Nobel Winner Called Racist

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You could take any of the brightest people in history, isolate them, shove them into a culture of pure poverty, no education, familial chaos, poor social structures, perpetual war and pushing kids into holding AK47's, do you think they would evidence the same abilities?

IQ tests do not require higher math understanding. They're based on spacial ability and so forth that anyone can do.

I think there's merit to the possibility that there are different potentials for learning in different sections of people, but it should be studied without having the burden of racism put on it. That being said, I don't know how you study that. Most wealthy black americans haven't come from multiple generations of wealth, where good study habits have been used. Good habits (using correct speech to talk to young kids, reading to kids, etc.) early on can lead to more intelligent children, and therefore, bad habits can drive a different result.

It's a tough question. The idea that some cultures might have had different traits evolve (aggression and strength over pure intelligence) over time isn't inherently racist, but testing the theory would be extremely difficult.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Czar
1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.

While I firmly DO believe the differences exist, these numbers aren't very plausible.
85 is about the same as the average chimpanzee. But then again the main reason we don't see chimps advancing technologically like man is not an intellectual difference, but the lack of efficient vocal communication to explain ideas to others.

An IQ of 70 would have someone recognized as severely retarded and get them special treatment as disabled.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You could take any of the brightest people in history, isolate them, shove them into a culture of pure poverty, no education, familial chaos, poor social structures, perpetual war and pushing kids into holding AK47's, do you think they would evidence the same abilities?

IQ tests do not require higher math understanding. They're based on spacial ability and so forth that anyone can do.

I think there's merit to the possibility that there are different potentials for learning in different sections of people, but it should be studied without having the burden of racism put on it. That being said, I don't know how you study that. Most wealthy black americans haven't come from multiple generations of wealth, where good study habits have been used. Good habits (using correct speech to talk to young kids, reading to kids, etc.) early on can lead to more intelligent children, and therefore, bad habits can drive a different result.

It's a tough question. The idea that some cultures might have had different traits evolve (aggression and strength over pure intelligence) over time isn't inherently racist, but testing the theory would be extremely difficult.

Higher math was an example. It doesn't need to be nearly that complicated. The end fact is that you need to have a basis of education, knowledge, experience, and the societal push to be able to score well in IQ tests. There is a foundation of knowledge that everybody gets in a normal society. That foundation is eroded through several events, including poverty, war, lack of social welfare structures, lack of social emphasis on knowledge vs strength, and other situations. All of which inhibit the ability to have that core of knowledge.

I put almost no stock in the idea that whole sections of people can be segregated by solely by nature-based intelligence. As somebody mentioned above, many of these studies put certain cultures at the severely retarded level.

 

[teclis1023]

Can you provide an example that clearly differentiates the physical and intellectual capabilities between two different races? I have yet to see a race of people with extremely short legs or a race of people with massive brains in comparison to other races. You're comparing two breeds of dogs who have been specifically and deliberately bred to be how they are. They no longer resemble 'natural' dogs because they have been directly and severely impacted by human direction.

I agree that differences should be acknowledged (see my first post), but I don't think that your comparison is valid.

But the problem with this type of science is that it's ethno-centric. Don't you think that perhaps a factor in his findings about Africans is that he is not, himself, African? I'd be willing to place my entire life savings on the idea that if you took 100 Africans and 100 Europeans in similar a similar social situation and community and they grew up together and went to the same schools, you'd find that both races would produce similar results.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: glugglug
But then again the main reason we don't see chimps advancing technologically like man is not an intellectual difference, but the lack of efficient vocal communication to explain ideas to others.

Pinkeresque, non?

 

[Martin]

While there probably is a small difference, does anyone think its significant enough to require different policies? Ie, what policies would work on a person with 106 IQ that don't work on a person with a 100IQ?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Link

The eminent biologist told the British newspaper he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really."

In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically. He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

Watson is not the first scientist to show sympathy for the theory of a racial basis for intellectual difference. In March of last year Dr. Frank Ellis from Leeds University provoked anger in Britain after he admitted he found evidence that racial groups perform differently "extremely convincing."

My question is not whether or not Watson is right, nor do I really care whether or not he is right. My question is: what if different races and genders are inherently different? Should we never acknowledge these differences and insist on trying to bin everyone in the same group, despite existing differences that will always cause this to be less than optimal? If I am not as intelligent as Einstein, should I pretend that I am? Moreover, should I coerce you into telling me that I am because otherwise you're racist/sexist/whatever? If such differences are real, at what point will members of our society develop the intellectual integrity and maturity to accept that without discarding that information as racist/sexist?

I would argue that trying to equate everyone, when different people are obviously better at different things (read: NOT equal) is a huge waste of resources. I am all for everyone having equal opportunities and rights, but you can't enforce this equality using tools like affirmative action that set up a quota. If I look objectively at the science and it tells me that greyhounds are faster than dachsunds, should I avoid saying so because that makes me breed-ist? Should we set up a quota system at dog tracks that says dachsunds must make up a certain percentage of the racing dogs? Or should we acknowledge that differences most certainly exist and proceed accordingly?

I don't really see the point of this exercise. If such a thing were provable, and you could prove it in a way that was significant enough and with enough granularity that you could identify people of superior ability, then great. I think it's a fool's errand though, and our track record of measuring ability has been terrible so far. Can you give me concrete examples of certain races being better or worse at something that cannot be chalked up to differences in environment? I'm even being easy on you here, because you can use physical things like sports that are infinitely easier to measure then something like intelligence. Even with sports though, I think you will be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that genetics is the deciding factor over environment.

So I guess as an answer, if such a thing were possible it would make sense. I think that in reality it is so improbable and rife with potential for errors and abuse that it's simply not worth talking about. Everyone knows that individuals aren't equal to one another, there's just no way that we can measure it accurately enough to make decisions without wasting far more resources on the testing then we are wasting on the presumption of equality.

 

[First]

What data his comments are based on is the underlying question here. If he's basing his conclusions on observational data alone then he should know better (and I imagine he is). If he's basing it on sound testing methodologies, then that's different. Of course, even then, since when did the scientific community discover a way to separate nature from nurture? This is an age-old question that, if answered with some new methodology, would be ground-breaking.

So, really, the most obvious conclusion is his faulty understanding of social realities. i.e. institutional barriers to entry for certain minorities, blacks being merely one example.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
This should be a fun thread.

My take:

It's a human fantasy to believe that we are all equal, or have equal potential. Genetics probably do play a role in intelligence, but we won't be able to separate it from cultural impact any time soon.

Viper GTS

Yes.

I would add that since we know there is a genetic component to intelligence and we all achknowledge that there are genetic differences between races, which are known to manifest in ways such as appearance and also propensity to certain illnesses, response to certain stresses, etc. it's simply asinine to assume that these racial differences do not also enter the realm of intelligence. Especially when any evidence in these issues generally finds it, even though it is later "debunked" by people looking to find holes in the test methodology, since they are unwilling to accept its findings.

It's bullcrap to think that whole races/population groups are inferior intelligence wise. You're essentially saying that nature accounts for the majority, if not all, of intelligence while nuture accounts for a much smaller piece.

No, you're saying it accounts for some percentage, as it likely does. I don't see anything bullcrappy about that!

Can you give me concrete examples of certain races being better or worse at something that cannot be chalked up to differences in environment? I'm even being easy on you here, because you can use physical things like sports that are infinitely easier to measure then something like intelligence. Even with sports though, I think you will be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that genetics is the deciding factor over environment.

They are an influencing one. Case in point being Kenyan endurance runners. Specific tribes in Kenya have a disproportionate representation in the international arena of endurance sports that is not answerable merely by culture. In the book "The Lore of Running", the best book I've ever read on running and citing thousands of references throughout on its various topics, the author quite capably refers to several studies that indicate to a reasonable person that Kenyans from these particular tribes are better suited to endurance running than, say, the average White person. The best runners combine God-given talent with intense training, but the numbers lead one to the conclusion that if you take 100 Kenyans from these particular tribes and 100 people from London and throw them off on an island from birth with the same lifestyle, the Kenyans will be better runners. I don't have the book in front of me, you'll have to take my word for it, but the myth that Kenyans are such good runners because they have to run around from childhood is one regularly given and simply inaccurate. The author of this book contends the genetic difference is because these particular Kenyan tribes may have bred their slower individuals out because through their history, efficient movement over distances has been an influential factor in their ability to succeed.

Anyway, Asians, for instance, are shorter than Blacks as a whole (clearly beyond culture; they are genetically set to be shorter) and so will find benefit/detriment in particular sports as well.

So I guess as an answer, if such a thing were possible it would make sense. I think that in reality it is so improbable and rife with potential for errors and abuse that it's simply not worth talking about. Everyone knows that individuals aren't equal to one another, there's just no way that we can measure it accurately enough to make decisions without wasting far more resources on the testing then we are wasting on the presumption of equality.

That may be true. We don't know, either

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I don't really see the point of this exercise. If such a thing were provable, and you could prove it in a way that was significant enough and with enough granularity that you could identify people of superior ability, then great. I think it's a fool's errand though, and our track record of measuring ability has been terrible so far. Can you give me concrete examples of certain races being better or worse at something that cannot be chalked up to differences in environment? I'm even being easy on you here, because you can use physical things like sports that are infinitely easier to measure then something like intelligence. Even with sports though, I think you will be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that genetics is the deciding factor over environment.

So I guess as an answer, if such a thing were possible it would make sense. I think that in reality it is so improbable and rife with potential for errors and abuse that it's simply not worth talking about. Everyone knows that individuals aren't equal to one another, there's just no way that we can measure it accurately enough to make decisions without wasting far more resources on the testing then we are wasting on the presumption of equality.

Agreed,

However, with some sports testing is rather highly indicative of an individuals potential. Not all sports, and not absolutely determinitive, but highly indicative.

The USSR used such testing to great advantage. The advantage was indentifying young athletes and focusing resources on them. For example, a core sample of muscle tissue can be taken to determine the ratio of fast-twitch type muscle to slow-twitch (these are older terms, likely newer better one exist). This is just one example.

I believe such differences are genetic.

Fern

 

[Analog]

Look up Bill Shockley, inventor of the transistor, Nobel winner. He was making the same claims in the 1960s. Now he is just as famous for that than his discoveries.

 

[piasabird]

I dont think he is trying to say people with black skin are less intelligent. It seems like he is saying the people that live in Africa seem to be less intelligent. This may just be an indication they have a lower education level overall. This may be correct for a lot of people. Maybe they have been taking intelligence tests or they have been trying to help people with aids education and the people are just in an ignorant state. This is quite possible.

 

[Narmer]

It's obvious that Cyclowizard is trying to dance around the fact that he agrees with Dr. Watson. To say that an entire group of people is less intelligent than another group is stupid. If that was the case, then, all else being equal, a certain group should dominate. But all else is never equal, which makes the entire hypothesis stupid. The same is true of blacks and sports. That also goes for asians and math.

People that are trying to prove Dr. Watson are simplyfing a highly complicated socia-political debate that will never end.

People two thousand years ago worshipped black people. Now they worship a white god (who used to be black). four thousand years ago, the black people of africa were doing mathematical gymnastics that were done outside of Africa only within the last 150 years.

Let's call Dr. Watson a racist and be done with it. No need to legitimize his reckless thoughts.

 

[Stoneburner]

Anybody know what testing he's referring to? I've heard something about this from my other favorite website, stormfront, but i've yet to see it.

If science does say black people are dumber than asians, does it mean much really? If there are inherent genetic limitations on intelligence, however, you'd suspect there would be a cap on the intelligence for every member of said race. But there are black people that are MENSA class intellects and there are some asians who are painfully stupid. On the other hand, i've heard theories that jewish people tend to be smarter because stupid jews tended to get killed. For example, the inquisition... when smart jews heard of it, they left early... same with jews who read Mein Kampf. Maybe there is some natural selection still occurring.

People need to stop politicizing sciences. IF there is credible evidence to backup Crick's sidekick, then maybe we need to understand it before drawing conclusions.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Link

The eminent biologist told the British newspaper he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really."

In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically. He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

Watson is not the first scientist to show sympathy for the theory of a racial basis for intellectual difference. In March of last year Dr. Frank Ellis from Leeds University provoked anger in Britain after he admitted he found evidence that racial groups perform differently "extremely convincing."

My question is not whether or not Watson is right, nor do I really care whether or not he is right. My question is: what if different races and genders are inherently different? Should we never acknowledge these differences and insist on trying to bin everyone in the same group, despite existing differences that will always cause this to be less than optimal? If I am not as intelligent as Einstein, should I pretend that I am? Moreover, should I coerce you into telling me that I am because otherwise you're racist/sexist/whatever? If such differences are real, at what point will members of our society develop the intellectual integrity and maturity to accept that without discarding that information as racist/sexist?

I would argue that trying to equate everyone, when different people are obviously better at different things (read: NOT equal) is a huge waste of resources. I am all for everyone having equal opportunities and rights, but you can't enforce this equality using tools like affirmative action that set up a quota. If I look objectively at the science and it tells me that greyhounds are faster than dachsunds, should I avoid saying so because that makes me breed-ist? Should we set up a quota system at dog tracks that says dachsunds must make up a certain percentage of the racing dogs? Or should we acknowledge that differences most certainly exist and proceed accordingly?

You're talking about two very different ideas there. The first is that everyone may not be exactly equal, the second is that race or gender is a reliable indicator of intelligence. Despite your attempts to conflate the two (I can't tell if that's deliberate or not), those are two completely separate ideas. I imagine there is a good chance you're not as smart as Einstein, few people are, but it's a completely different thing to say you're probably not as smart as Einstein because of your race or gender.

You argue against arbitrary attempts to "bin" people into a group, what makes you think your approach isn't the same thing? I have zero problem with separating the smart people from the dumb people and the athletic from the non-athletic and the people who are good at playing the guitar from the people who aren't. But I support doing that by measuring the traits in question, you (apparently) support doing that by looking for correlated indicators like skin color and configuration of dangly bits.

Trying to justify this with your dog example is pretty brainless, and I expect more from someone who claims to respect science. Dog breeds work in a very different way from human races, for a number of reasons too complex to get into, but the executive summary is that there is VERY little variation between different human races on planet earth. Most differences are extremely superficial, and even those differences are pretty minor. Now there are pretty large CULTURAL differences, but that is not genetics and it's not science...and it has nothing to do with race or gender.

Your last sentence is puzzling...just what in the hell does "proceed accordingly" mean? Because it SOUNDS like you're some skinhead who wants to wipe out all the inferior races, and I know that's not what you meant. But seriously, why do we have to DO anything? Who cares what differences are, and whether they may or may not exist? I see no obvious policy decisions that need to be based on an assumption of racial performance. So who gives a shit?

By the way, you were evasive enough that it's hard to nail down just what you think (although I can venture a guess), but our friendly biologist is certainly a racist. He's raising a question while claiming to already have the answer, without the smallest amount of evidence to support his viewpoint. As a scientist, he should know better than most what that generally means.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
This should be a fun thread.

My take:

It's a human fantasy to believe that we are all equal, or have equal potential. Genetics probably do play a role in intelligence, but we won't be able to separate it from cultural impact any time soon.

Viper GTS

Yes.

I would add that since we know there is a genetic component to intelligence and we all achknowledge that there are genetic differences between races, which are known to manifest in ways such as appearance and also propensity to certain illnesses, response to certain stresses, etc. it's simply asinine to assume that these racial differences do not also enter the realm of intelligence. Especially when any evidence in these issues generally finds it, even though it is later "debunked" by people looking to find holes in the test methodology, since they are unwilling to accept its findings.

It's bullcrap to think that whole races/population groups are inferior intelligence wise. You're essentially saying that nature accounts for the majority, if not all, of intelligence while nuture accounts for a much smaller piece.

No, you're saying it accounts for some percentage, as it likely does. I don't see anything bullcrappy about that!

Can you give me concrete examples of certain races being better or worse at something that cannot be chalked up to differences in environment? I'm even being easy on you here, because you can use physical things like sports that are infinitely easier to measure then something like intelligence. Even with sports though, I think you will be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that genetics is the deciding factor over environment.

They are an influencing one. Case in point being Kenyan endurance runners. Specific tribes in Kenya have a disproportionate representation in the international arena of endurance sports that is not answerable merely by culture. In the book "The Lore of Running", the best book I've ever read on running and citing thousands of references throughout on its various topics, the author quite capably refers to several studies that indicate to a reasonable person that Kenyans from these particular tribes are better suited to endurance running than, say, the average White person. The best runners combine God-given talent with intense training, but the numbers lead one to the conclusion that if you take 100 Kenyans from these particular tribes and 100 people from London and throw them off on an island from birth with the same lifestyle, the Kenyans will be better runners. I don't have the book in front of me, you'll have to take my word for it, but the myth that Kenyans are such good runners because they have to run around from childhood is one regularly given and simply inaccurate. The author of this book contends the genetic difference is because these particular Kenyan tribes may have bred their slower individuals out because through their history, efficient movement over distances has been an influential factor in their ability to succeed.

Anyway, Asians, for instance, are shorter than Blacks as a whole (clearly beyond culture; they are genetically set to be shorter) and so will find benefit/detriment in particular sports as well.

So I guess as an answer, if such a thing were possible it would make sense. I think that in reality it is so improbable and rife with potential for errors and abuse that it's simply not worth talking about. Everyone knows that individuals aren't equal to one another, there's just no way that we can measure it accurately enough to make decisions without wasting far more resources on the testing then we are wasting on the presumption of equality.

That may be true. We don't know, either

Kenyans are also faster due to larger lung capacity, lower lactic acid build-up, both of which can be attributed to higher altitude acclimation.

Again, you're comparing a physical attribute, which is a natural one, to an intellectual attribute which is also natural, but you're forgetting one key thing, training/nuture.

It's akin to finding children that are abucted or missing for years. They are intellectual stunted and test very low in IQ tests. However, once they have regular interaction with people, they can adapt and raise their intelligence levels.

In all cases, if you remove the ability to train a natural gift, that natural gift is useless, regardless of breeding or natural selection.

Asians are also somewhat shorter than many cultures because of the nutritional consistency of their foods, not just genetics.

 

[dyna]

This a taboo topic. It would be horrible if did find factually that there were IQ differences between skin colors. But if worse came to worse and it were true, it could effect policies of affirmative action/segregation etc... Its probably something that shouldn't be studied for the previous reasons or made public if discovered. This is sort of the similar issue as with proving if there is a gay gene.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: dyna
This a taboo topic. It would be horrible if did find factually that there were IQ differences between skin colors. But if worse came to worse and it were true, it could effect policies of affirmative action/segregation etc... Its probably something that shouldn't be studied for the previous reasons or made public if discovered. This is sort of the similar issue as with proving if there is a gay gene.

People are different. God made sure of that. If there was a particular race of people that were inherently smarter, then we would have a philosophers-kings group that remained constant through time. We don't and it is simply unnatural. Therefore, one group of people do not hold a monopoly on intelligence.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I think that this is a pretty good read on the subject:

PDF on the topic

Here's the prologue:

In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behavior-genetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You're talking about two very different ideas there. The first is that everyone may not be exactly equal, the second is that race or gender is a reliable indicator of intelligence. Despite your attempts to conflate the two (I can't tell if that's deliberate or not), those are two completely separate ideas. I imagine there is a good chance you're not as smart as Einstein, few people are, but it's a completely different thing to say you're probably not as smart as Einstein because of your race or gender.

You argue against arbitrary attempts to "bin" people into a group, what makes you think your approach isn't the same thing? I have zero problem with separating the smart people from the dumb people and the athletic from the non-athletic and the people who are good at playing the guitar from the people who aren't. But I support doing that by measuring the traits in question, you (apparently) support doing that by looking for correlated indicators like skin color and configuration of dangly bits.

Trying to justify this with your dog example is pretty brainless, and I expect more from someone who claims to respect science. Dog breeds work in a very different way from human races, for a number of reasons too complex to get into, but the executive summary is that there is VERY little variation between different human races on planet earth. Most differences are extremely superficial, and even those differences are pretty minor. Now there are pretty large CULTURAL differences, but that is not genetics and it's not science...and it has nothing to do with race or gender.

Your last sentence is puzzling...just what in the hell does "proceed accordingly" mean? Because it SOUNDS like you're some skinhead who wants to wipe out all the inferior races, and I know that's not what you meant. But seriously, why do we have to DO anything? Who cares what differences are, and whether they may or may not exist? I see no obvious policy decisions that need to be based on an assumption of racial performance. So who gives a shit?

By the way, you were evasive enough that it's hard to nail down just what you think (although I can venture a guess), but our friendly biologist is certainly a racist. He's raising a question while claiming to already have the answer, without the smallest amount of evidence to support his viewpoint. As a scientist, he should know better than most what that generally means.

Dammit Rainsford, you always seem to be able to say exactly what I mean to say, but much better and more eloquently.

 

[RaiderJ]

Well, if I were to ever put together a sports team with 20 people or so of a specific race, they wouldn't be white.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Well, if I were to ever put together a sports team with 20 people or so of a specific race, they wouldn't be white.

Maybe, but ask yourself what level of cultural importance sports are in specific cultures.

Us Jews aren't known for our athletic ability, yet my friend was the #1 Tennis player in Vermont for a while (not a big deal, I understand, but still.) Furthermore, I was on the Varsity Alpine Ski Team (and skiied USSA) for all four years in High School and was in the top 10-15 each race out of over 100.

What I'm trying to say is that there might be a reason that the NBA and NFL are dominated by Black people, and it's not necessarily that black people are superior at these sports.

 

[Moonbeam]

Apparently Watson's comment was made of a Book Tour, which may cast a whole different light on his real intent.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Well, if I were to ever put together a sports team with 20 people or so of a specific race, they wouldn't be white.

Maybe, but ask yourself what level of cultural importance sports are in specific cultures.

Us Jews aren't known for our athletic ability, yet my friend was the #1 Tennis player in Vermont for a while (not a big deal, I understand, but still.) Furthermore, I was on the Varsity Alpine Ski Team (and skiied USSA) for all four years in High School and was in the top 10-15 each race out of over 100.

What I'm trying to say is that there might be a reason that the NBA and NFL are dominated by Black people, and it's not necessarily that black people are superior at these sports.

What are you saying it is?

The problem with the 'hey look how good blacks are at (sport) is that - and I don't mean teclis1023, and in fact compliment him on complimenting Rainsford - it's usually a 'racist' discussion, with tones of 'those people' stereotypes however innocent. I think a good example of that now is how if a sports team were to pick a name of the 'Cityname darkies' and a mascot of a big smiling black man's face with an afro, and to beat drums for the entertaining sideline shows, we'd all say how inappropriate it is; and yes, the Cleveland Indians have effectively done the exact same thing with Native Americans, a minstrel show, and I'm one of the people whose first reaction is 'it's harmless, they're just being silly and don't mean anything by it, why would they be offended', until I think of the black analogy, and I realize again how easy it is to be racist and offensive without any intent to.

It does help make it clear why the Minstrel shows we're so offended to look back at were considered ok in their day. The racism was so ingrained, people didn't understand it.

Usually, these things become clearer when you put yourself in their shoes, when you hear their point of view, when you make an analogy like the above.

There's a human tendency for a group to want to feel better than another group, but it's usually pretty destructive to both groups, IMO and should be fought. So I find the whole 'that race in that sport discussion', when it has tones of the racist issue as in 'they sure can jump but they're inferior in other ways' and such, to be unnecessary and possibly harmful. Not that it can't be discussed, if the context is kept clear of racism.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: RaiderJ
Well, if I were to ever put together a sports team with 20 people or so of a specific race, they wouldn't be white.

Which is a legitimate because it can be argued that sports in general in the US is much more popular in African American culture than it is in white culture, at least from the standpoint of wanting to pursue professinal sports. It's not because blacks are superior or inferior by nature IMO, I think it's purely a social phenomena.