Posted on 06/07/2014 5:58:40 AM PDT by Jack Black
A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, by Nicholas Wade (Penguin Press, 288 pp., $27.95)
In 2001, the New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial provocatively titled “Racial Profiling in Medical Research.” The author, Robert Schwartz, reiterated the commonly held view that no biological basis exists for race, and then argued that physicians should not consider race in their research or medical practice. This prompted a sharp response from geneticist Neil Risch, who pointed out that numerous studies had demonstrated significant genetic differences among humans based on continental ancestry, suggesting evidence of five distinct races. Among the reasons for recognizing such variations: research shows that people of different races sometimes vary in their responses to medicines.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
“But the Romans didn’t think of themselves and the Gauls and Germans as forming a “race.”
How could they? They were 6-12 inches shorter than the average Germanic tribesmen. They knew they couldn’t beat them (that Rome wasn’t “supreme”), and spent their waning years trying to buy them off until the whole thing collapsed. BTW, this explains why we speak English today (from Saxony) rather than a Romance language.
So ever since then I've been skeptical about the "expert's" view of racial differences. I knew there were real differences physically, then why not mentally? The world won't come to an end if the truth becomes known. Just many leftist's and assorted race-hustler's coveted careers will come to an end.
For the last fifty years or more, every time somebody mentioned black superiority in certain sports that emphasized speed and leaping ability, the self-appointed “experts” would bring up the exceptions thereby “proving” that there were no differences. I think the average person knew there were differences. Now it’s accepted by even many blacks from articles I’ve read. Why pretend? If fifty years of every American Olympic sprinter, of both sexes, being black isn’t overwhelming proof, I don’t know what is.
Likewise, measuring the ability to jump, sprint, sing, dance, eat watermelon, there is more variability(difference) amongst blacks and amongst whites than between whites and blacks.
To put that another way: There is more intra-genepool variability than inter-genepool variability
This applies to many other things. There is more variability in the quality of the trucks in Mexico and more variability in the quality of trucks in the US than there is variability between Mexican trucks and US trucks.
Let us pass by your somewhat hyperbolic comments about Roman vs. German height.
The Romans typically dominated the Germans in combat from the time of Marius (100 BC) till well into the 4th century. That's about 500 years during which the Romans generally, though not always, won the battles and the wars.
Rome collapsed because it disintegrated internally, not because it was conquered from the outside by the Germans, who merely took advantage of the Empire's weakness to grab what they could.
For decades world competition in sprints has been dominated by people of West African ancestry, and in long-distance running by people of East African ancestry.
Which just might indicate that our lumping these two groups together as “black” or “sub-Saharan Africans” or “Negroid” (old-school) may be mainly a result of our focus on cosmetic difference rather than deeper ones.
IOW, actual scientific study is likely to find that our three, or four, or five “races” is quite simplistic and often based on the wrong distinctions.
Personally, I dislike the word “race,” not because it is inaccurate, but because it carries a lot of baggage that makes it impossible to use without implying a lot of stuff you aren’t actually saying.
I wonder if it would be possible to discuss sub-species, a term used to describe long-isolated populations in the animal world that have differentiated from each other in significant ways, but not so much as to become separate species.
Or would that term also freak people out?
You are quite correct. However, I fail to see why the point is relevant.
There is much greater variability in strength and athletic ability, for example among women and among men than there is between the two groups.
Does not change the fact that men, as a group, are able to beat the crap out of women. That there are extraordinarily exceptional women who can beat up most men, and men who most women could beat up, also does not change the basic fact.
ka-ching
I don’t like the term race much either, because it suggests to many people different species. I don’t think the different peoples of the world are different species...they’re just different in a number of physical and mental respects. And it’s time the so-called “experts” admit as much.
Of course humans form a single species. But I would contend they are fairly obviously divided into a number of subspecies, just as many other animal species are.
BTW, the term “race” originally meant something very much along the line of subspecies, and is still used that way in botany and zoology, as in “landrace,” used to describe variants in a single species that have significant variability but are still interfertile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landrace
Maybe we could use the term landrace and confuse the hell out of the “antiracists!”
I am not promoting the practice, merely pointing out that most men are fully capable physically of implementing it if they so desire.
Genetics has nothing to do with racism. Is it racist to say a Thoroughbred is generally better at long races than a Quarter Horse? Is it racist to say a German Shepherd is a better security dog than a Golden Retriever? Is it racist to say that black people are better suited to playing basketball, that Dominicans are better suited to baseball, that white men dominate as quarterbacks, and NASCAR drivers?
There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that there are differences between races. As a former athlete (way long ago) I never had a problem getting along with any nationalities, although there were several in all the groups that I didn’t care to be around! There are d#@$heads in all races.
What happen is that almost none of those with European ancestry take sports as a serious career choice, and of those that do, they may demand a higher price or be more difficult to deal with (because they have other choices available to them) than black athletes of similar ability, which would also create a selection bias for blacks.
Black dominance in US sports is mainly a matter of selection bias, both by the individuals and sport institutions.
* in the statistical sense.
Lysenko v 2.0
In one battle in 9 AD the Roman Army lost 10% of its strength (of the global Roman Army); the fate of those troops wasn’t known for two years until troops again reached that area. There are no Roman ruins scattered throughout most of Germany; like Scotland they despaired of ever winning there. Winning border skirmishes that ground down Roman strength wasn’t a viable long-term strategy.
The height disparity between the two is well documented; I belong to neither group so have no horse in this race.
bump for later
Granted the “Bell Curve” for each group. That is not the point. The comparison is between groups.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.