) gave a significant overlap with the results I'd already found. It trimmed out the lifestyle and philanthropy results for Phelps, but also placed more scientifically-sourced results than Bolt's did (which turns up some rather cleverly-SEO'd effectively blog posts, among other things). This doesn't mean much by itself, but anecdotally lines up with what I believe - there's a greater permeation in public consciousness that non-white athletes have some kind of innate prowess. Phelps could indeed have a bunch of biological markers that all came together for a spectacular result for swimming, but as per my reply to Farm_Boy below, it's the coverage that's important. The focus is more on his non-standard body, vs. attempted racial explanations for Jamaican athletes (to the exclusion of all else - I'm not saying Bolt's body is zero factor either!).

Bet he trained like crazy for that wingspan. Nutrition probably didn't hurt.

Thing is, "wingspan" isn't something commonly ascribed to white athletes from a particular demographic. Even in this thread alone, you can see racial stereotypes amongst other demographics. The interesting thing is, even if there was a trend that Phelps signified, the portrayal is that he's unique. That the demographic doesn't produce him; he's an exception. This isn't the case for athletes of colour; there's a lot more umm-ing and ahh-ing over where they came from and how that factors in. That's the general point being driven here, as far as I'm aware.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Mmmhmmmm so you think everything Manfred and TheMe are saying is bunk? Or you still believe that guy is really fast because if his race?

There are lots of black people I can outrun right now, regardless of what country they're from. Also plenty that could beat me at every distance raced.

But I could never beat Bolt in 100m. Even if I was carefully trained by my parents + multiple former track stars from the moment I was able. I'm not sure that would even get me under 10s. I'd be faster than now, but not enough to compete with Olympic sprinters, nearly all of whom also worked very hard and continue to do so.

Speed is partially a genetic trait, like many others. "Race" doesn't automatically mean you are fast or slow. Genetics are more complicated than that. Bolt wouldn't be nearly so good at marathons or even running 1 mile as he is at 100m.

I mean, it's the racist right that insists people are "naturally" racist.

Would be best if people stopped constantly trying to prove them right.

Its not put down to his ethnicity is it?
Lots of speculation about how much help Usain Bolt gets from his Jamaican genes though.

Ultimately, yes it is. People call others "white" while often completely ignoring their ethnicity, to the point of not considering it in the first place. Yet when it comes to potential, disposition for some diseases and not others it's just as relevant despite being ignored. Most of us could never match someone like Don Beebe at sprinting either, for the same reason we can't match Bolt.

75% of Jamaicans and 70% of Americans have that gene but most of them aren't Olympic class sprinters.

There is not one "sprinter" gene lol.

That isn't untrue. There's a persistent tendency to attribute the success of star athletes can be attributed to some genetic fluke, and that can sometimes appear to undermine the achievements of these athletes.

I wouldn't go that far. Many more people have the talent than attain success. But the monstrous differences in physical ability are usually apparent by high school already. I went to HS with future NFL players. Before being considered adults, they could leg press > 1000 pounds and squat > 500 already. They could rep 315 in sets of 8 in bench press, and power clean the same amount. All while still being ~10s at 100m sprints. It takes more than hard work to get there, but they would never have gotten there without said work. And it's not easy to do that work.

The overwhelming majority of high school students, even boys, will not approach those numbers in their entire lifetime. Even if they exercise with high intensity regularly.

Yet the pros bodies continue to develop from there. The stuff they do in HS is weak compared to the stuff they can do as adults, even though they've already surpassed the point most adults ever reach as adolescents. Such is life.

So you actually don't believe in race realism?

It doesn't/can't work, individual differences within any one arbitrary "race" stratification are too great/have higher variety than differences between "races". Genetics does inform peoples' potential, but you can't make accurate predictions about a person OR their genetic makeup by knowing their "race". At best you might get some prevalence rates (IE people from this area are more likely to have X disease and less likely to have Y), but even that just informs what you look at first.

Yes, I'm totally with @AmazonQueen, genetics only seem to be brought up when it's a non-white person. Like she said, when Michael Phelps is dominating, and people are wondering about his talent, how often did you see people exploring "What's his genetic background that gives him such an advantage?" It just doesn't seem to happen.

Actually, it has. For Phelps specifically even.

Pro athletics is littered with people who have both genetic talent and work to maximize it. You need both or you're not going to be there.

But not attributing his success to race afaik.

I didn't attribute Bolt's success to race either, but somehow that came up anyway when I used him as an example. Nevermind that only a tiny percentage of people in the world regardless of race have that level of potential.

 

[Farm Boy]

Thing is, "wingspan" isn't something commonly ascribed to white athletes from a particular demographic. Even in this thread alone, you can see racial stereotypes amongst other demographics. The interesting thing is, even if there was a trend that Phelps signified, the portrayal is that he's unique. That the demographic doesn't produce him; he's an exception. This isn't the case for athletes of colour; there's a lot more umm-ing and ahh-ing over where they came from and how that factors in. That's the general point being driven here, as far as I'm aware.

Yea yea, depends on what you read. Pitchers and height, linemen and size, so forth and so on regardless of pigment but, eh. That I don't believe your take is mostly besides the point. Professional sports coverage/fandom is like a nexus of the stupid. It's supposed to be. It's probably good for us on the whole. Catharsis and whatnot. Whatever. The hooligans are a good tradeoff if it keeps Europe from exploding itself every 20-30 years.

But somebody can be conspicuously upper-Midwestern, a trait that is valuable depending on the job/work you are doing. It has a lot to do with "wingspan" even if it isn't "wingspan."

 

[Hygro]

Yes, I'm totally with @AmazonQueen, genetics only seem to be brought up when it's a non-white person. Like she said, when Michael Phelps is dominating, and people are wondering about his talent, how often did you see people exploring "What's his genetic background that gives him such an advantage?" It just doesn't seem to happen.

I live on another planet where the media talks about Phelps as having a personal genetic mutation that gives him an advantage and the same people say the same as Bolt.

On this other planet where I and everyone I know from outside the internet live, we have to combat the racism where the Asian university students are commended for hard work while the white students are “recognized” as personally genetically intelligent (more common in my youth).

I hope you all understand that I am a bit perplexed by this conversation that white kids are ascribed a work ethic and Asian kids are ascribed intrinsic intelligence.

I do however in my planet recognize a shared racist trope to this other planet in which black football players especially before this kind of conversation became prevalent were ascribed talent and white football players ascribed hard work.

 

[Traitorfish]

I live on another planet where the media talks about Phelps as having a personal genetic mutation that gives him an advantage and the same people say the same as Bolt.

On this other planet where I and everyone I know from outside the internet live, we have to combat the racism where the Asian university students are commended for hard work while the white students are “recognized” as personally genetically intelligent (more common in my youth).

I hope you all understand that I am a bit perplexed by this conversation that white kids are ascribed a work ethic and Asian kids are ascribed intrinsic intelligence.

"Your experiences are merely anecdotal, but mine are universal"?

 

[Hygro]

"Your experiences are merely anecdotal, but mine are universal"?

No? What

Like why would you even think that. You have a group of you agreeing to a popular narrative and I’m offering an anecdote that is very different than part of that narrative.

 

[Traitorfish]

No? What

Like why would you even think that. You have a group of you agreeing to a popular narrative and I’m offering an anecdote that is very different than part of that narrative.

I'm not quite sure how else I should interpret the framing indicated by the below,

On this other planet where I and everyone I know from outside the internet live,

If not as a claim to the authority of "real-world" experience over online experience.

 

[Hygro]

Yeah so that’s my anecdote against your general narrative, an anecdote informed by k12 and university with Asian students equally long about a third in both, to consider that your general narrative is alien to someone who experienced and lived a different environment, one close to the source of narratives regarding the relative abilities of Asian and white students.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah so that’s my anecdote against your general narrative, an anecdote informed by k12 and university with Asian students equally long about a third in both, to consider that your general narrative is alien to someone who experienced and lived a different environment, one close to the source of narratives regarding the relative abilities of Asian and white students.

I mean, okay. But I wasn't contending the value of your anecdote. I was questioning your apparent framing, that your anecdote trumps other anecdotes because you imagine that it is better-grounded than other peoples, on the basis that you believe that your anecdote is uniquely grounded in authentic experience. Something you still appear to be insisting upon.

 

[red_elk]

I was questioning your apparent framing, that your anecdote trumps other anecdotes because you imagine that it is better-grounded than other peoples, on the basis that you believe that your anecdote is uniquely grounded in authentic experience. Something you still appear to be insisting upon.

Person A: People don't talk about X.
Person B: In the place where I live, people do talk about X.
It's not merely two contesting anecdotal evidences, person A makes generalized statement, which B refutes with personal experience.

 

[Traitorfish]

Person A: People don't talk about X.
Person B: In the place where I live, people do talk about X.
It's not merely two contesting anecdotal evidences, person A makes generalized statement, which B refutes with personal experience.

What is everyone else talking about, if not personal experience? Are they quoting from Wikipedia? So it's not a contest between personal experience and something other than personal experience, but between what is imagined to be authentic and inauthentic experience. Hygro imagines his experience is authentic and therefore authoritative. Maybe it is! But we're not just going to take that on faith.

 

[red_elk]

What is everyone else talking about, if not personal experience? Are they quoting from Wikipedia? So it's not a contest between personal experience and something other than personal experience, but between what is imagined to be authentic and inauthentic experience. Hygro imagines his experience is authentic and therefore authoritative. Maybe it is! But we're not just going to take that on faith.

Both sides may have authentic experiences, but people who claim something doesn't happen make stronger and more generalized statement.
https://www.google.com/search?q=phelps+genetics

 

[Hygro]

I mean, okay. But I wasn't contending the value of your anecdote. I was questioning your apparent framing, that your anecdote trumps other anecdotes because you imagine that it is better-grounded than other peoples, on the basis that you believe that your anecdote is uniquely grounded in authentic experience. Something you still appear to be insisting upon.

I left it open for others to validate their own experiences or cop to repeating the narratives of others. My experience is shared in the geographically concentrated portions of my meatspace where a lot of that conversation takes place so I hope people share why they’ve heard differently.

 

[Zardnaar]

Google White monkeys in China lol.

If you did those jobs in the USA with non whites yeah.

I think it's funny, pays well by Chinese standards.