[tolbiny]

[ 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.