Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Blacks and Latinos in Boxing
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
Box in Hand
I'm starting this topic as a result of one of the post on the other forums. A ceartain person said that blacks and latinos dominated boxing years ago because we didn't have much else to do in our poverty stricken neighborhoods. I thought that was a very narrow minded view and I mean no disrespect but that is so far from the truth. There are thousands upon thousands of latino and black people who rose through poverty to do more than box. In fact fighters were always a small part of the community. The one thing poverty does do is give you a "I don't give a fuck attitude" which is why our latino and black brethern were so fierce in the ring. That fierceness is what made people like Sugar Ray Robinson throw his hook with the force many had never seen before. That fierceness is what made people like Hopkins the man he is. However, to say that we only dominated because we didn't have much else is false and needs to be corrected. Blacks and latinos did well because of so many other reasons than choices. Poverty doesn't make a good fighter. Hard work, determination, discipline, intelligence, and heart make good fighters.

This in no way has anything to do with my white brothers on here, I just needed to set the record straight.

Yours Truly,
Box in Hand, Future P.h.d (2013)
Formerly of the Jersey City N.J's roughest ghetto and home of the late Arturo Gatti.
King Eugene
Great post!!!

There is too much equality for that statement to be true. Some people are just unintentionally ignorant!
Keith
Box, with the utmost respect...let it go man. So many things can go wrong with this discussion.
Box in Hand
QUOTE (keith @ Jul 21 2009, 08:42 PM) *
Box, with the utmost respect...let it go man. So many things can go wrong with this discussion.


I don't mean anything bro, it just needs to be said. I love everyone and hate ignorance.
Douchebag
Boxing has historically been a "poor" mans sport. Back in the day you saw more jews and italians boxing and as those groups moved up the social latter you saw less of them in boxing. Right now Blacks and Latino's are among the poorest which is why you see a lot of them in boxing.
mrwigi
Im a black fighter, and the only reason i see its not tru is because ur seeing more and more European fighters coming up.
happygocampy
QUOTE (Box in Hand @ Jul 21 2009, 06:28 PM) *
I'm starting this topic as a result of one of the post on the other forums. A ceartain person said that blacks and latinos dominated boxing years ago because we didn't have much else to do in our poverty stricken neighborhoods. I thought that was a very narrow minded view and I mean no disrespect but that is so far from the truth. There are thousands upon thousands of latino and black people who rose through poverty to do more than box. In fact fighters were always a small part of the community. The one thing poverty does do is give you a "I don't give a fuck attitude" which is why our latino and black brethern were so fierce in the ring. That fierceness is what made people like Sugar Ray Robinson throw his hook with the force many had never seen before. That fierceness is what made people like Hopkins the man he is. However, to say that we only dominated because we didn't have much else is false and needs to be corrected. Blacks and latinos did well because of so many other reasons than choices. Poverty doesn't make a good fighter. Hard work, determination, discipline, intelligence, and heart make good fighters.

This in no way has anything to do with my white brothers on here, I just needed to set the record straight.

Yours Truly,
Box in Hand, Future P.h.d (2013)
Formerly of the Jersey City N.J's roughest ghetto and home of the late Arturo Gatti.


Box i agree with everything you said, what you call "I don't give a fuck attitude" i call a seasoned emotional state fighters who come from poverty are "more likely" to have.
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE (keith @ Jul 21 2009, 08:42 PM) *
Box, with the utmost respect...let it go man. So many things can go wrong with this discussion.

I agree..As far as Sugar Ray Robinson throwing a hook fiercer than anything seen before is bogus..He threw the hook because he had perfect technique and worked his ass off..I also didn't like how you said "we" in your post Box..

Stupid topic..White,asian,black,and latino all have equal chances of being great..Being poor has nothing to do with boxing..You could have the "I don't give a fuck" attitude and have shitty ass technique and everything like Mayorga..The Klitchko's have PHD's and are the top 2 heavyweights in boxing now..Explain that Box without just saying the heavyweight division sucks..
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE (Fitz @ Jul 22 2009, 01:02 AM) *
I don't think anybody is saying that being black, white, yellow or orange makes anybody better. The point is, it's a poor mans sport. You don't need to spend a fortune on equipment, training or anything. Usually the struggling people come from a rough part of town and more times than not, they would have some idea about fighting. Considering they don't need a fortune, starting boxing is usually relatively easier to start for them.
Black, latino's, asians etc were usually poor. So you got more blacks and latino's fighting. Like I said, it was a sport that ANYBODY could get involved in, you didn't need money. That's why you saw so many of them dominate boxing, because naturally, it was easier to get in.

Good post..
King Eugene
QUOTE (Fitz @ Jul 22 2009, 02:06 AM) *
Hard work, determination, discipline, intelligence and heart would also make good tennis players, rugby players, gymnasts, weight lifters etc. Why didn't they dominate those sports? Do you think it could have had anything to do with needing some money to start out in those sports? Or it was just a coincidence that they competed in sports where you didn't need to be well off to start out in?

I get what your saying but poor examples. Dont know too many blacks who where interested in Tennis, rugby, and gymnastics in the first place. As far as weight lifters you have a lot of those in Body Building and Fitness competitions.
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (Box in Hand @ Jul 21 2009, 09:28 PM) *
I'm starting this topic as a result of one of the post on the other forums. A ceartain person said that blacks and latinos dominated boxing years ago because we didn't have much else to do in our poverty stricken neighborhoods. I thought that was a very narrow minded view and I mean no disrespect but that is so far from the truth. There are thousands upon thousands of latino and black people who rose through poverty to do more than box. In fact fighters were always a small part of the community. The one thing poverty does do is give you a "I don't give a fuck attitude" which is why our latino and black brethern were so fierce in the ring. That fierceness is what made people like Sugar Ray Robinson throw his hook with the force many had never seen before. That fierceness is what made people like Hopkins the man he is. However, to say that we only dominated because we didn't have much else is false and needs to be corrected. Blacks and latinos did well because of so many other reasons than choices. Poverty doesn't make a good fighter. Hard work, determination, discipline, intelligence, and heart make good fighters.

This in no way has anything to do with my white brothers on here, I just needed to set the record straight.

Yours Truly,
Box in Hand, Future P.h.d (2013)
Formerly of the Jersey City N.J's roughest ghetto and home of the late Arturo Gatti.


I disagree. I didnt take the person's statement that way. I took it as many in our communities took to boxing as a way out of their particular situation. I didnt see it as poor blacks and latino's didnt have anything else to do. I think there were all types of other ways poverty stricken blacks and latino's found success. I do agree with you that boxing was taken up by a small minority of people in the respective communities. I thought the person spoke more to the fact that blacks and latino's were so dominant because boxing was one of the few sports in which they could compete due to non integration of other sports. In the 30's, 40's and 50's Blacks were not really allowed to play in the major team sports of America. Boxing was the only sport that was really integrated during the early part of the 20th century. So blacks and latinos were included. the added bonus that boxing brought on was that it gave many black folks the opportunity to beat up white folks legally. That may have added incentive for some blacks to box. The tradition went on thru the 70's and early 80's... Now in the 90's thru to today, black/latino integration in society has cause da drastic change. Eastern Europeans are starting to carve a niche in many sports in the US. Boxing is greatly affected by that influence.

Now blacks and latino's have dominated the major team sports in America for years. That may be one of the reasons UFC is more popular in white communities today. Black "American' superstars have yet to really get a niche in the sport. Kimbo Slice was probably the great black hope for the sport...
caneman
QUOTE (Box in Hand @ Jul 21 2009, 09:28 PM) *
I'm starting this topic as a result of one of the post on the other forums. A ceartain person said that blacks and latinos dominated boxing years ago because we didn't have much else to do in our poverty stricken neighborhoods. I thought that was a very narrow minded view and I mean no disrespect but that is so far from the truth. There are thousands upon thousands of latino and black people who rose through poverty to do more than box. In fact fighters were always a small part of the community. The one thing poverty does do is give you a "I don't give a fuck attitude" which is why our latino and black brethern were so fierce in the ring. That fierceness is what made people like Sugar Ray Robinson throw his hook with the force many had never seen before. That fierceness is what made people like Hopkins the man he is. However, to say that we only dominated because we didn't have much else is false and needs to be corrected. Blacks and latinos did well because of so many other reasons than choices. Poverty doesn't make a good fighter. Hard work, determination, discipline, intelligence, and heart make good fighters.

This in no way has anything to do with my white brothers on here, I just needed to set the record straight.

Yours Truly,
Box in Hand, Future P.h.d (2013)
Formerly of the Jersey City N.J's roughest ghetto and home of the late Arturo Gatti.



I agree with a good bit of this but I think that being poor or hungry can actually help in many cases! Look @ BHop, when he was hungry & under paid, he was a freaking killer & mean as they come & once he got paid he got more technical & honest in some ways put on more so called boring fights. I have no problem saying that it would seem to me over the years that Latinos actually might have better chins as a whole for some reason & guys great job on not turning this thread into a bunch of racist crap! Y'all think we should be thankful that Regone ain't here? lolz! There is something to be said for people from bad hoods being able to fight naturally because of their surroundings. Example here would be like when I was in that boys home for 3 1/2 years. other than that last 1/2 year, it was nothing to fight 3 times a week every week & when you add that up...it's a lot of fights! I always laughed @ those guys who said they never got their ass beat...I'd be well man you might be a bad ass but how many fights did you have? Were you just a bully? Or did you fight anyone? Cause if you are looking to be a bad ass & are looking for a good fight, there will always guys who would be glad to break a piece off in that ass for you!!! rolleyes_anim.gif
Fitz
QUOTE (King Eugene @ Jul 22 2009, 06:00 PM) *
I get what your saying but poor examples. Dont know too many blacks who where interested in Tennis, rugby, and gymnastics in the first place. As far as weight lifters you have a lot of those in Body Building and Fitness competitions.


Well what sports were hispanics and blacks big in? Hispanics play soccer as well, as in South America that is basically there only sport. But like I said, they usually come from poor areas and that is why they began boxing. Even with basketball, I don't think it was the type of sport where you can just rock up some where off the streets and be like "hey, train me". By the way, there isn't many black weight lifters. Weight lifting and body building are two different things. But you got my point anyways.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE (The Conscience @ Jul 22 2009, 02:50 AM) *
Boxing has historically been a "poor" mans sport. Back in the day you saw more jews and italians boxing and as those groups moved up the social latter you saw less of them in boxing. Right now Blacks and Latino's are among the poorest which is why you see a lot of them in boxing.


Exactly. Race has nothing to do with it but being a part of the lower end of the socio economic scale has a lot to do with it. That is why during different periods of history you have a larger percentage of different ethnicities being prominent.

QUOTE (Fitz @ Jul 22 2009, 06:02 AM) *
I don't think anybody is saying that being black, white, yellow or orange makes anybody better. The point is, it's a poor mans sport. You don't need to spend a fortune on equipment, training or anything. Usually the struggling people come from a rough part of town and more times than not, they would have some idea about fighting. Considering they don't need a fortune, starting boxing is usually relatively easier to start for them.
Black, latino's, asians etc were usually poor. So you got more blacks and latino's fighting. Like I said, it was a sport that ANYBODY could get involved in, you didn't need money. That's why you saw so many of them dominate boxing, because naturally, it was easier to get in.


+1
kidbazooka1
Most experts in MMA consider Anderson Silva who is Brazilian the best p4p fighter in the sport right now.
Snoop
I don't think the statement "boxing is predominated by Latinos and blacks" should be construed to say that Latinos and blacks from impoverished neighborhoods could therefore not succeed in anything else. But while I respect your personal story of pulling yourself out of the socioeconomic challenges of the American ghetto to now be a PhD candidate, you have to admit, for every success story like yours, there are a thousand stories of the same people in these neighborhoods falling through the cracks. This is not to make a comment about race, but rather that there are structural barriers in place to prevent people from impoverished areas, of any race, from succeeding in the conventional means of society.

Boxing has historically been of the socially marginalized, it just happens that in the US, as in most places of the world, the socially marginalized are poor people of color. Like it has been mentioned before, boxing was a sport where everyone could join, the costs of opening and running a boxing gym are much lower than say a tennis center or swimming pool. Also, not many people would adopt a profession of such intense sacrifice and essentially getting punched in the face constantly, unless they really didn't see any other opportunities. And of course I agree with the statement "Hard work, determination, discipline, intelligence, and heart make good fighters," but you could apply that statement to anything, even outside of sports. IMO poverty is just what drives fighters to live by these standards in a sport that demands much more of the aforementioned than in others.
Method
I dont love everyone, and I too HATE ignorance.

Poverty plays a HUGE role in the equation.
Spyder
Boxing is obviously not the only way to get out of the ghetto, but it is one of them. A sport like boxing that is as physically demanding as it is, requires more of its participants than almost any other field.

Rich people have more options than poor, so choosing a path as tough as boxing is less likely from them. I don't think that belittles the achievements of poor people that have risen in other fields...it is just the way the socio-economic world works.
Method
Thank you.
121
Box i agree with what your saying but i think u got the wrong end of the stick im not trying to say that it was just the case blacks and latino's dominated boxing i didn't explain myself properly. I do very much agree with you tho with what made blacks and latino's dominate was because they "didn't give a fuck" attitude this is true as both races were much more fierce in the ring because of there Harsh upbringing whereas white fighters couldn't dig deep enough or have as much heart as Blacks and latino's becoz they had the easy life. (by the way im white) Although i do want to say something that i think is true, there is so much arguments over race and all sorts of BS but this is how i see things. I don't think there is a better athlete in any sport its just the youth of certain races are influenced by what there own race is good at Blacks dominate basketball because lots of attention on this sport and the same with boxing and American Football, (im British) E.G. the chinese completely dominated table tennis because there were champions and the youth and chinese follow the sport. The NHL is dominated by white people. My theory can be seen in a subject completely different from boxing E.G. Motown and soul music Black people are the best at it because it was black ppl i think anyway who created it so more black ppl started to follow this. Another example not so much these days but in the past rock music was mainly listend to by white ppl and had mainly white rock artists. E.G. Tennis is mainly dominated by white ppl because more white ppl play it then blacks. Basically i think i didn't explain myself correctly and caused alot of uneccessary arguments. People there is no better athlete its just that some sports are dominated by other races not because a race is stronger its because there has been more influence or more of a certain sport that the youth followed as it was dominated or at least a sport where there race took part in. This is just a opinion tap back ppl. O Box good luck with the ph, L8R.
blackbelt2003
1. I hate ignorance
2. I deplore racism
3. We are NOT all the same


There ARE big differences between different races of people. It's bullshit (and racist IMO) to say 'we're all the same', because quite patently we are NOT all the same. Quite obviously some races of people are better/worse at other things than other races of people, so let's not come up with the whole 'everyone has an equal chance in boxing' thing, or any other sport for that matter.

Now, the REAL topic of debate should be: 'WHAT makes us different and more/less able to succeed in a sport'.

Is it our race/genetic make up?

Is it our upbringing?

Is it our socio-economic status?


Firstly, let's take RACE. Now there are success stories for ALL races in boxing, which throws out the whole 'blacks/latinos are automatically better' argument.

However, there ARE marked differences, stylistically and physically, between different races. Is it really true that Latinos have better chins? Is it really true that Blacks are generally slicker? Is it really true that Koreans are tough as fuck? Generally you have to observe these generalisations in the absence of any proven date or evidence. They certainly seem to be true.

But are they genetic or learned traits?


That's the key question here, isn't it?


Are Blacks, Latinos and Eastern Europeans dominating boxing because they are genetically suited to the sport or because their socio-economic climate gives them the traits needed?

I'd say it's more the latter, as it's no coincidence that all three ethnic groups are from ghettoes, warzones and shit holes.

They breed 'em tough, I guess, is the crass summary.





Black
Method
QUOTE
They breed 'em tough, I guess, is the crass summary


Absolutely.

However, let's not also forget/deny that slave masters SELECTIVELY bred slaves for genetic/athletic traits, creating a sort of a artificially supported darwainistic being.

Im not saying that any other way but matter-of-factly. That's just the reality of it.
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (Method @ Jul 22 2009, 05:41 PM) *
Absolutely.

However, let's not also forget/deny that slave masters SELECTIVELY bred slaves for genetic/athletic traits, creating a sort of a artificially supported darwainistic being.

Im not saying that any other way but matter-of-factly. That's just the reality of it.



Damn... beat me to it... Jimmy the Greek was on to something wasnt he...
caneman
QUOTE (Method @ Jul 22 2009, 05:41 PM) *
Absolutely.

However, let's not also forget/deny that slave masters SELECTIVELY bred slaves for genetic/athletic traits, creating a sort of a artificially supported darwainistic being.

Im not saying that any other way but matter-of-factly. That's just the reality of it.



Yep, Jimmy the greek got fied for something that was a fact!
caneman
and mr factor, you beat me too it!
King Eugene
QUOTE (Method @ Jul 22 2009, 05:41 PM) *
Absolutely.

However, let's not also forget/deny that slave masters SELECTIVELY bred slaves for genetic/athletic traits, creating a sort of a artificially supported darwainistic being.

Im not saying that any other way but matter-of-factly. That's just the reality of it.

Catcha Freeman!

I know I'm not the only one who watch The Boondocks laugh.gif
Spyder
What kind of selective breeding went into making this guy?

Keith
QUOTE (Method @ Jul 22 2009, 05:41 PM) *
Absolutely.

However, let's not also forget/deny that slave masters SELECTIVELY bred slaves for genetic/athletic traits, creating a sort of a artificially supported darwainistic being.

Im not saying that any other way but matter-of-factly. That's just the reality of it.


Thats not exactly how genetics works. And over the course of the last 150 years, any supposed advantage "slave breeding" gained would disapear.
Method

QUOTE
That's not exactly how genetics works.
It is for selective breeding. Is it guaranteed? No. It likely takes generations to weed out the perceived poorer, weaker gene traits, but that's definitely how it works.
Keith
QUOTE (Method @ Jul 23 2009, 11:36 AM) *
It is for selective breeding. Is it guaranteed? No. It likely takes generations to weed out the perceived poorer, weaker gene traits, but that's definitely how it works.


Yes you are correct... but only if you are breeding within a very small population. And only if you control the gene pool of that population for a very long time. Neither of those happened in the American South. The slave population in 1860 was close to 30 million, much too large to narrow into a "super" slave. New genes were constantly arriving from Africa until the slave trade ended in the early 1800's, and it wasnt until then that slave owners were even concerned with "breeding" slaves. 60 years is not long enough to accomplish what has been stated. The large majority of slave owners never even engaged in any breeding practice concerned with producing better slaves. Most allowed their slaves to choose their own mates (slaves were not allowed to legally marry) from within the slave community on their farm/plantation. And like I said, in the 150 years since... any gains have long since disappeared. Its really a myth perpetuated to form some explanation beyond social economic status as to why African Americans are disproportionally prevalent in professional sports.
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (Spyder @ Jul 23 2009, 07:32 AM) *
What kind of selective breeding went into making this guy?




Pumping the two people who created him full of some type of steroid.
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (keith @ Jul 23 2009, 12:08 PM) *
Yes you are correct... but only if you are breeding within a very small population. And only if you control the gene pool of that population for a very long time. Neither of those happened in the American South. The slave population in 1860 was close to 30 million, much too large to narrow into a "super" slave. New genes were constantly arriving from Africa until the slave trade ended in the early 1800's, and it wasnt until then that slave owners were even concerned with "breeding" slaves. 60 years is not long enough to accomplish what has been stated. The large majority of slave owners never even engaged in any breeding practice concerned with producing better slaves. Most allowed their slaves to choose their own mates (slaves were not allowed to legally marry) from within the slave community on their farm/plantation. And like I said, in the 150 years since... any gains have long since disappeared. Its really a myth perpetuated to form some explanation beyond social economic status as to why African Americans are disproportionally prevalent in professional sports.



Only the strong survived the trip from Africa. That in itself was selective, whether the whip crackers knew it or not.
Keith
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jul 23 2009, 06:58 PM) *
Only the strong survived the trip from Africa. That in itself was selective, whether the whip crackers knew it or not.


You could also claim that if they were truly "strong" then they wouldnt of been on the boat to begin with. You cant assume that those who survived were any stronger then the ones who didnt. It could of been some factor beyond who was strong and who wasnt. You have no idea beyond your assumptions.The whole idea that African Americans in the U.S. are somehow physically superior is ridiculous. Based on what evidence?
Spyder
QUOTE (keith @ Jul 23 2009, 07:33 PM) *
You could also claim that if they were truly "strong" then they wouldnt of been on the boat to begin with. You cant assume that those who survived were any stronger then the ones who didnt. It could of been some factor beyond who was strong and who wasnt. You have no idea beyond your assumptions.The whole idea that African Americans in the U.S. are somehow physically superior is ridiculous. Based on what evidence?

Your honor, I give you exhibit A...the NBA

AND

exhibit B...the NFL...the defense rests.

laugh.gif
Keith
QUOTE (Spyder @ Jul 23 2009, 08:18 PM) *
Your honor, I give you exhibit A...the NBA

AND

exhibit B...the NFL...the defense rests.

laugh.gif


Racists can also use your assumptions to claim things such as this:

African Americans graduate high school and college at lower rates then every other ethnic group in the U.S. On average they also perform much worse on every standardized test given in the United States.......African Americans must be inferior intellectually.

If you believe what I just wrote then your a racist. Just the same as if you believe the NBA and NFL are proof that African Americans are physically superior. Its garbage. There are external factors at work (socio-economic status?) that explain the said examples.
Spyder
QUOTE (keith @ Jul 23 2009, 08:29 PM) *
Racists can also use your assumptions to claim things such as this:

African Americans graduate high school and college at lower rates then every other ethnic group in the U.S. On average they also perform much worse on every standardized test given in the United States.......African Americans must be inferior intellectually.

If you believe what I just wrote then your a racist. Just the same as if you believe the NBA and NFL are proof that African Americans are physically superior. Its garbage. There are external factors at work (socio-economic status?) that explain the said examples.

You don't think that African-Americans are good football and basketball players?

Only a racist would deny that.
rusty_trombone
QUOTE (keith @ Jul 23 2009, 07:33 PM) *
You could also claim that if they were truly "strong" then they wouldnt of been on the boat to begin with. You cant assume that those who survived were any stronger then the ones who didnt. It could of been some factor beyond who was strong and who wasnt. You have no idea beyond your assumptions.The whole idea that African Americans in the U.S. are somehow physically superior is ridiculous. Based on what evidence?

Well, now you are playing with your definition of strong. I don't think he was speaking of "strong" as the natural selection case, where the truly "strong" might just be the smartest or have the extra nostril. I'm pretty sure he was saying only the physically strongest were the ones to survive the trip, where having to put up with that kind of brutality and malnutrition and backbreaking work, lead to only the physically strongest surviving and replicating. I'm pretty sure the physically weak slaves were selected against rather quickly, I mean slave traders couldn't sell weak slaves into labor.

I don't think the artificial selection of slaves was based on any other factor than how strong they were, unless they weren't laborers. The majority of them were laborers though, and that apparently gave them the ability to dunk mad good
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (rusty_trombone @ Jul 23 2009, 08:42 PM) *
Well, now you are playing with your definition of strong. I don't think he was speaking of "strong" as the natural selection case, where the truly "strong" might just be the smartest or have the extra nostril. I'm pretty sure he was saying only the physically strongest were the ones to survive the trip, where having to put up with that kind of brutality and malnutrition and backbreaking work, lead to only the physically strongest surviving and replicating. I'm pretty sure the physically weak slaves were selected against rather quickly, I mean slave traders couldn't sell weak slaves into labor.

I don't think the artificial selection of slaves was based on any other factor than how strong they were, unless they weren't laborers. The majority of them were laborers though, and that apparently gave them the ability to dunk mad good



LOL.... Leave it to you, but thats the general idea.
The Original MrFactor
QUOTE (keith @ Jul 23 2009, 08:29 PM) *
Racists can also use your assumptions to claim things such as this:

African Americans graduate high school and college at lower rates then every other ethnic group in the U.S. On average they also perform much worse on every standardized test given in the United States.......African Americans must be inferior intellectually.

If you believe what I just wrote then your a racist. Just the same as if you believe the NBA and NFL are proof that African Americans are physically superior. Its garbage. There are external factors at work (socio-economic status?) that explain the said examples.



I'm just curious... I have no data to back this up, but...

If a panel of African Americans created a test and asked 100 african americans and 100 white americans to take it, I wonder what the results would be?

The reason I ask is because, when people use tests as the only means to judge intelligence, you have to take into consideration who makes up the test.
121
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jul 24 2009, 01:56 AM) *
I'm just curious... I have no data to back this up, but...

If a panel of African Americans created a test and asked 100 african americans and 100 white americans to take it, I wonder what the results would be?

The reason I ask is because, when people use tests as the only means to judge intelligence, you have to take into consideration who makes up the test.


what sort of BS answer is that you said that based on the apparent evidence that blacks dominate NBA and NFL that makes them better athletes well thats very narrow minded and i'll agree with Keith who said that overall blacks don't do as good as white people in school so if you say that blacks are genetically superior then that must mean whites are intellectually superior. But like i said and these sterotypes and super slaves is all myth provide the facts. And if that was the case the spartans must have elite genes because of thier training regime and that being passed down generation to generation. It's all BS it all depends on the individual and how their attitude is. Someone said that blacks are slicker mexicans have great chins well maybe but it's not genetical its mantal their state of mind is For a slickster in your view a black man its "im gonna hit and not get hit back stick and move". and with a guy with a great chin your case again a mexican its "I'm not going down i don't care how hard he hits me".
Keith
QUOTE (rusty_trombone @ Jul 23 2009, 08:42 PM) *
Well, now you are playing with your definition of strong. I don't think he was speaking of "strong" as the natural selection case, where the truly "strong" might just be the smartest or have the extra nostril. I'm pretty sure he was saying only the physically strongest were the ones to survive the trip, where having to put up with that kind of brutality and malnutrition and backbreaking work, lead to only the physically strongest surviving and replicating. I'm pretty sure the physically weak slaves were selected against rather quickly, I mean slave traders couldn't sell weak slaves into labor.

I don't think the artificial selection of slaves was based on any other factor than how strong they were, unless they weren't laborers. The majority of them were laborers though, and that apparently gave them the ability to dunk mad good


If you go back to post # 3 or 4 on this thread you'll see I never really wanted to get into this discussion because of the ignorance that exists among some people on this subject. You have absolutely no understanding of genetics, the slave trade, or of the supposed breeding of super slaves in the south. And the ones who survived the trip might of been the smartest and not the strongest, that was my point... that you have absolutley no idea why some survived and some didnt.
rusty_trombone
QUOTE (keith @ Jul 24 2009, 07:15 AM) *
If you go back to post # 3 or 4 on this thread you'll see I never really wanted to get into this discussion because of the ignorance that exists among some people on this subject. You have absolutely no understanding of genetics, the slave trade, or of the supposed breeding of super slaves in the south. And the ones who survived the trip might of been the smartest and not the strongest, that was my point... that you have absolutley no idea why some survived and some didnt.

Well than why did some survive the trip brainiac? Why I'm pretty sure I have a very good understanding of genetics, evolution, natural and artificial selection, and the slave trade. I think it takes a bit more of ludicrous reasoning to get the outcome of, the ones that survived the trip are the brightest slaves. I'm pretty sure intelligence doesn't get you through lashings. No one is perpetuating the myth of a "super slave", but I think the historical and empirical data all support the strongback theory.

dick
Keith
QUOTE (rusty_trombone @ Jul 24 2009, 05:06 PM) *
Well than why did some survive the trip brainiac? Why I'm pretty sure I have a very good understanding of genetics, evolution, natural and artificial selection, and the slave trade. I think it takes a bit more of ludicrous reasoning to get the outcome of, the ones that survived the trip are the brightest slaves. I'm pretty sure intelligence doesn't get you through lashings. No one is perpetuating the myth of a "super slave", but I think the historical and empirical data all support the strongback theory.

dick


Rusty, What exactly is you background in genetics, and the slave trade? What exactly is your historical and empirical data? You have provided none other then....
QUOTE (rusty_trombone @ Jul 23 2009, 08:42 PM) *
I don't think the artificial selection of slaves was based on any other factor than how strong they were, unless they weren't laborers. The majority of them were laborers though, and that apparently gave them the ability to dunk mad good


This makes you sound like an freaking idiot. And a racist one at that. I am done with this discussion because the milks gone bad.

Fitz, I absolutely agree that certain "body types" provide an advantage in various physical activities. I am not disputing that. These dudes are claiming that slavery and the trip from Africa made African Americans physically superior. Its utter racist gargage.
rusty_trombone
QUOTE (keith @ Jul 25 2009, 07:36 AM) *
Rusty, What exactly is you background in genetics, and the slave trade? What exactly is your historical and empirical data? You have provided none other then....


This makes you sound like an freaking idiot. And a racist one at that. I am done with this discussion because the milks gone bad.

Fitz, I absolutely agree that certain "body types" provide an advantage in various physical activities. I am not disputing that. These dudes are claiming that slavery and the trip from Africa made African Americans physically superior. Its utter racist gargage.

No, the claim is not that the trip and slavery that made them superior, it's the fact that the people were artificially selected by owners and slave traders already had these physical attributes. Slave owners did not pick shitty slaves, is the basic idea. I'm not perpetrating the idea that slavery made them stronger, and it got bred into them, the timeline is too short for that.

I actually agree with you that there is little genetic and physical differences that distinguish different races of people. In fact, the rate of difference in the human species DNA that would show actual differences to make "races" are way lower than almost every other species, and certainly way lower than any other large mammals. I don't think we are speaking of African-Americans as a race though, but rather a short term change in a very small and specific population. I completely agree that race is more of a social construct, and does not really apply genetically and biologically to humans.
Method
QUOTE (Fitz @ Jul 24 2009, 09:00 PM) *
There is nothing racist about saying that african-american's are better than white people physically in some areas. They actually are built slightly different in some areas. If anybody knows about fast twitch fibres and slow twitch fibres would know. I copied and pasted the definition from a site:

Slow twitch fibres: The slow muscles are more efficient at using oxygen to generate more fuel (known as ATP) for continuous, extended muscle contractions over a long time. They fire more slowly than fast twitch fibers and can go for a long time before they fatigue. Therefore, slow twitch fibers are great at helping athletes run marathons and bicycle for hours.

Fast twitch fibres:Because fast twitch fibers use anaerobic metabolism to create fuel, they are much better at generating short bursts of strength or speed than slow muscles. However, they fatigue more quickly. Fast twitch fibers generally produce the same amount of force per contraction as slow muscles, but they get their name because they are able to fire more rapidly. Having more fast twitch fibers can be an asset to a sprinter since she needs to quickly generate a lot of force.

It is not racist, but a fact that many of the african american's have fast twitch fibres, and caucasian males have slow twitch fibres. Do people think it's a coincidence that with the 100m sprint it's always involved with african american's? Why aren't white males generally able to compete at that same level as african american's? How come they can barely ever break the sub 10 second mark? Fast twitch fibres generate quick and explosive bursts, which is why so many african americans are so quick and explosive. Though black people from west africa generally have slow twitch fibres which and it's why they dominate the marathons and the rest usually have fast twitch so they do extremely well in sprints like the Jamaican's etc. I believe they also have higher testosterone levels than white men.

Now I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I think I may have read that white males generally do better in weight lifting because the hips of the two are slightly different and it suits the caucasians a little more. I'm not 100% sure on this one though, but about the fast and slow twitch fibres is definitely true.


LOL...and why are there never any blacks taking home any olympic Swimming medals?

QUOTE
if you say that blacks are genetically superior then that must mean whites are intellectually superior.


Makes sense, since they were the breed-ers and not the breed-ees.
Keith
QUOTE (rusty_trombone @ Jul 25 2009, 02:59 PM) *
No, the claim is not that the trip and slavery that made them superior, it's the fact that the people were artificially selected by owners and slave traders already had these physical attributes. Slave owners did not pick shitty slaves, is the basic idea. I'm not perpetrating the idea that slavery made them stronger, and it got bred into them, the timeline is too short for that.


This is the part your missing. Slave owners didnt all get an equal number of "strong" slaves ... they picked from what was available to them from traders, and they picked what they could afford. If slave A looked "strong" then they would cost more, and if not, less. Whatever slaves arrived from Africa remained in the New World even if it meant the traders had to sell them below what they wanted. They didnt take them back. Believe me man, I know a great deal about the subject.
rusty_trombone
QUOTE (keith @ Jul 25 2009, 07:13 PM) *
This is the part your missing. Slave owners didnt all get an equal number of "strong" slaves ... they picked from what was available to them from traders, and they picked what they could afford. If slave A looked "strong" then they would cost more, and if not, less. Whatever slaves arrived from Africa remained in the New World even if it meant the traders had to sell them below what they wanted. They didnt take them back. Believe me man, I know a great deal about the subject.


Don't get me wrong, I don't think that all AA's are some sort of super genetic monsters, bred to play football and basketball. I think the reason you see so many AA athletes is more of a socio-economic, cultural line of thinking. I don't think there is a natural severely disproportionate amount of body type differences between whites & blacks, but I do think it is slightly disproportionate.

All the stuff I say about dunking and such is all tongue and cheek, like throwing a hook in the water.

Anyway, picturing slave traders sending slaves back on a ship is a funny visual.
Keith
QUOTE (rusty_trombone @ Jul 25 2009, 08:14 PM) *
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that all AA's are some sort of super genetic monsters, bred to play football and basketball. I think the reason you see so many AA athletes is more of a socio-economic, cultural line of thinking. I don't think there is a natural severely disproportionate amount of body type differences between whites & blacks, but I do think it is slightly disproportionate.

All the stuff I say about dunking and such is all tongue and cheek, like throwing a hook in the water.

Anyway, picturing slave traders sending slaves back on a ship is a funny visual.


Its cool man. I jumped the gun and was a bit harsh. I can tell your not a racist or anything. Are you and I ok Rusty?
rusty_trombone
QUOTE (keith @ Jul 25 2009, 09:06 PM) *
Its cool man. I jumped the gun and was a bit harsh. I can tell your not a racist or anything. Are you and I ok Rusty?

yeah man, we're cool.

as long as you know that blacks are some sort of genetically engineered super-human race, designed only to play sports really well.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.