macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) (08/05/89)
David Casseres writes:
:: American Blacks
:: are highly hybridized with Whites, and exhibit the hybrid vigor
:: so prized by athletic teams.
:If some people posted this bullshit, I would assume they didn't know it
:was racist ignorance. In your case, I assume that you do know, and that
:either you are a racist or you are just being a self-indulgent wise guy.
I may well be wrong, so tell me where my analysis goes astray.
Back in high school biology, I was taught that a eugenics program should
take a given gene pool and inbreed it for 20 generations, weeding out
the recessive-gene problems dredged up by the increasingly homozygous
population. At this point, the gene pool is outbred to a very different
one, and the F1 generation produced exhibits heterozygous "hybrid vigor",
often exceeding either parent stock in desired traits.
European and African gene pools were at least 20 generations apart when
they were merged in America, and the hybridized slaves were pruned further
by clever owners, so it doesn't surprise me that professional sports is
dominated by black Americans and black-Native American-white hybrids.
(Native to South America, that is, where they interbred with the European
Spanish.)
Of course, we're all supposed to pretend that none of this ever happened...
Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod)ekwok@cadev4.intel.com (Edward C. Kwok) (08/08/89)
In article <4869@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >European and African gene pools were at least 20 generations apart when >they were merged in America, and the hybridized slaves were pruned further >by clever owners, so it doesn't surprise me that professional sports is >dominated by black Americans and black-Native American-white hybrids. >(Native to South America, that is, where they interbred with the European >Spanish.) > >Of course, we're all supposed to pretend that none of this ever happened... You are, of course, making the assumption that the genetic ability to produce the melanin pigment has anything to do with the rest of the genetic makeup of the individual; and that "black people" and "white people" are all alike. Well, the news is that if you take two "black" people from different parts of Africa, albeit 200 miles apart, they may be very different in every ability, except for the ability to produce the pigment in their skin. To talk about a result without knowing about the "starting" material is quite likely to form erroneous conclusions. Also, I will contest that athletic ability is not like the ability to produce a pigment. Such high level characteristics are probably not manifestation of just a few genes. They are probably a combinations of the effects of many genes, as well as of environmental influence. When you have so many factors operating all together, it's not at all clear that by concentrating the dominant forms of certain phenotypes, one can at the same time avoid concentrating the recessive forms of other phenotypes. (i.e. we don't know if and when we create the individual with potential to develop muscles to run a 9.0 sec 100 meters, we don't also have at the same time an individual who cannot survive the attack of a common cold). Besides, the "dominant/recessive" terminology inadvertently make people associate the ideas with good/bad. Natural does not make such associations. The same genetic "defect" that creates the "sickle cell" anaemia, is also the responsible for the survival in malaria swamps. The points I am trying to make: 1. If the ability to produce pigment is independent of the ability to excel in athletics (itself a grossly general term: is bowling an athletic endeavor?), one has no better luck creating a super-athelete imbreeding whites than imbreeding a mixture of "black" and "whites" and their offsprings. 2. Even if we assume that athletic ability is controlled by a few genes that can be "purified" from the original "black" and the original "white" genetic makeup, it is not clear that the successful manifestation of the atheletic ability may not be thwarted by the same process "purifying" some other genes unfavorable to the given environment. So that this "purifying" process may create no better athletes than the randomly occuring events that occur within "blacks", "whites", or "in betweens".
lsefton@Apple.COM (Laurie Sefton) (08/08/89)
In article <4869@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: > >David Casseres writes: > >:: American Blacks >:: are highly hybridized with Whites, and exhibit the hybrid vigor >:: so prized by athletic teams. > >:If some people posted this bullshit, I would assume they didn't know it >:was racist ignorance. In your case, I assume that you do know, and that >:either you are a racist or you are just being a self-indulgent wise guy. > >I may well be wrong, so tell me where my analysis goes astray. > >Back in high school biology, I was taught that a eugenics program should >take a given gene pool and inbreed it for 20 generations, weeding out >the recessive-gene problems dredged up by the increasingly homozygous >population. At this point, the gene pool is outbred to a very different >one, and the F1 generation produced exhibits heterozygous "hybrid vigor", >often exceeding either parent stock in desired traits. > >European and African gene pools were at least 20 generations apart when >they were merged in America, and the hybridized slaves were pruned further >by clever owners, so it doesn't surprise me that professional sports is >dominated by black Americans and black-Native American-white hybrids. >(Native to South America, that is, where they interbred with the European >Spanish.) > >Of course, we're all supposed to pretend that none of this ever happened... > > >Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) Okay--we're talking the difference between a small group of highly inbred animals (think thoroughbreds, Ancon sheep, Irish Dexter Cattle), versus a fairly genertically disparate group of people. Take a look at sub-saharan Africa--that's a pretty large place. You may find a few genetic areas in common, but you can say the same for Mediterraneans, and incidence of Cooley's anemia. Do you expect the same homozygocity between Spaniards and Greeks as you do Masaai and Yoruba? Laurie Sefton
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (08/09/89)
In article <4869@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: > David Casseres writes: > > :: American Blacks > :: are highly hybridized with Whites, and exhibit the hybrid vigor > :: so prized by athletic teams. > > :If some people posted this bullshit, I would assume they didn't know it > :was racist ignorance. In your case, I assume that you do know, and that > :either you are a racist or you are just being a self-indulgent wise guy. > > I may well be wrong, so tell me where my analysis goes astray. > > Back in high school biology, I was taught that a eugenics program should > take a given gene pool and inbreed it for 20 generations, weeding out > the recessive-gene problems dredged up by the increasingly homozygous > population. At this point, the gene pool is outbred to a very different > one, and the F1 generation produced exhibits heterozygous "hybrid vigor", > often exceeding either parent stock in desired traits. I have only heard of "hybrid vigor" in the context of agricultural crops. I have never heard of it being applied to human populations. > > European and African gene pools were at least 20 generations apart when > they were merged in America, and the hybridized slaves were pruned further > by clever owners, so it doesn't surprise me that professional sports is > dominated by black Americans and black-Native American-white hybrids. > (Native to South America, that is, where they interbred with the European > Spanish.) But neither the European nor the African gene pools were inbred. "Hybrid vigor" is about reversing the disadvantages of a small, inbred gene pool. Professional sports has a lot of non-white players because it is one of the few really good economic niches open to them. But compared to the other niches available to whites, it isn't so hot; therefore there are not as many whites in pro sports as there might be. By the way, a very large sector of the "white" American population is just as mixed as the "black" population. I've seen estimates that as many as 25% of white Southerners have some African ancestry. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
timlee@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (08/09/89)
In article <3411@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: |By the way, a very large sector of the "white" American population is just |as mixed as the "black" population. I've seen estimates that as many as |25% of white Southerners have some African ancestry. Also Native American ancestry.
jackson@ttidca.TTI.COM (Dick Jackson) (08/09/89)
In article <3411@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: > >Professional sports has a lot of non-white players because it is one of >the few really good economic niches open to them. But compared to the >other niches available to whites, it isn't so hot; therefore there are not >as many whites in pro sports as there might be. > We're getting into politically dangerous ground here, do I detect a hidden agenda? I hope not. But I will boldy (foolhardily?) introduce another point, namely that in track, blacks dominate the sprints, whites dominate the long distances and there is rough equality around 800 meters. I can think of no socio-economic argument to explain this. Dick Jackson
neal@lynx.uucp (Neal Woodall) (08/10/89)
MacLeod writes: American Blacks are highly hybridized with Whites, and exhibit the hybrid vigor so prized by athletic teams. Casseres writes: If some people posted this bullshit, I would assume they didn't know it was racist ignorance. In your case, I assume that you do know, and that either you are a racist or you are just being a self-indulgent wise guy. MacLeod writes: Back in high school biology, I was taught that a eugenics program should take a given gene pool and inbreed it for 20 generations, weeding out the recessive-gene problems dredged up by the increasingly homozygous population. At this point, the gene pool is outbred to a very different one, and the F1 generation produced exhibits heterozygous "hybrid vigor", often exceeding either parent stock in desired traits. Casseres writes: I have only heard of "hybrid vigor" in the context of agricultural crops. I have never heard of it being applied to human populations. Mr. Casseres is clearly ignorant on this: hybrid vigor can indeed be applied to things other than agricultrual crops.....it is also frequently applied to agrcultural stock (ie, animals) as well. Perhaps the reason you hardly ever hear of it being aplied to humans is because it invariably causes a furior among the "progressives" who fear that it could be used to further racial discrimination. In fact, Mr. Casseres himself demonstrates this in his quote above. It is because of the inevitable cries of "racism" and "discrimination" from the so-called "progressives" that this subject cannot usually be discussed in a rational fashion. I have my own views on this, and at the risk of being flamed or worse, I am going to enter this fray. It is my understanding that the journey to the North American continent was very hard for the slaves that were brought from Africa....hundreds of slaves crowded into the cargo holds of ships, given little food and water. The heat from the crowded bodies alone was enough to kill about 20% of them. Sometimes the attrition rates for the entire trip would be almost 50% of an original group of captured Africans. Is it any suprise that the ones who eventually made it to America were of superior physical constitution and genotype? When the slaves arrived in this country, they were sold to the plantation owners for the purposes of physical labor....the owners did not want small and weak slaves, they wanted strong slaves that could toil for hours a day in the fields. They undertook breeding programs to produce the strongest slaves with superior stamina....they bred the largest, strongest slaves to all of the slave women in order to have succeding generations of strong and hard working slaves. Also, it was not uncommon for the sons of the plantation owners to take a concubine negro woman to learn sex from. The children of these women carried the genes of both the African women and the Anglo men, resulting in the mixing of the gene pools that McLeod wrote about that could indeed have resulted in "hybrid vigor". Is it any suprise that Afro-Americans excell at most sports (ie, are represented in most sports in numbers that are vastly larger than their representation in the general population would suggest)? They have superior genes (in general) for physical strength and stamina. I hope that people can examine these ideas OBJECTIVELY, without putting too much emotional content into them. These statements are NOT ment to be racist in nature, and I hope that people will discuss this in a rational way, rather than flaming me or calling me names. Neal
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) (08/10/89)
In article <5983@lynx.UUCP>, neal@lynx.uucp (Neal Woodall) writes: > Is it any suprise that Afro-Americans excell at most sports (ie, are > represented in most sports in numbers that are vastly larger than their > representation in the general population would suggest)? They have > superior genes (in general) for physical strength and stamina. I don't see this as a meaningful comparison -- apples to oranges, and all that. You would have to compare the physical attributes of american blacks with their "old" country (African continent) relative. Also, no fair comparing geographically inappropriate groups. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org -
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (08/10/89)
In article <5983@lynx.UUCP> neal@lynx.uucp (Neal Woodall) writes: > Mr. Casseres is clearly ignorant on this: hybrid vigor can indeed be applied > to things other than agricultrual crops.....it is also frequently applied to > agrcultural stock (ie, animals) as well. Perhaps the reason you hardly ever > hear of it being aplied to humans is because it invariably causes a furior > among the "progressives" who fear that it could be used to further racial > discrimination. In fact, Mr. Casseres himself demonstrates this in his quote > above. It is because of the inevitable cries of "racism" and "discrimination" > from the so-called "progressives" that this subject cannot usually be > discussed in a rational fashion. Well, EXCUSE ME for saying something is racist. I guess nobody should ever call anything racist again, ever (except affirmative action), for fear of making non-progressives afraid to talk. Give me a break, Neal. > I have my own views on this, and at the risk of being flamed or worse, I am > going to enter this fray. Well, let's give you a great big medal for your astonishing bravery!!! [lengthy argument about genetic history of American blacks, omitted for brevity] > I hope that people can examine these ideas OBJECTIVELY, without putting too > much emotional content into them. These statements are NOT ment to be > racist in nature, and I hope that people will discuss this in a rational > way, rather than flaming me or calling me names. Guess what, Neal? I don't think your argument is racist, and so I'm not going to call you a racist. You can come out from under the bed. However, I did think that MacLeod's statement was racist. You figure it out. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (08/10/89)
In article <5264@ttidca.TTI.COM> jackson@ttidca.TTI.COM (Dick Jackson) writes: > In article <3411@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: > > > >Professional sports has a lot of non-white players because it is one of > >the few really good economic niches open to them. But compared to the > >other niches available to whites, it isn't so hot; therefore there are not > >as many whites in pro sports as there might be. > We're getting into politically dangerous ground here... I don't think it's "politically dangerous." Why do you? > ...do I detect a hidden agenda? I hope not. No. Don't be such a jerk. If you think I have some sinister, covert purpose, say what it is. > But I will boldy (foolhardily?) And another valiant hero steps forward!! Stamp out another medal for this dude! > introduce another point, > namely that in track, blacks dominate the sprints, whites dominate the long > distances and there is rough equality around 800 meters. I can think of no > socio-economic argument to explain this. Neither can I. Maybe it's because of a physical difference. Did you have a point to make? David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
moon@oliveb.OLIVETTI.COM (Gordon Moon,Parking Lot,911,7671234) (08/11/89)
From article <5264@ttidca.TTI.COM>, by jackson@ttidca.TTI.COM (Dick Jackson): > We're getting into politically dangerous ground here, do I detect a hidden > agenda? I hope not. But I will boldy (foolhardily?) introduce another point, > namely that in track, blacks dominate the sprints, whites dominate the long > distances and there is rough equality around 800 meters. I can think of no > socio-economic argument to explain this. Sorry but whites do not dominate the long distances in track and field. That is unless you think that the superb athletes from Kenya are white.
ir402@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (Braun E. Brelin) (08/11/89)
In article <5264@ttidca.TTI.COM> jackson@ttidcc.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes: >In article <3411@internal.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: >> >>Professional sports has a lot of non-white players because it is one of >>the few really good economic niches open to them. But compared to the >>other niches available to whites, it isn't so hot; therefore there are not >>as many whites in pro sports as there might be. >> >We're getting into politically dangerous ground here, do I detect a hidden >agenda? I hope not. But I will boldy (foolhardily?) introduce another point, >namely that in track, blacks dominate the sprints, whites dominate the long >distances and there is rough equality around 800 meters. I can think of no >socio-economic argument to explain this. > >Dick Jackson I am puzzled by the statement that white people dominate long distances... certainly in the united states it seems that white people dominate... however, in the olympics it seems (at least to me) that it is the africans that dominate (kenyans, et. al.) braun brelin :