PC-ness has replaced logic & reasoning. [Archive]

miketurner

12-26-2005, 02:51 PM

I hope this is the right forum for this. I think PC-ness is more of a philosophy than anything “political.” My apologies if I should have put this somewhere else. Anyway...

While at the family Christmas get-together this year, the conversation somehow turned to the fact that black people are typically more athletic than white people. My sister-in-law (a 26ish year old white social worker) asked “Why is that?” My mom, who is in her mid 50's, answered “I think it has something to do with the jungle.” The entire room (myself included) busted out in laughter! My sister-in-law exclaimed “That is the most racists thing I have ever heard!” It wasn’t said with malice and we all continued to laugh. My mom, who is far from racist, just had a look on her face like ‘what did I say?’ After our chuckle, the conversation just sorta moved on without further discussion of that topic.

Today, I find myself wondering “what is even a little racist about that comment?”

Whether you are an evolutionist, or a believer in creation... the fact that all living things physically adapt to their environment is (I believe) an undisputed fact. No one says it’s racist to point out that Eskimos typically have more body fat than Mexicans. They need the extra insulation to survive the climate. Likewise, black people (ancestrally from Africa) needed to survive the conditions of that environment.

To say someone is racist (even light heartedly) because they recognize that we are different in some ways and it is probably due to evolution or adaptation is simply idiotic! The PC idiocy has come so slowly and consistently that we didn’t even see it getting to this point until it was so stupid that we don’t even use logic and reasoning anymore. And I was guilty also.

tolbiny

12-26-2005, 03:46 PM

"Today, I find myself wondering “what is even a little racist about that comment?"

To me it shows what is likely a lack of understanding about "race" in general, and a lot of the reasons why blacks are generally superior athletes than white. All black people don't live in "the jungle", and very large populations have been isolated from that environment for as long as white europeans have been. The lumping of all blacks together and attributing them all the same charicteristics is racist- or at least is the basis of racism for a fair number of people.

miketurner

12-26-2005, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Today, I find myself wondering “what is even a little racist about that comment?"

To me it shows what is likely a lack of understanding about "race" in general, and a lot of the reasons why blacks are generally superior athletes than white. All black people don't live in "the jungle", and very large populations have been isolated from that environment for as long as white europeans have been. The lumping of all blacks together and attributing them all the same charicteristics is racist- or at least is the basis of racism for a fair number of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know all black people don’t live in the jungle. I personally don’t know *any* who live in the jungle. But *ancestrally* they are from Africa. It is an entirely different environment there than Europe for example. It takes a different set of skills to survive there, historically. I’m sure that over time, as the world continues to be more global, (hundreds or thousands of generations of blacks living here for example) it will make a difference. Remember, blacks have only lived in the US for a few hundred years. That is hardly enough time to see a huge change in evolution or adaptation. You do already see some change however... Why do you think Kenyan’s always win the big marathons?
So, anyway... Please give me an alternate explanation as to why blacks are typically more athletic than whites. Or do you think it's racist to even acknowledge that? If so... why? All you have to do is look at results of athletic contests and compare the percentages.

joel2006

12-26-2005, 04:46 PM

Blacks aren't more athletic, this has already been covered in several books. There are some events that people of various african descents dominate, like Blacks of west african descent dominate sprint events and east africans dominate very long distance running, but that is only a small part of all sports. BTW, there can be no connection between black athletic prowess and "living in the jungle" since there is very little jungle in Africa, Africa is mostly Savannah (grasslands) and desert. Most of Africa's jungles are lightly inhabited and none of the people who live in most of it (the Twa, also known as Pygmies) dominate any sports. Your mother's statement is at best extremely ignorant and at worst racially prejudiced, since it relies on demeaning stereotypes to pre-judge people of a differnt race. There is nothing PC about any of this. The list of sports that people of african descent DON'T dominate is much longer than the list of ones that they do. Like swimming (all events and distances), volleyball, soccer, table tennis, lacrosse, hockey, badminton, field hockey, handball, tennis, motor sports, golf, triathalon, etc. The problem is that peolpe believe what they want to, not what the facts state.

hmkpoker

12-26-2005, 05:05 PM

It's not that your mom's comment about black athletic jungle power is un-PC, it's that it's inaccurate and stupid.

And I'm about as un-PC as it gets /images/graemlins/smile.gif

12-26-2005, 05:09 PM

so is the statment blacks on average are faster runners true?

If so is that racist?

miketurner

12-26-2005, 05:21 PM

“Ignorant” is a word I can possibly accept. - Possibly. The definition of “jungle” is not necessarily the same as “rainforest.” It can be grasslands (I looked it up to be sure). Maybe not desert. - I’ll give you that. Maybe we are both ignorant of the exact terrain of Africa. But I’m pretty sure that my sister-in-law would be just as ignorant of the precise landscape. I don’t think that was the motivation for her comment.

Please explain to me how saying “blacks are BETTER at something than whites” is a “ demeaning stereotype” for blacks.

I understand that blacks don’t dominate every sport. I don’t mean to make that the emphases of what I’m saying at all. And I’m not “lumping” them all together. I still think that *generally* blacks are more naturally athletic. Maybe that IS ignorant... but it is certainly NOT racist.

miketurner

12-26-2005, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's not that your mom's comment about black athletic jungle power is un-PC, it's that it's inaccurate and stupid.

And I'm about as un-PC as it gets /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

“Black athletic jungle power” - That is funny. That might be why I cracked up to begin with... but it’s still not racist.
So what is your theory on “Why are they so dominate” in certain athletic activities? What is accurate and not stupid on the “why?

hmkpoker

12-26-2005, 05:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not that your mom's comment about black athletic jungle power is un-PC, it's that it's inaccurate and stupid.

And I'm about as un-PC as it gets /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

“Black athletic jungle power” - That is funny. That might be why I cracked up to begin with... but it’s still not racist.
So what is your theory on “Why are they so dominate” in certain athletic activities? What is accurate and not stupid on the “why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cultural reasons, same reason why white people dominate hockey.

12-26-2005, 06:07 PM

so the statement blacks tend to live in a culture that makes them better runners true?

If so it's still sterotypical and racist to many people. Now I understand that many people misuse these facts but that doesn't mean the statement here is wrong.

tolbiny

12-26-2005, 06:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Today, I find myself wondering “what is even a little racist about that comment?"

To me it shows what is likely a lack of understanding about "race" in general, and a lot of the reasons why blacks are generally superior athletes than white. All black people don't live in "the jungle", and very large populations have been isolated from that environment for as long as white europeans have been. The lumping of all blacks together and attributing them all the same charicteristics is racist- or at least is the basis of racism for a fair number of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know all black people don’t live in the jungle. I personally don’t know *any* who live in the jungle. But *ancestrally* they are from Africa. It is an entirely different environment there than Europe for example. It takes a different set of skills to survive there, historically. I’m sure that over time, as the world continues to be more global, (hundreds or thousands of generations of blacks living here for example) it will make a difference. Remember, blacks have only lived in the US for a few hundred years. That is hardly enough time to see a huge change in evolution or adaptation. You do already see some change however... Why do you think Kenyan’s always win the big marathons?
So, anyway... Please give me an alternate explanation as to why blacks are typically more athletic than whites. Or do you think it's racist to even acknowledge that? If so... why? All you have to do is look at results of athletic contests and compare the percentages.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem begins with lumping ALL black people into the same catagory- ie they all decended from a group living in the jungle, wheras white people decended from northern climates in europe. There are plenty of groups of black people who have spent as much or more time outside of the original "jungle" environment as whites have. What i am trying to say is that distinguishing groups of people based upon skin color is a poor way to make generilizations becuase there is so much variablity within those "groups" themselves, and certain sections will have more in commen with people outside of their group than with other subsets within thier own group.
Saying "black people are superior atheletes than whites" is racist as its a broad overgenerilization whitout any specific merit. To say that certain groups of people have a genetic predispostion to excell in certain areas because of the environment that thier ancestors were exposed to is a perfectly legitimate statement- but attempting to identify those groups based upon skin color is ineffective.

On a second more sematic side of the comments made- because of the "jungle" can certainly be made to sound derogatory (or at least be interpreted that way). It is a weighted word- especially with the racial slurs that are out there (ie jungle bunny). In other areas geogrphical descriptions ahve been used to put people down for centuries- the division between the scottish lowlands and highlands- hillbillies in america, ect ect. I wouldn't imagine you would feel comforatble saying to a black guy "your better at sports cause your ancestors came from the jungle" (or at least most people wouldn't) i w can see it not going over so well.

miketurner

12-26-2005, 06:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not that your mom's comment about black athletic jungle power is un-PC, it's that it's inaccurate and stupid.

And I'm about as un-PC as it gets /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

“Black athletic jungle power” - That is funny. That might be why I cracked up to begin with... but it’s still not racist.
So what is your theory on “Why are they so dominate” in certain athletic activities? What is accurate and not stupid on the “why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cultural reasons, same reason why white people dominate hockey.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I believe (possibly out of ignorance, possibly not) that if black people adopted hockey into their culture... they would soon (within, say, 30 years) dominate that sport as well. That is why I’m trying to convey that they are more “athletically gifted” in general... because I’m not talking about specific sports.

miketurner

12-26-2005, 06:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The problem begins with lumping ALL black people into the same catagory- ie they all decended from a group living in the jungle, wheras white people decended from northern climates in europe. There are plenty of groups of black people who have spent as much or more time outside of the original "jungle" environment as whites have. What i am trying to say is that distinguishing groups of people based upon skin color is a poor way to make generilizations becuase there is so much variablity within those "groups" themselves, and certain sections will have more in commen with people outside of their group than with other subsets within thier own group.
Saying "black people are superior atheletes than whites" is racist as its a broad overgenerilization whitout any specific merit. To say that certain groups of people have a genetic predispostion to excell in certain areas because of the environment that thier ancestors were exposed to is a perfectly legitimate statement- but attempting to identify those groups based upon skin color is ineffective.

On a second more sematic side of the comments made- because of the "jungle" can certainly be made to sound derogatory (or at least be interpreted that way). It is a weighted word- especially with the racial slurs that are out there (ie jungle bunny). In other areas geogrphical descriptions ahve been used to put people down for centuries- the division between the scottish lowlands and highlands- hillbillies in america, ect ect. I wouldn't imagine you would feel comforatble saying to a black guy "your better at sports cause your ancestors came from the jungle" (or at least most people wouldn't) i w can see it not going over so well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very enlightening. Thank you. That is what I was looking for.

“certain groups of people have a genetic predisposition to excel in certain areas because of the environment that their ancestors”. I do think that this is what she meant. Seems unnecessarily wordy to me though.

bocablkr

12-26-2005, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The list of sports that people of african descent DON'T dominate is much longer than the list of ones that they do. Like swimming (all events and distances), volleyball, soccer, table tennis, lacrosse, hockey, badminton, field hockey, handball, tennis, motor sports, golf, triathalon, etc. The problem is that peolpe believe what they want to, not what the facts state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to laugh when I read this list - how many blacks have even tried out for those 'sports'. Most of those require a lot of money or access to water. Not very popular in the inner city neighborhoods. How many of you who have answered would consider yourself true athletes? I doubt many. I have met very few athletes who would argue with the statement that 'blacks tend to be better athletes than whites'. You have to be judged by your peers so if you are not an athlete you shouldn't respond to this question. I am an athlete and I agree with the statement.

hmkpoker

12-26-2005, 06:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so the statement blacks tend to live in a culture that makes them better runners true?

If so it's still sterotypical and racist to many people. Now I understand that many people misuse these facts but that doesn't mean the statement here is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an issue we tackled back in my cultural psychology classes. Usually the tendency for a certain group to perform better in a certain area is due to a greater prevalence of practice of that activity by members of that community. Blacks and athletics was a major issue that we covered. (I apologize for not providing a source, I simply have neither the time or interest)

There are occasions where slight genetic differences {and the word "slight" must be emphasized; we are all of the same species) can result in physical results that may alter performance...for example, blacks typically have a slightly higher bone density than whites, which may make them slightly less apt to be champion swimmers...however, the cultural influences are much more conducive to the prevalence of white competitive swimmers.

We're talking about averages and small percentages here; I don't think it's rascist, and if it is, I don't care. There's no genetic obstacle preventing a black person from winning the Nobel prize in physics, or preventing a white person from winning a slam dunk contest.

However, claiming that blacks developed their athletic prowess from the jungle is unfounded. There's no reason to think that basketball shooting is useful to survival in the African wilderness; it's more likely that the kinds of evolved adaptive traits would include different kinds of metabolic enzymes that are specific to the available foods there.

tolbiny

12-26-2005, 06:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The problem begins with lumping ALL black people into the same catagory- ie they all decended from a group living in the jungle, wheras white people decended from northern climates in europe. There are plenty of groups of black people who have spent as much or more time outside of the original "jungle" environment as whites have. What i am trying to say is that distinguishing groups of people based upon skin color is a poor way to make generilizations becuase there is so much variablity within those "groups" themselves, and certain sections will have more in commen with people outside of their group than with other subsets within thier own group.
Saying "black people are superior atheletes than whites" is racist as its a broad overgenerilization whitout any specific merit. To say that certain groups of people have a genetic predispostion to excell in certain areas because of the environment that thier ancestors were exposed to is a perfectly legitimate statement- but attempting to identify those groups based upon skin color is ineffective.

On a second more sematic side of the comments made- because of the "jungle" can certainly be made to sound derogatory (or at least be interpreted that way). It is a weighted word- especially with the racial slurs that are out there (ie jungle bunny). In other areas geogrphical descriptions ahve been used to put people down for centuries- the division between the scottish lowlands and highlands- hillbillies in america, ect ect. I wouldn't imagine you would feel comforatble saying to a black guy "your better at sports cause your ancestors came from the jungle" (or at least most people wouldn't) i w can see it not going over so well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very enlightening. Thank you. That is what I was looking for.

“certain groups of people have a genetic predisposition to excel in certain areas because of the environment that their ancestors”. I do think that this is what she meant. Seems unnecessarily wordy to me though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok- how about "groups of people are different from other groups of people".

joel2006

12-26-2005, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so is the statment blacks on average are faster runners true?

If so is that racist?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, there is no evidence to support the first statement. There is however ample evidence to show that the fastest of blacks descended from West Africans are slightly faster at sprint distances than the fastest runners of other groups. WA descended blacks tend to run slower than average at distances longer than 800m. Likewise a few ethnic groups from Kenya and Ethiopia (East Africa) tend to dominate very long distance races, and do poorly at sprint distances, but this has nothing to do with blacks in general. If you lump all african blacks into one group, then the differences cancel each other out.

12-26-2005, 07:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so the statement blacks tend to live in a culture that makes them better runners true?

If so it's still sterotypical and racist to many people. Now I understand that many people misuse these facts but that doesn't mean the statement here is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an issue we tackled back in my cultural psychology classes. Usually the tendency for a certain group to perform better in a certain area is due to a greater prevalence of practice of that activity by members of that community. Blacks and athletics was a major issue that we covered. (I apologize for not providing a source, I simply have neither the time or interest)

There are occasions where slight genetic differences {and the word "slight" must be emphasized; we are all of the same species) can result in physical results that may alter performance...for example, blacks typically have a slightly higher bone density than whites, which may make them slightly less apt to be champion swimmers...however, the cultural influences are much more conducive to the prevalence of white competitive swimmers.

We're talking about averages and small percentages here; I don't think it's rascist, and if it is, I don't care. There's no genetic obstacle preventing a black person from winning the Nobel prize in physics, or preventing a white person from winning a slam dunk contest.

However, claiming that blacks developed their athletic prowess from the jungle is unfounded. There's no reason to think that basketball shooting is useful to survival in the African wilderness; it's more likely that the kinds of evolved adaptive traits would include different kinds of metabolic enzymes that are specific to the available foods there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I used running because that was topic up at discussion but really it all boils down to is that: I don't believe myself to be racist but I have a hard time not grouping people together... And I've found that sterotypes generally tend to be true I'll bet that any random black man like watermelon more then your average person for instants. An Asian is more likely to be a good study... etc. Sure I've met peole who don't fit the criteria for whatever sterotype they tend to have but it's still my default. Maybe I'm suffering from from looking too hard for something (and thus always finding it) but I don't think so and if I ever needed someone to run a message 2 miles out in a battle field because comms are down and I had to chose between 1 white man and 1 black man of equal built, I'm going with the black guy.

joel2006

12-26-2005, 07:40 PM

Dude there isn't much "jungle' in Africa, jungle is usually defined as thick tropical vegetation, must of Africa is either desert (Sahara, Kalahari) or wide-open grasslands usually known as 'bush country'. There are large jungles in Central Africa (Zaire, Uganda), where gorillas live and where the King Kong story is set, which has lead many people to think that this is typical of all of the continent, but it isn't true. Anyway most american 'blacks' are of West African descent and their ancestors aren't from any jungles. blacks of West African descent are faster at sprint distances (less than 400m) than other groups, that is why they currently dominate the NFL at running back, WR and CB positions, but speed over short distances is only one type of athletic ability. Many people think that events like the Triathalon or decathalon are a better measure of overall athletic ability and blacks definitely don't dominate at those events.

Darryl_P

12-26-2005, 08:02 PM

OK, but the real question is: which racial group is the best at swinging from trees? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

FlFishOn

12-26-2005, 08:42 PM

"There's no genetic obstacle preventing a black person from winning the Nobel prize in physics"

Prove this. You can not.

How bout this one: Women are tiny % Nobel science prize winners proportionally as compared to men.

How bout this one: Blacks are tiny % Nobel science prize winners proportionally as compared to other races.

Race matters. All the 'social construct' BS is salve for the PC crowd and the race hustlers like Cornell West and Jesse Jackson. The day when we again are able to admit that race matters will be the day that racial tension begins to ebb and many currently intractable, socially poisonous problems will begin to be solved.

lastchance

12-27-2005, 06:51 AM

Your mom's joke was untasteful, and even more egregious, not funny. At all.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, but the real question is: which racial group is the best at swinging from trees?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is funny.

[ QUOTE ]
“I think it has something to do with the jungle.”

[/ QUOTE ]
I fail to see the hilarity in this, and I believe most people would agree with me.

miketurner

12-27-2005, 09:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Your mom's joke was untasteful, and even more egregious, not funny. At all.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, but the real question is: which racial group is the best at swinging from trees?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is funny.

[ QUOTE ]
“I think it has something to do with the jungle.”

[/ QUOTE ]
I fail to see the hilarity in this, and I believe most people would agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn’t a joke. It was a simpler way of saying “certain groups of people have a genetic predisposition to excel in certain areas because of the environment of their ancestors”, as was already discussed. The fact that you have to go through that much extreme measures to choose your words is why I think the PC police have gotten a little idiotic. There is some debate as to whether it is an “accurate” statement or not, and some nitpicking over what % of Africa is actually “jungle.” There was a valid point made that in some circles, terms like “jungle monkey” have been used to degrade black people. This wasn’t the case, although I already conceded that I understand the conclusion that people would make because of the history.

The PC police apparently need a dictionary, cause they have forgotten what racism is...
Racism: An excessive and irrational belief in or advocacy of the superiority of a given group, people, or nation, on racial grounds alone; race hatred.

This was not racism.

shutupndeal

12-27-2005, 09:33 AM

Yes I think the joke was as bad as in jail when some white guys used to call Basketball "Tree Hockey" and the other white guys would laugh just terrible!

Rick Nebiolo

12-27-2005, 11:22 AM

For those who believe that most American blacks are stronger, more athletic and so on due to good genes is it reaonable to conclude that this could be due to the manner in which many of their ancestors got here?

benkahuna

12-27-2005, 12:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"There's no genetic obstacle preventing a black person from winning the Nobel prize in physics"

Prove this. You can not.

How bout this one: Women are tiny % Nobel science prize winners proportionally as compared to men.

How bout this one: Blacks are tiny % Nobel science prize winners proportionally as compared to other races.

Race matters. All the 'social construct' BS is salve for the PC crowd and the race hustlers like Cornell West and Jesse Jackson. The day when we again are able to admit that race matters will be the day that racial tension begins to ebb and many currently intractable, socially poisonous problems will begin to be solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the history of the very notion of race and it quickly becomes clear that the very notion of race began as a means to belittle people that looked different from colonial aggressors which facilitated taking from the belittled people land and other resources. Every genetic difference was found (e.g., Tay Sachs, sickle cell trait) after the fact among individuals with shared ancestry. The only thing that's changed is that there is now some history of the notion of race (giving the idea some specious validity) and that colonialism has changed form in many places, often into the form of domestic neocolonialism.

There is not one single piece of evidence that race exists and that genetic differences in intellectual ability are related to something that actually may have meaning in genetic terms, shared ancenstry. I challenge you to provide even one article from a peer reviewed, reputable, scientific journal with a convincing study to contradict my claim. Don't bother with some cheap pseudoscientific (correlative) study.

You merely choose to interpret available studies to reinforce your racism.

12-27-2005, 12:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is not one single piece of scientific evidence that race exists and that genetic differences in intellectual ability are related to something that actually may have meaning in genetic terms, shared ancenstry.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is correct, and beyond debate at present. Sorry to interrupt but it needed to be said.

And yet I still make my point. So what is it that I'm saying?

hmkpoker

12-27-2005, 01:23 PM

Thank you Ben /images/graemlins/smile.gif I wanted to say something, but I didn't feel it was worth arguing with him

Darryl_P

12-27-2005, 02:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I challenge you to provide even one article from a peer reviewed, reputable, scientific journal with a convincing study to contradict my claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a reasonable request if the following statement by the Unabomber (from his manifesto (http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm) )weren't obviously true:

[ QUOTE ]
12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because a series of observations hasn't been formally recorded and verified (by people who are biased in the direction of where their funding comes from) doesn't mean they are not correct. Perhaps it means it does not constitute any sort of proof , but if you can rise above all the mistrust and paranoia and try to figure out what makes the other guy tick, you can learn a lot by listening to his observations about the world.

Maybe he's got an agenda. Maybe you do too. Maybe not. One thing's for certain, though -- universities (and other bodies sanctioning official studies) definitely do and it's in the direction of political correctness.

hmkpoker

12-27-2005, 02:54 PM

We're JUST arguing that the apparent prevalence of athletic prowess in blacks is not based on evolution from jungle survival.

That's it.

No PC bullcrap.

I'd at this point like to address this steaming pile of literary defecation that FIFish pointed out:

[ QUOTE ]
Race matters. All the 'social construct' BS is salve for the PC crowd and the race hustlers like Cornell West and Jesse Jackson. The day when we again are able to admit that race matters will be the day that racial tension begins to ebb and many currently intractable, socially poisonous problems will begin to be solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

What socially poisonous problems will be solved? The problems that right-wingers complain about (affirmative action, etc) come about BECAUSE race is entered as a factor.

miketurner

12-27-2005, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cleaned the windows (that is my business) at a liquor store today and had a 3 hour conversation with the black manager about this specific conversation. Obviously I don’t have the time to type 3 hours worth of conversation but it started like this...

Me: “Do you think black people are generally more athletically gifted?”
Him: “Yes”
Me “Why?”
Him: “Well, just look at the results, etc...”
Me: “No, I mean why are they more athletic”
Him: “I don’t know. Why do you ask?”
Me: “Because I was called a racist today for thinking that it might be because you’re decedents of Africans, and there is no harsher environment in the world to survive in.”
Him: “That’s not racist. It’s probably true. Hell, you guys were riding horses & [censored] while we were hunting on foot.”

I later told him about the specific “jungle” comment that my mother had said. He laughed his ass off and said she would probably have a problem on her hands if she said that in a room full of black people. He didn’t think it was “racist” because she had basically said the same thing that I had said (and he had agreed with). She just worded it more poorly.

FlFishOn

12-27-2005, 04:11 PM

You parrot the PC party line like a pro. You must be the victim of a US college education.

I'm aware that there exists many friendly pit bulls but I still do not turn my back to them hoping the one in front of me is in that group. I use dog breed to discriminate absent any other information regarding the individual. I do the same in poker, giving more respect to the 65 YO than the 20 YO. When I meet an unknown black man for the first time I can safely assume he's 50 +/- times less likely to have won the Nobel prize in physics than a random white man. I can also assume he's 5-10 times more likely to have commited a violent felony, 3-4 times more likely to have been raised w/o a father in the home etc. I'm not concerned with the 'why' of it, only the trend of the population data set.

This is simply using the available data to make a guess at probabilities. I think that makes me a racist. I self-apply the term to take away the club so quickly wielded by the PC police.

FlFishOn

12-27-2005, 04:25 PM

This is specific to the US and native born Blacks.

We will never even begin to solve the problem of Black criminality and irresponsible parenting until we admit that Whites and Blacks are different. Genetic? Cultural? I don't know and it doesn't matter, but there is undisputable data that screams out that Blacks and Whites respond differently to important life choices. Using the same solutions for both groups gets you divergent results, full prisons, sh+tty HS graduation rates and yet another generation of disfunctional citizens.

Racist? You betcha.

Darryl_P

12-27-2005, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What socially poisonous problems will be solved? The problems that right-wingers complain about (affirmative action, etc) come about BECAUSE race is entered as a factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement. IMO, the problems come about from HOW race is brought into the equation, and not THAT it is brought into the equation -- big difference.

Yes it's true that frivolous violence is worse than having a frivolous taboo, but that doesn't change the fact that the optimal solution is to have neither.

hmkpoker

12-27-2005, 07:15 PM

So what's your solution?

lastchance

12-27-2005, 07:41 PM

Ok, so it wasn't a joke. Weird. I still don't find it funny. Again, I don't find it at all funny.

It may not be racist, but it is a stereotypical inaccurate comment, which might make it funny in and of itself, but I don't see it.

FlFishOn

12-27-2005, 08:22 PM

As I see it, the root problem is the very many disfunctional Black families. Fix that and much overall improvement will follow. It took 40 years for 'The Great Society' programs to get us here. Those programs have drastically changed incentives and behaviors, a few for the better, many for the worse, both for Black and White.

Nothing I say as far as a specific change has any chance of being proposed, much less seriously considered. But the one underlying idea is to change the incentives that lead to fatherless households and then check your results in 40 more years.

I've heard Economics described as 'the dismal science' but this is much more depressing.

daryn

12-27-2005, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, there can be no connection between black athletic prowess and "living in the jungle" since there is very little jungle in Africa, Africa is mostly Savannah (grasslands) and desert.

[/ QUOTE ]

so what are you saying? that it's because they spent so much time running from lions in the grasslands?

12-27-2005, 09:07 PM

Athletic ability in the 21st century? Overrated, seeing as there is little need to run down you prey or escape from predators. It is much better to be endowed with intellect in these modern times. Just take a look at the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world; you don't see any football or basketball players in that list do you? And if you want to talk about intellect and race, well, that should be and easy argument. Look at your great minds of antiquity, Einstein, Newton, Franklin, Kepler, Galileo, Archimedes, etc. Where was the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution? Which is the least developed continent on Earth? What continent lacks a single industrialized nation? What continent has the most industrialized nations? What is the least educated continent on Earth? What continent has the lowest life expectancy rate? In Forbes 500, Oprah Winfrey is the only black person listed and she is near the bottom of the 500 person list. There is no industrialized nation in the world with a black majority population. Even in the U.S. the gap between black graduation rates in high school and in college is significantly lower than that of their white counterparts. Pretty obvious to me.