January 12, 2010

Skin color

Eugene Robinson, my favorite Washington Post columnist, writes:
Harry Reid's comments were crudely put, yet true

Skin color among African Americans is not to be discussed in polite company, so Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's newly disclosed remark about President Obama -- that voters are more comfortable with him because he's light-skinned -- offended decorum. But it was surely true.

Color bias has always existed in this country. We don't talk about it because we think of color as subordinate to racial identification.

Some distinctions should be drawn: African-Americans talk about skin color amongst themselves a lot, while American whites mentally subscribe to a sort of one-drop rule of thumb that everybody who is part black is considered black unless the skin color, hair, and facial features suggest that the person is more than 50% white, such as Jason Kidd, Derek Jeter, and Mariah Carey. To be more than 50% white suggests that one of your parents might identify as white, which is an interesting thing to know about a celebrity. It's a very interesting thing to know about a Presidential candidate.

At the other end, whites don't particularly notice distinctions in dark skin color until it becomes so dark it takes on blue or purple highlights, such as Avatar-like basketball player Manute Bol and the fat girl in Precious. White people (and African-Americans as well) tend to be a little weirded out by blue, a color you don't see much of among mammals. But blueishness is very rare among African Americans, and not even that common among Africans -- you might see it in Senegal or Sudan but seldom in Nigeria.

... Advertising is a reliable window into the American psyche, so look at the images we're presented on television and in glossy magazines. The black models tend to be caramel-skinned or lighter, with hair that's not really kinky -- which is how I'd describe mine -- but wavy, even flowing. A few models whose skin is chocolate-hued or darker have reached superstar status, such as Alek Wek and Tyson Beckford, but they are rare exceptions.

The other obvious distinction Robinson skips ovver is that skin color and hair length matters far more to the success of African American female celebrities than to African American male celebrities. If you want to be a dancer in a rap video, you'd better be fairer-skinned than the rapper.

On the other hand, it's hard to remember exactly how dark or fair African American male celebrities are. It's just not a big issue for men. Looking at pictures of them together, I'd say that Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson are a little darker than average for African-Americans, while Will Smith is average to a little lighter than average. A lot of black athletes tend to be a little darker than normal because success in sports tends to correlate with having more West African genes. On the other hand, black intellectuals tend to be fairer than average.

Robinson goes on to make some good points about the Latin American way of defining races:

Skin color could hardly be a more conspicuous attribute, but we don't talk about it in this country. That's been a good thing.

I became interested in perceptions of color and race when I was The Post's correspondent in South America. On reporting trips to Brazil, a country with a history of slavery much like ours, I kept running across people with skin as dark as mine, or a bit darker, who didn't consider themselves "black." I learned that at the time -- roughly 20 years ago -- fewer than 10 percent of Brazilians self-identified as black. Yet at least half the population, I estimated, would have been considered black in the United States.

This was because American society enforced the "one-drop" rule: If you had any African blood at all, you were black. In Brazil, by contrast, you could be mulatto, you could be light-skinned, you could be "Moorish" brown, all the way to "blue-black" -- more than a dozen informal classifications in all. Color superseded racial identification. In Salvador da Bahia, I met a couple who considered themselves black but whose children were lighter-skinned. The children's birth certificates classified them as branco, or white.

The Brazilian system minimized racial friction on an interpersonal level.

Well, I would think the Brazilian system would causes huge amounts of sibling rivalry and resentment among sisters of different hues. Imagine if your sister is much fairer than you, and your parents invest (rationally) in dresses and dance lessons for your sister to enable her to marry up in society, while skimping on you as a hopeless case. That happens less under the American one-drop rule, although it still happens.

The American system fostered such friction, through formal and informal codes that enforced racial segregation. But our "one-drop" paradigm also created great racial solidarity among African Americans, while maximizing our numbers. We fought, marched, sat in, struggled and eventually made tremendous strides toward equality. The most recent, of course, was Obama's election, which is difficult to imagine happening in Brazil -- or, for that matter, in any other country where there is a large, historically oppressed minority group.

Brazil has now begun addressing long-standing racial disparities through affirmative action initiatives. But the upper reaches of that society -- the financial district in Sao Paulo, say, or the government ministries in Brasilia -- are still so exclusively white that they look like bits and pieces of Portugal that somehow ended up on the wrong side of the ocean.

American society's focus on race instead of color explains why what Harry Reid said was so rude. But I don't think it can be a coincidence that so many pioneers -- Edward Brooke, the first black senator since Reconstruction; Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice; Colin Powell, the first black secretary of state -- have been lighter-skinned. Reid's analysis was probably good sociology, even if it was bad politics.

There's a simpler explanation for why successful black athletes are blacker on average than successful black academics.

Anyway, I'm interested in whether anybody has studied how well the upper ranks of African Americans have managed to preserve their social systems for marrying their daughters off to young men who could pass the paper bag test? The Black Is Beautiful revolution of the 1960s drove them underground. Yet, the recent interracial dating movie Something New showed that the light-skinned elite still have debutante's balls, but how well do the upscale African-American elders succeed in keeping their fair daughters out of the manly arms of blacker men?

111 comments:

yellow shirt said...

"but how well do the upscale African-American elders succeed in keeping their fair daughters out of the manly arms of blacker men?"

We can't keep upscale blonde women from going with black men, so I don't think this problem will last long in the black community.

winthrop said...

Robinson may be right that there is less racial friction among Brazilians, but there's more overall social friction because the aggressive black gene is more prevalent throughout the population.

"CITY OF GOD". Need I say more?

beyond zion said...

One of the annoying aspects of black or liberal social thought is that light-skinned blacks tend to be more successful in professions or careers requiring brain power because white society favors light-skinned blacks over dark-skinned blacks. There was some truth to this in the past, but this hasn't been true for a long time.

The real reason for the light/dark divide in this.
Light-skinned blacks tend to have more white genes, thus tend to be more intelligent and less wild/aggressive. They are intellectually and emotionally more suited to using brains and working patiently/diligently.
It's true that Colin Powell was put on the fast-track to success, but he was indeed a hard worker. And, keep in mind that Clarence Thomas, though very dark, was embraced by conservatives for having the right--or rightist--credentials.

And, look at some of the most successful black actors: Poitier, Samuel Jackson, Freeman, and Whoopie Goldberg. Very black. Even Denzel is more black than light. Jamie Foxx isn't totally black but he looks very African.

And the reason why so many female dancers and singers are light-skinned is because black males want it that way. A rapper prefers white girls or whitesque black girls.

And, hair and facial characteristics matter too. Black men prefer baldness or nappiness but black women straighten their hair. Looks ugly in my opinion, but oh well.
I think most blacks would prefer a dark black person with white facial features than a light-skinned black person with African facial features.

Finally, there is some degree of correlation between color and personality. Since lighter blacks have more white genes, they tend to be less abrasive than darker blacks. (Of course, some light blacks try harder to be aggressive and funky just to prove they aint no oreo sell-outs).

At any rate, the real problem is not with whites but with blacks who demand what is 'rightfully theirs' without effort on their part. Just look at Jayson Blair of NY Times. White and Jewish liberals went out on a limb to help his lazy crazy ass, but he blamed EVERYONE but himself.

Joe Cinemapack said...

I'll tell you one place where it doesn't help to be a lighter skinned black: Africa. Just ask the albinos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6eoa8tlYaU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugMZvmkWAOU

SSWPL Stuff stupid white people like.

Anonymous said...

"But the upper reaches of that society ... look like bits and pieces of Portugal that somehow ended up on the wrong side of the ocean."

Which leads me to wonder how long Robinson spent in Brazil. The uber-successful are descendants of Dutch planters.

Alat said...

Two small points about Eugene Robinson's account:

The children's birth certificates classified them as branco, or white.

This is untrue: Brazilian documents do not list race (or "race"). There is a proposal for them to start doing so in Congress, but it is being pushed by the racialist lobby, not the other way around...

The most recent, of course, was Obama's election, which is difficult to imagine happening in Brazil

That's because it already has, not that even Brazilians are generally aware of it. Look up João Maurício Wanderley, baron of Cotegipe - the son of a freedwoman who married into riches and became Prime Minister of the then Brazilian Empire. The reason he isn't claimed as a role model today? He was the last diehard defender of slavery, the one who told the Princess Imperial Isabel, after she signed the law abolishing slavery, "you've freed a people, but you've lost your crown".

There are many more like him. Another colorful character is Francisco Gê de Acaiaba Montezuma (he made up this Indian name as an adult), a powerful politician and founder of Brazilian 33º Freemasonry - and who was refused admittance in Washington DC hotels when visiting the U.S. in the 1830s. (His freemasonry connections smoothed things after he complained, though).

Alat said...

BTW, for disclosure, I'm Brazilian, socially "white" - with at least one black great-grandparent.

liamascorcaigh said...

In Irish "fear gorm" [far gurrum] means "black man" i.e. negro: "fear" = "man" (cf/Latin "vir") while "gorm" means "blue". This is applied to all of African heritage irrespective of skin shade.

"Dubh" [duv] means "black" but "fear dubh" means a white man with black (or very dark brown) hair.

"Bán" [bawn] means "white" but "fear bán" means a man with fair or light coloured hair.

"A white man" i.e. a Euro-Caucasian is "fear geal".

"Geal" [gyal] means "bright" as in "The day was bright".

Big Bill said...

Mr. Robinson is wrong regarding his "one drop rule". Every state has their own rule for determining who is white and who is black, and they vary all over the map. This "one drop" meme serves to heighten blacks' sense of victimhood and therefore is repeated endlessly, ad nauseum.

The reason this silliness is never countered is because state courts no longer determine matters of race. Race, as a practical matter is determined in state agency proceedings or by agencies that are specially designated to determine race for purposes of Federal or state handouts.

Those of us who have clients with the proverbial "one drop" and can prove said one drop through genealogical records know the drill after the second interview: the head wagglin' sistah from the Official Designated State And Federal Race Certifyin' Agency a cussin' and a swearin' that the client will never -- NEVER-- get a dime from the minority contracting program because the client just is not black enough "and I don' give a damn what those papers of yours say!"

jody said...

in the US, you have to be more than half european before most people begin to see you as not being part of the "black american" or "african american" category. people that are half european and half african are still considered by most to fall into the black or african group. somebody like vin diesel, who is more than half european, is the typical person who falls into this ambiguous area. he is free identify himself however he choses, but other people are not going to agree whether he should be considered as mixed race, simply white, simply black, both white and black at the same time, or whatever.

seeing as how a couple scientists have shown evidence that africans in the US are about 78% west african and 18% european, i think the term "black americans" is pretty accurate. it describes them fairly well as a unique group. not all the way african, but still pretty west african. note the distinction here between them versus north africans and east africans. black americans are not like north africans or east africans, putting barack obama outside of this group - as he should be. genetically he is not related in almost any way to black americans. indeed, it turns out that through his mother, he is a distant relative to people like dick cheney and warren buffett, the whitest of the white, the people who have "ruined" america, in short, the kind of guys who are considered to be "the man". evil old white men running the show from the behind the scenes.

obama is even far removed from black americans culturally, having nearly zero connection to the black american experience. he was never raised in the continental 48, and despite his pretenses of "understanding" black americans, it's literally impossible for him to relate to them on a personal level. he's never experienced life the way they have.

one thing that is not talked about much, even in HBD circles, is how particular european features become almost predominant in part african, part european people. when those two groups mix, the result is definitely not the one way phenotype it is usually described as. americans are much less used to seeing pure blooded west africans, and probably don't immediately notice that many black americans actually have predominantly european facial features. their noses become more like european noses, their ears and forehead and jaws often become more european, and their skin is dramatically fairer than a native nigerian's skin.

it is interesting just how powerful the MC1R mutation is in people from the western european islands. this mutation, which causes the skin and hair to have almost no pigmentation, resulting in red hair and freckles, can easily be passed directly to half european, half african children. blake griffin, the number 1 pick in the 2009 NBA draft, has an african father that is about as dark and pure blooded as can be, and a european mother with the MC1R mutation.

Anonymous said...

Economist Linda D. Loury (Glenn Loury's wife) has an interesting paper on this topic: "Am I Still Too Black For You?: Schooling and Secular Change in Skin Tone Effects"

http://ase.tufts.edu/econ/research/documents/2007/louryTooBlack.pdf

Abstract:

Analysts disagree about whether the Civil Rights/ Black Power eras lessened the influence of skin
tone on education. The paper finds that, holding family background constant, the educational disadvantages of dark and very dark blacks persisted between younger and older age cohorts. On the other hand, younger medium skin blacks no longer achieved less schooling than their lighter skin counterparts. This paper implies that, without the decline in skin tone effects for medium brown blacks, the racial gap between age cohorts would have remained larger.

OhioStater said...

Since you love IQ, I propose there may be a direct correlation between skin pigment and intelligence. Possibly the lighter skin blacks get the best of both worlds, black on-the-fly action, and white abstract reasoning.

If that is true, then there is nothing wrong with Harry Reid's comment as it means Obama's skin color proves he has the brains to do the job.

garbology said...

Seriously, how black does one have to be in order to be considered black? Suppose there's some guy who looks like Robert Redford but one of his great great great grandmother was black. Would he be socially or legally be considered black?
Clearly, having just one drop of black blood doesn't mean one's legally or socially black in America. It could be many white Americans be 0.5% black. Would blacks be okay with them applying for affirmative action?

I think your hair has to be kinda crinkly, your skin has to be somewhat shady-toned, or your facial features--nose or lips--have to be black-like. If not, you better put on one helluva act.

benton said...

There is more to blackness than color. Many Asian-Indians are darker-skinned than many American blacks, but we don't have the same kind of problem with the Bobby Jindals of the world that we have with blacks.

Blackness that really scares white folks is not skin color. It's muscle tone and stronger bones. If blacks get aggressive, they can beat up whites, Jews, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans, etc.
Also, blackness is also emotional--less inhibited and aggressive, which can be a plus in entertainment or sports but a huge minus in public places like buses, schools, work place, etc.

Anonymous said...

OT. This is what you call an honest politician.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOuumGX-6uc

Glossy said...

"We fought, marched, sat in, struggled and eventually made tremendous strides toward equality. The most recent, of course, was Obama's election, which is difficult to imagine happening in Brazil..."

Lula doesn't look wholly white to me. And neither did his predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. So it HAS happened.

Anonymous said...

"Lula doesn't look wholly white to me. And neither did his predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. So it HAS happened."

It may have happened even before the Latinos came to the Americas since Spain and Portugal had been under Moorish control for some time.

ben tillman said...

Blackness that really scares white folks is not skin color. It's muscle tone and stronger bones. If blacks get aggressive, they can beat up whites, Jews, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans, etc.

That's not the problem for most non-blacks. The problem is that black violence is unleashed over such trivial matters or for no reason at all.

anony-mouse said...

Interesting to note the very black people on the right

Thomas, Condi Rice, Sowell, Steele, Innis.

Of course if you're saying that Black conservatives are less smart than...

TheGheyOracle said...

Steve,

A pity that you play into the Left's hands when addressing racial groups. Blacks get the capitalized hyphenated-American treatment while Whites get the lower-case "w". :-(

Anonymous said...

"But the upper reaches of that society ... look like bits and pieces of Portugal that somehow ended up on the wrong side of the ocean."

Implicit in statements like this is the notion that population blocks of Portugese people in the world are somehow morally wrong. And the problem must be corrected by massive demographic transformations - via the continous infusion of African genes or something. Just like the slight over-representation of white quarterbacks is wrong but the massive under-representation of white cornerbacks is the natural order of things.

That's how it is... that's our reality... hmmm.... something about framing...

Anonymous said...

Blackness that really scares white folks is not skin color. It's muscle tone and stronger bones. If blacks get aggressive, they can beat up whites, Jews, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans, etc.





I see a lot of this nonsense in HBD land. Apart from nerds, most people don't go around obsessing over the supposed phyisical superority of black people.

I got into plenty of fights with blacks during my time in the army. I never noticed their mythical ability to beat me up though.

Cicero said...

Cardoso claimed he has Black ancestry, it just not clear who that ancestor was as his family is well documented to at least the 18th century. Many of them were senior generals in the Brazilian Army.

Lula is definately mixed-race, but in appearence he looks rather Portuguese, with no real obvious traits from other ancestors. He comes from a part of the country where Indian influence was at least as important as the African, so that may have something to do with it. He's probably mostly Portuguese by ancestry anyway.

Brazil is a strange country, but not as bad as many of the people here are making out to be. The murder rate has been rapidly dropping for half a decade now, wages are up, they are independant from foreign suppliers of energy, and they build large amounts of cars and other heavy machinery in their own factories.

America could stand to resemble Brazil a little more in that regard.

Uncle Peregrine said...

Eugene Robinson has a good book about this, _Coal to Cream_.

Anonymous said...

Gets complicated. Check into the "quadroon balls" of New Orleans in the first half of the 1800's.In this case people keep rediscovering what's been old hat for a long time.

Anonymous said...

"Blackness that really scares white folks is not skin color. It's muscle tone and stronger bones. If blacks get aggressive, they can beat up whites, Jews, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans, etc."

Bullshit, fighting one on one is nearly exclusively a western European thing; black guys simply do not fight one on one, not without weapons anyway. And when they do fight, they're not very good. Black guys are shorter than whites and, if I recall correctly, more obese. Yes, they have some advantages over whites in fights, but so do we have advantages over them, namely our brains.

When I hear a person say that black guys are tougher than white guys I know that person is either a woman, or a pansy who never played ball with black guys or fought a black guy. I've done both and I am telling you: black guys are NOT TOUGH - please stop spreading this falsehood.

Jayant Kamat said...

"Blackness that really scares white folks is not skin color. It's muscle tone and stronger bones."
Northern Euros and Eastern Euros are quite big and strong too as they regularly win the strongest men competitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Strongest_Man
But non-black, non-White races do not tend to be that scared of them as they are of blacks. Indeed most want to stay in their societies. I guess most people tend to consider blacks as wild, un-predictable creatures.

Jayant Kamat said...

I believe the one drop rule has played a positive role in keeping White American IQ high. I mean if European genes can raise black IQ, black genes would bring down White American IQ. White Americans were much more open to accepting Native American genes than black African genes. I guess since Native American IQ was only about 10 IQ points behind blacks, they were perceived to be much more intelligent and more physically appealing than blacks during the early days of the U.S.A.

Marlo said...

"Imagine if your sister is much fairer than you, and your parents invest (rationally) in dresses and dance lessons for your sister to enable her to marry up in society, while skimping on you as a hopeless case. That happens less under the American one-drop rule, although it still happens."

This is an interesting point, and I think anyone who compares the two racial classification systems would agree that this type of favoritism/borderline obsession with euro features, occurs more often in Latin America.

However, I have to disagree with your reasoning as to why it's less common in the U.S. I think people from Latin America, and Latin Europe as well, just tend to be a bit more vain than their Anglo counterparts, at least when it comes to physical appearance. This is probably why a Brazilian family would openly express their favoristism and desire for whiter skinned grand kids etc.

Nations of western European heritage are vain too, but the vanity is usually centered on things like money and smarts, rathern than looks alone. So while an Afro-American family might find caucasian features more aestetically pleasing, they would be less likely to openly express their thoughts to their more euro-looking kids and instead, would encourage their kids to "look beyond" the exterior or something to that effect.

Julian said...

Steve, I was interested by your remark that people are "weirded out" by blue because it is a colour not seen much among mammals. I think this is generally true, at least among primates. Green is also uncommon.

This is the so-called blue monkey:

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/image/312

which seems to be "blue" in the same way as some human blacks are almost blue. We are getting quite a lot of Sudanese here in Australia now, as refugees. They are really amazing-looking people, very tall, very thin, and their physiognomy is quite unlike that of West Africans, for example. Some of them may be dark enough to be "blue".

The Sudanese are like Australian Aborigines, obviously adapted for great heat, with similar very thin limbs.

There is also the bright blue facial display on the mandrill:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandrillus

and the bright blue scrotum of the vervet monkey:

http://www.monkeyland.co.za/modules/article/dbimages/article/vervets_3.jpg

The dusky leaf monkey of Asia has a bluish face.

But blue primates are indeed generally rare.

RGH said...

Tom Wolfe captured black sensitivity to skin color with his usual brilliance in his short story "The Commercial." It was his first published fiction.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Since you love IQ, I propose there may be a direct correlation between skin pigment and intelligence. Possibly the lighter skin blacks get the best of both worlds, black on-the-fly action, and white abstract reasoning.

Where is the gene for "black on-thefly action," and where do I get it? And what does it mean vis-a-vis...oh, anything?


American whites mentally subscribe to a sort of one-drop rule of thumb that everybody who is part black is considered black unless the skin color, hair, and facial features suggest that the person is more than 50% white, such as Jason Kidd, Derek Jeter, and Mariah Carey. To be more than 50% white suggests that one of your parents might identify as white, which is an interesting thing to know about a celebrity. It's a very interesting thing to know about a Presidential candidate.

Crap, Steve - technically Barack Obama is "more than 50% white," since he received more than 50% of his genes (ca. 51-52%) from his white mother. Yet Americans certainly don't stick him in the "white guy" category.

With the folks you mentioned it has more to do with the fact that besides having one fully white parent they also have a black parent with a fair number of white genes that they inherited.

One is less likely to see that when one of the black parents is of African origin, and thus less likely to have a slaveowner inthe family tree. Barack Obama is still pretty dark-skinned compared to most mixed race Americans.

wellery said...

"I see a lot of this nonsense in HBD land. Apart from nerds, most people don't go around obsessing over the supposed phyisical superority of black people.
I got into plenty of fights with blacks during my time in the army. I never noticed their mythical ability to beat me up though."

I grew up in an integrated neighborhood. 30% white, 25% black, 20% Hispanic, 25% other. Blacks were by far the toughest and they knew it, and non-blacks knew it. I'd say in all the fights between whites and blacks, it was like 19 to 1 in favor of whites. Usually, most white guys just backed down instead of fighting blacks. Smart move.

wassup said...

"Blackness that really scares white folks is not skin color. It's muscle tone and stronger bones."
Northern Euros and Eastern Euros are quite big and strong too as they regularly win the strongest men competitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Strongest_Man
But non-black, non-White races do not tend to be that scared of them as they are of blacks. Indeed most want to stay in their societies. I guess most people tend to consider blacks as wild, un-predictable creatures.


Look, blacks are not interested in stupid sports like tractor pulling. Not much pay. And huge Nigerian blacks have better things to do than pull train with ropes. They're too busy robbing and stealing to feed their families.

But, let us assume that the strongest INDIVIDUALS are indeed white. They are freaks of nature. Generally speaking, your average black guy is more muscular than an average white guy. And in football, how come the elite power positions--running backs and defensive linemen--go to blacks? Defensive linemen must have explosive power to break through the offense to sack the quarterback. Watch any football game and the defensive linemen are mostly black, offensive linemen are mostly white--though whites are gradually losing out in those positions too.

Also, strength alone won't win fights. A brown bear may be bigger and stronger than a tiger, but a tiger has been known to kill bears twice their weight and size. Tigers are not only explosively strong--more fast twitch muscle--but better coordinated, fiercer, and sharper than bears. Why is it that Joe Louis defeated a lot of white guys bigger than he? Some white guys are bigger but they tend to have higher fat-to-muscle ratio and more slow-twitch muscles than fast-twitch muscles.

Remember the Coetzee white hope in the 80s from South Africa? He was indeed of tough Germanic Afrikaner stock. But, he was no match for Tate and Mike Weaver.

wellery said...

I mean 19 to 1 in favor of blacks. My bad.

Otis the Sweaty said...

The point about black conservatives having darker skin is irrelevent because all the black conservatives mentioned besides Thomas have extremely white features.

In fact, in the case of Michael Steele, he actually looks like a white guy doing a lame black face routine. His facial features, personality and bodily gestures are white. It's really weird.

catperson said...

"The point about black conservatives having darker skin is irrelevent because all the black conservatives mentioned besides Thomas have extremely white features."

Condi has very typical black features, at least in the eyes of cartoonists:

http://www.thewideawakecafe.com/?p=1111

David said...

Blacks tend to fight in packs. The old saying is, "You mess with one, you mess with them all."

Whites tend not to have the same cohesion.

gig said...

Obama's election, which is difficult to imagine happening in Brazil

Nilo Peçanha, as black as Obama wrt to ancestry, with the plus of being actually the son of a slave mother, was President of Brazil from 1909 to 1910. Simple maths shows that it was 100 years before Obama. In the 1920s the first black supreme court judge was also nominated.

or, for that matter, in any other country where there is a large, historically oppressed minority group.

what could possibly explain that blacks in Brazil occupied the lower echelons of the social pyramid?? We all know that whenever Latins/Southern Europeans are involved, the rules of HBD cease applying.Only pure, harsh and evil bigotry could explain why Brazilian whites are above Brazilian blacks in the social pyramid

The superior race, the Nordic race, has taught us that whenever Latin American whites are to be judged, their societies should be judged as if there were absolutely no differences between Amerindians, Africans and Europeans. The rule extends to Southern Europe. Paleocons hate "whites" of southern european ancestry with the same passion that neocons hate Eastern Slavs.


But the upper reaches of that society -- the financial district in Sao Paulo, say, or the government ministries in Brasilia -- are still so exclusively white that they look like bits and pieces of Portugal that somehow ended up on the wrong side of the ocean

I live and work in one of that places and assure you that no one in California is taxed the way we are to sustain a disfunctional NAM population.

Anyway, why exactly it is wrong that Mexicans alter the racial balance in places like New England, who look bits of England that somehow ended in the wrong side of the ATlantic, while it is morally imperative that the racial landscape of Brasilia and Sao Paulo becomes more diverse?

What, I beg to those fortunate enough to don´t have a drop of Southern European blood in their veins, could possibly explain that public servants in Brasilia, chosen by public exams that largely correlate with IQ tests, are almost entirely white?

What could ever explain that such G-intensive jobs like those in the financial markets on Brazil could be almost entirely done by whites (with a non negligible amount of japanese)????

catperson said...

"Crap, Steve - technically Barack Obama is "more than 50% white," since he received more than 50% of his genes (ca. 51-52%) from his white mother. Yet Americans certainly don't stick him in the "white guy" category."

What in the world are you talking about? If anything Obama is more than 50% black because his father is virtually 100% pure black while his mother is a white American and thus probably 1% black making Obama 50.5% black, and thus objectively black.

The reason Obama doesn't look black is because his father is East African. My theory is that caucasoid shaped skulls and facial features first evolved in East Africa right before humans left Africa 60,000 years ago and branched into the middle east where they evolved into full blown caucasoids with lighter skin.

I suspect East Africans are the missing link between negroids and caucasoids and thus retained the skin and hair of their negroid ancestors but the facial features and skull shape of their caucasoid descendants.

Ethiopians are especially non-black looking because in addition to being East Africans (and thus incipient caucasoids), they also have substantial ancestry from full blown caucasoids from the middle east. They are like Obama, but darker because their caucasoid ancestry comes from the middle east and also because there's been selection for dark skin in Ethiopia since the middle east admixture occured. Ethiopians like Obama also do better socio-economically in the U.S. than blacks and Afro-multiracials of West African descent.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who uses American professional sports to argue for black "toughness" superiority is simply brainwashed. There are massive layers of discrimination that keep Whites out of the NFL.

Not the least of which is the 2 year advantage in puberty onset that black boys enjoy.

Steve has commented upon the advantage in hockey that being born earlier in the year confers. The advantages in development cascade up the success-chain all the way to the highest level because the less developed are constantly weeded out.

Apply the same logic to a TWO YEAR developmental advantage.

Also, throw in a systematic pro-black racial discrimination plan called affirmative action in college admissions.

Throw in the effects of "soft" bias in expectations (like Gerhart being told by other colleges he would have to play blocking back).

Using the NFL to "prove" racial athletic superiority is PURE IGNORANCE.

Jayant said...

I said "since Native American IQ was only about 10 IQ points behind blacks,"

Sorry I meant "since Native American IQ was only about 10 IQ points behind Whites and ahead of way ahead of blacks,"

Templar said...

We can't keep upscale blonde women from going with black men

Sure we can. We just aren't trying.

Templar said...

Look, blacks are not interested in stupid sports like tractor pulling. Not much pay.

Ah yes, the old "there's no money in it" line...

stari_momak said...

Whatever happened to 'the blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice?"

Svigor said...

Wassup is wrong to deny that whites (more appropriately, Caucasoids) dominate strength roles, but correct to point out that power and strength are two different things.

Power is the intersection of strength and fast-twitch muscle fiber, and blacks seem to have an edge (though whites coming out of eastern Europe and into boxing have dashed much of the black boxing hype). Wassup points out defensive linemen but neglects offensive linemen, where whites do well; the former places a premium on speed as well as strength, the latter is far less dependent upon speed.

Muscularity (and definition) isn't strength, either. I've wrestled a few of of those black guys you see, the naturally muscular never-touched-a-weight-bench types who looked stronger than me but I manhandled them.

Svigor said...

Oh, and how is it the word "colorism" hasn't shown up yet, as that's the subject?

Anonymous said...

"Muscularity (and definition) isn't strength, either. I've wrestled a few of of those black guys you see, the naturally muscular never-touched-a-weight-bench types who looked stronger than me but I manhandled them."

There's a pretty good correlation though. A muscular guy is likely stronger than a flabby guy.

Maybe the black dude let you win because he wanted to get it over as quickly as possible. He might have thought, 'man, this white dude touching me like he's gay.'

Svigor said...

I don't see how flabby or defined really correlate with strength. Strength is about muscle, and putting a layer of fat over it doesn't make it go away.

Maybe the black dude let you win because he wanted to get it over as quickly as possible. He might have thought, 'man, this white dude touching me like he's gay.'

True. The secret to winning a wrestling match is to rub your opponent's balls. Will to power, baby.

Obviously anecdotal evidence is weak, I'm just throwing my two cents in there.

Svigor said...

I mean, it seems obvious to me that the physical end of offensive lineman is overwhelmingly strength. Ever seen the guts on those guys?

Svigor said...

Throw in the effects of "soft" bias in expectations (like Gerhart being told by other colleges he would have to play blocking back).

The best argument I've heard for systemic discrimination against whites at "skill" positions in the Gerhart context is, "try and imagine the odds of the only white NCAA starting tailback winning all the year's records if white guys can't cut it at tailback." (I don't know if he's actually the only starter) Not a decisive argument, but it's good enough to start an investigation in my book.

TGGP said...

Surprised nobody mentioned that Spike Lee movie.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the black dude let you win because he wanted to get it over as quickly as possible. He might have thought, 'man, this white dude touching me like he's gay.'




I doubt that, as one of the black dudes in question (I'm the guy who was in the army) ended up in the hospital for stitches to the face and internal bleeding.

Nothing officially came of it, as he started the fight and the chain of command knew what a trouble maker he was.

Anonymous said...

I grew up in an integrated neighborhood. 30% white, 25% black, 20% Hispanic, 25% other. Blacks were by far the toughest and they knew it, and non-blacks knew it.




I guess one advantage I had was that I never "knew" I was supposed to lose. But I've noticed that same whipped-before-you-start attitude on the part of lots of other whites. I can't blame blacks for looking down on them.

Anonymous said...

Slightly OT:

Watch this news report on black Iraqis and the discrimination they endure. Apparently, Iraq had African slaves like the US and their descendants are now living among the Arab population.

I thought it was interesting that the Arabs refer to themselves as 'white' because most of them would not pass as white in the US. I also thought it was interesting that the white Arabs look down upon intermarriage with the blacks.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/201011153951276431.html

Anonymous said...

Gig - Paleocons hate "whites" of southern european ancestry with the same passion that neocons hate Eastern Slavs.

Do they? You got documentary and/or anecdotal evidence for that, or was that an ironic statement?

Brazil isn't that friendly said...

Actually, in the NFL, not much of a premium is put on strength when it comes to defensive linemen. The emphasis is on speed. The blacks cannot keep up at all in the strength department. Here's one for you that most people aren't aware of: The media stopped having the "NFL's Strongest Man" competition because blacks couldn't come close to placing, never mind winning. Here's something else that's little talked about, and I would bet Mr. Sailer himself is unaware. If you get rid of the hype from the NFL combine(s) and look at the raw data, watch ALL of the testing and competition, whites dominate even though they are a minority of the participants - for reasons that are too numerous to go into in this post. Blacks dominate the 40 yard dash, but not as much as the media would lead you to believe. Whites actually tend to beat the blacks in the shuttle run, but ESPN etc show footage that makes the public believe blacks dominate. Strength is no contest, so it isn't mentioned, and some tests were eliminated/changed so blacks wouldn't look so bad in comparison to whites. Blacks tend to have an advantage in speed - but it's not as great as advertised, but do not have an advantage in overall power, and whites in fact dominate strength tests etc far more than blacks dominate sprint testing. The vertical leap tests are conducted in hilarious manner in order to give blacks and whites exaggerated verticals. From a true standing position, no step, most of these guys could not break 30 inches.

In boxing, it's actually E. Europeans dominating in the heavyweight division, but in the other divisions it's been whites from all over who have taken the mantle of superiority from blacks from 150 lbs through heavyweight. If so many white champs hadn't retired last year, whites would hold even more belts. Blacks are getting walloped for the most part at 150 lbs and under by the hispanic fighters, but you'd never know it from American TV. Here's another thing people can check out: the UFC is actually ignoring lots of white MMA fighters in order to increase the number of black and brown fighters / champions. Why? Because they want a major TV / Cable contract in the US. The usual suspects in the media said the UFC's stable of champs wasn't minority friendly enough. That should explain some of what people are seeing. Yes, there is discrimination against whites in certain sports because these sports are used for social conditioning.

brazil is wonky said...

"Actually, in the NFL, not much of a premium is put on strength when it comes to defensive linemen. The emphasis is on speed. The blacks cannot keep up at all in the strength department."

Speed and strength are related if not identical. Leaner and smaller people tend to be speedier than bulkier people. But, if you control for weight and body size, the stronger person is also the faster person. If you have two guys who are 180 lb in weight and 6 ft in height, the stronger guy will be the faster guy.

Also, blacks concentrate on overall performance, not on freakshows like who can bench the most in the NFL. A white guy may do a lot more weight lifting and be stronger in the chest, but when you take the body as a whole, from neck to toe, black muscle power is more evenly and formidably distributed. It's not just in his chest but in the legs, shins, calfs, arms, neck, etc.

Anonymous said...

Whites outperform blacks in tests of overall physical strength by a fair margtin, as well as in specific tests (areas) of strength. Blacks outperform whites when it comes to speed, especially running, but not necessarily quickness. Asians tend to outperform both blacks and whites in flexibility, and like whites can outperform blacks when it comes to quickness. I can remember being part of a group of athletes tested back in the 1980's (by Gideon Ariel). Blacks are built for running fast, but despite muscularity (due to low subcutaneous fat, their fat is concentrated in the buttocks, which keeps the rest of the body cool in a hot climate) whites of similar size were much stronger head to toe. It's not that blacks don't concentrate on things like who can bench the most. Only someone who hasn't been in a gym or actually competed would say that. It's that blacks, like whites and others, stick to what they are good at. They are not outstanding competitors in strength events. The few that come along who do well in a strongman competition or the shot put receive far more press than their white compatriots, but even then it usually turns out these days that they are half white, like one well known 'black' competitor today in the shot put (yeah, he's an adoptee, and apparently each of his parents is half white).

I know Steve Sailer feels blacks would do better in the throws if they concentrated on them, but I think the only reason you see blacks at all doing well at the HS level in the throws is because most of them mature earlier than whites. I saw one great black HS shot putter overtaken by whites when we were in college and he was not a guy concentrating on football. The white kids caught up in physical maturity and kept getting stronger. This guy was faster than most shot putters however. Btw, the bench press is not the best indicator of upper body strength. A lot of guys, white, black, blue will put up great numbers because of huge ribcages or even thick layers of fat, which allows them to move the bar very little when dropping it to their chest (no need to get into the area of Inzer shirts, etc). The deadlift can be dominated by a weaker athlete if he has long arms and his spine goes into an "s" curve when lifting. This is why so many Russians for years and years laughed at our powerflifters, calling the sport "cheat-lifting". I don't think that's quite the case, but to get an idea of strength, one needs more than two or three lifts, so there's room to bark back at the Olympic lifters.

Blacks are fast and nimble. Whites are slower but stronger with better endurance. We could get into the E. African distance runners, who can run all day, but they're about the weakest guys you can find in terms of muscular strength. On the bikes, when measuring power, these athletes didn't generate much. It takes more than endurance to make a great biker (EPO lol?), but it's doubtful E. Africans will dominate that sport. I wonder when some of those of those very thin, and very numerous, people from India are going to give endurance sports a serious look. With those numbers, there has to be talent. They sure like field hockey.

Truth said...

"There are massive layers of discrimination that keep Whites out of the NFL.

Not the least of which is the 2 year advantage in puberty onset that black boys enjoy."

Yeah, I hate that "layer of discrimination!" How are we going to get that class-action going against God?

"Sure we can. We just aren't trying."

I agree; beating the shit out of them worked pretty well for a few hundred years.

"Wassup points out defensive linemen but neglects offensive linemen, where whites do well; the former places a premium on speed as well as strength, the latter is far less dependent upon speed."

Offensive line also is Much more dependent upon working as a team. It's 5 guys taking signals from the center to stop 3-6 other guys. The five really don't know until the ball is snapped.

Defensive line is more or less making a move and trying to knock the snot out of the guy with the ball.

"The media stopped having the "NFL's Strongest Man" competition because blacks couldn't come close to placing, never mind winning."

Best I could find, the Nfl's fastest man and strongest man both had their last pro-bowl competition in 2007 Casey Hampton (black) was the runner up, Larry Allen (black) won in 2006 and is widely regarded as the strongest man in the NFL.

Besides, if the media were so against running an event in which "blacks couldn't compete" why do they have the QB skills competition every year, you buffoon?

Otis the Sweaty said...

I'm going to choose to believe that the post about there being a conspiracy to keep whites out of the NFL was a parody; because the alternative is just to horrifying to contemplate

Anonymous said...

I don't know if you realize this, gig, but those quotes you are complaining about were made by Eugene Robinson, a black newspaper columnist. Keep that in mind when you whine about those quotes revealing how paleocon "Nordicists" hate Southern Europeans.

what could possibly explain that blacks in Brazil occupied the lower echelons of the social pyramid?? We all know that whenever Latins/Southern Europeans are involved, the rules of HBD cease applying.Only pure, harsh and evil bigotry could explain why Brazilian whites are above Brazilian blacks in the social pyramid

Robinson, not an HBD proponent, is the one whining about blacks being a "historically oppressed minority group" in Brazil.

Anyway, why exactly it is wrong that Mexicans alter the racial balance in places like New England, who look bits of England that somehow ended in the wrong side of the ATlantic, while it is morally imperative that the racial landscape of Brasilia and Sao Paulo becomes more diverse?

What kind of nonsense is this? I don't know anyone who does not want Mexicans to alter the racial balance in United States but thinks it is morally imperative for the racial landscape of Brasilia and Sao Paolo to become more diverse. Again, it is Robinson, not Sailer or a "paleocon who hates Southern Europeans," who is complaining about the racial landscape in Brasilia and Sao Paulo.

Anonymous said...

his mother is a white American and thus probably 1% black

No.

Marc B said...

"The uber-successful are descendants of Dutch planters."

And the successful Portuguese are nearly as light-complected and white featured as the successful Dutch.

Anonymous said...

"Whites outperform blacks in tests of overall physical strength by a fair margtin, as well as in specific tests (areas) of strength. Blacks outperform whites when it comes to speed, especially running, but not necessarily quickness."

More nonsense. Since white guys have less chance of making it into the NFL or NBA, they tend to specialize in lots of freak show athletics, the kind that makes it into the guiness book of world records. It's the only way they gain attain their 15 min of fame. So yes, there may be rare white guys who developed certain physical skills by concentrating solely on them--just like Hindu yogis do amazing things with their bodies. But, those are freak show whites, not your average whites. Besides, most blacks don't go into freak show stuff because that stuff is 'gay' to them. Blacks prefer NBA, the NFL, or the streets.

Now, go to any integrated school and ask all the guys to take over their clothes. Blacks will be more muscular. Ask all blacks and whites in the school to do chin-ups and bench presses. Based on my extensive observation, a black guy can benchpress 30-40 lbs more than a white guy. If a white can do five chin ups, the black guy can do 8 or 10. Now, this is all things being equal. In other words, both blacks and whites having been exposed to same level of athletic training or lack thereof.

Of course, there are some Brock Lesnar-types who pumped weights 8 hrs a day. Of course, he would be stronger than most blacks. But, that's just freakshow reality and has no bearing on overall reality.

Svigor said...

Speed and strength are related if not identical. Leaner and smaller people tend to be speedier than bulkier people. But, if you control for weight and body size, the stronger person is also the faster person. If you have two guys who are 180 lb in weight and 6 ft in height, the stronger guy will be the faster guy.

That just isn't true. Ever heard of fast-twitch and slow-twitch?



Also, blacks concentrate on overall performance, not on freakshows like who can bench the most in the NFL.

Lol.

A white guy may do a lot more weight lifting and be stronger in the chest, but when you take the body as a whole, from neck to toe, black muscle power is more evenly and formidably distributed.

Evidence?

It's not just in his chest but in the legs, shins, calfs, arms, neck, etc.

Anyone who thinks blacks have stronger calves has been smoking crack. I suspect that goes for your whole argument, but it's just impossible to deny for calves. What are you, blind?

Svigor said...

Offensive line also is Much more dependent upon working as a team. It's 5 guys taking signals from the center to stop 3-6 other guys. The five really don't know until the ball is snapped.

Defensive line is more or less making a move and trying to knock the snot out of the guy with the ball.


True. My analogy is offense is creation, defense is destruction (with no value judgment implied).

Svigor said...

Yes, everyone ignores white dominance of endurance, in large part because endurance isn't as much fun to watch. Kenyans dominate middle-distance running (AKA marathon), not long-distance (AKA ultrarunning). Iron man football would probably have "disparate impact."

Anonymous said...

"Speed and strength are related if not identical. Leaner and smaller people tend to be speedier than bulkier people. But, if you control for weight and body size, the stronger person is also the faster person. If you have two guys who are 180 lb in weight and 6 ft in height, the stronger guy will be the faster guy."

"That just isn't true. Ever heard of fast-twitch and slow-twitch?"

People with more fast-twitch muscles are stronger than those with more slow-twitch muscles. Slow-twitch is for endurance, not power!!!!!

Anonymous said...

"Yes, everyone ignores white dominance of endurance, in large part because endurance isn't as much fun to watch."

Worse, endurance won't save your ass in an attack. 100 m sprinter meets marathoner in a street fight. Who's gonna win?
Will women prefer the muscular 100 m sprinter or a skinny marathoner?

Anonymous said...

One thing white guys should not participate in. WALKING race. This makes white men look so 'faggoty'. Black men and white women all laugh at this gayass shit.

Templar said...

Worse, endurance won't save your ass in an attack.

Yeah, that's why high-endurance Eastern European boxers do so poorly against American blacks.

Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that the jock sniffers here recognize affirmative action and anti-white bias in every other aspect of society but think athletics is an absolutely pure and pristine meritocracy. Do you really think athletics is magically immune from the same affirmative action and "diversity" bias that dominates our society?

Rushton is not infallible. Read the posts on Rushton at the race/history/evolutions notes blog.

give it up said...

"Worse, endurance won't save your ass in an attack."

"Yeah, that's why high-endurance Eastern European boxers do so poorly against American blacks.
Sheesh."

Best black athletes rarely go into boxing anymore. And, those tough Eastern Europeans are the rare whites with more-than-average fast twitch muscles.

It's not like all blacks are fast-twitch and all whites are slow-twitch. Rather, fast-twitch is more common among blacks than among whites.

There are some explosively fast white guys. Consider the white running back Steve Sailer's been talking about. Or, the Italian guy who held the record for 200 m sprint for a long time. They aint slow twitch fellars but the rare white guys with lots of fast twitch muscles.

Anonymous said...

http://castefootball.us/

ROTFLMAO. This is the funniest site I've ever come across.

I expect castechess.com soon, with white and black gentiles complaining that the Jews have conspired to keep them out.

Templar said...

Best black athletes rarely go into boxing anymore.

Right, and American cities will be wiped out by suitcase nukes if we don't invade Iran post-haste.

Seriously guys, that line is getting old.

Svigor said...

People with more fast-twitch muscles are stronger than those with more slow-twitch muscles. Slow-twitch is for endurance, not power!!!!!

Those with a higher proportion of slow-twitch are also stronger (I don't know enough to know if this is incidental, I just know Caucasoids dominate strength roles). And again, strength is not power.

Worse, endurance won't save your ass in an attack. 100 m sprinter meets marathoner in a street fight. Who's gonna win?

Depends (ignoring the marathoner vs. sprinter thing, and focusing on speed vs. endurance, anyway); if the guy with stamina takes the guy with the speed to the ground and tires him out, the guy with stamina wins.

Will women prefer the muscular 100 m sprinter or a skinny marathoner?

Ceteris paribus, they'll tend to prefer the sprinter. But sex appeal is never ceteris paribus.

P.S., if muscularity/definition=strength, then why are bodybuilders at their weakest during competitions?

Svigor said...

Best black athletes rarely go into boxing anymore. And, those tough Eastern Europeans are the rare whites with more-than-average fast twitch muscles.

How do we know the best eastern Europeans are in boxing? And how do we know Larry Allen's not a similar kind of "freak"?

Seems to me, if blacks had much of an advantage in boxing over eastern Europeans, they wouldn't need their best athletes to go into boxing in order to dominate it. Let's face it, SES and culture have a huge impact on boxing. It takes a special kind of dumbass to get punched in the face for a living. I suspect blacks have an edge, but it's been hyped out of proportion.

Anonymous said...

Best black athletes rarely go into boxing anymore.



That's like saying "the best Jewish athletes rarely go into boxing anymore". True, but why?

It's always been a sport dominated by people who occupy a certain socio-economic niche. One you stop occupying that niche, you stop dominating boxing. Muscles got nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...

Now, go to any integrated school and ask all the guys to take over their clothes. Blacks will be more muscular. Ask all blacks and whites in the school to do chin-ups and bench presses. Based on my extensive observation, a black guy can benchpress 30-40 lbs more than a white guy.





What sort of "extensive observations" are you doing where you ask guys to take off their clothes? What sort of "extensive observations" are you doing where you ask guys to do chin-ups and bench-presses?

There are some really odd people commenting around here. Really, really odd.

As somebody who's spent a good deal of time in the gym, I'd say this. Black guys in the gym are more serious and dedicated about working out than the average white guy. But for the same amount of exercise they are no more "built" or "ripped" than the white guys.

Anonymous said...

There are some really odd people commenting around here. Really, really odd.

It's primarily ONE really odd person who likes to write ALOT. I pointed this out earlier but Steve didn't see fit to publish my comment.

Truth said...

The best Eastern Europeans are in boxing because they don't have football and running around for 45 straight minutes on a soccer field just isn't a logical career choice for a 6'4 250lb. man.

BTW I am a boxing expert and historian, and a lot of the so called "European takeover" of boxing is phony.

There are two aspects to this; the first is that for a large powerful American man, going into boxing instead of football/ basketball is simply a bad business decision. There is no capital created in boxing until one AT LEAST makes the Olympic team. Even then you are still an unpaid sportsman. Only about 10 guys in boxing make real money, there are no cheerleaders around, there is 6 miles of roadwork to run every day, in addition to sparring and working a job, there are no benefits, no free education, nothing, your agent is a criminal (rather than the lawyer who would be representing you in the NFL, and, Oh yeah, and you job entails being punched in the face.

Secondly, boxing ratings are all politics, Obscure Eastern Europeans rocket up the rankings because their home countries simply pay for them. It works like this:

There is a Romanian cruiserweight who is 19-0 in his home country against nondescript competition; The sporting commission of Romania will contact the WBO, WBA, or WBC and offer a week's "scouting trip" to a few of the council's representatives. This is merely a vacation in Bucharest with all expenses paid. Meanwhile the black guy in Newark does not have a city government who is going to give a few commission officials a free week in NYC.

The investment to the EE country pays off multifold as it raises it's profile in the sporting world with a "world title" fight, brings in "wealthy" American journalists, trainers, etc. for a week, and raises it's tourist profile for a few thousand dollars. That's why so many mediocre Europeans hold specious titles.

With that said, today's Eastern Euro fighters are much better than the Western Euros of the 1970s.

BTW, there is some evidence toward whites having a slight edge in static upper body strength. Black fighters are well represented in all grappling sports; judo, freestyle wrestling, etc., with the exception of one: Grecco-Roman wrestling.

GR wrestling does not permit the quick shoots, etc. that other sports do as you are unallowed to touch your opponent below the waist. It is an indication of pure upper body strength, and I am unaware of there ever having been a great black GR wrestler.

hardy said...

"GR wrestling does not permit the quick shoots, etc. that other sports do as you are unallowed to touch your opponent below the waist. It is an indication of pure upper body strength, and I am unaware of there ever having been a great black GR wrestler."

You gotta be kidding. You mean the Cuban heavyweight champion in the 2008 Beijing Olympics wasn't black?

Enough Already said...

"Those with a higher proportion of slow-twitch are also stronger (I don't know enough to know if this is incidental, I just know Caucasoids dominate strength roles). And again, strength is not power."

I'm telling you, AGAIN, that super strong white guys have lots of fast-twitch muscles. They are the exception than the norm.

I suppose there is a kind of strength that isn't explosive-power-oriented, such as being able to hold 50 lbs over one's head for an hour. I will agree that there are different kinds of strengths. Explosive-power is one kind of strength, but it is crucial in most prestigious sports.

Mike Tyson and George Foreman were immensely strong and powerful. Tyson's speed cannot be separated from his power.

When white guys are big and strong, they tend to move slowly. Blacks guys can be big, strong, and fast. Muhammad Ali and Lawrence Taylor for instance.

And, black are more evenly muscular all over, which is why they are both great punchers and dodgers in boxing. Their body can move forward but also backward extremely fast. And up and down, left and right. Jake Lamotta had only one strategy: to plow in, and he could do this because he had an iron jaw. But, Sugar Ray Robinson could move forward, backward, up and down. And, compare Duran with Sugar Ray Leonard. Duran edged out a victory in the first fight by just brawling and charging in. In the second fight, Leonard used all the muscles in his body and moved in and out whereas Duran could only move forward--which is why he got clobbered by Hearns.

"Depends (ignoring the marathoner vs. sprinter thing, and focusing on speed vs. endurance, anyway); if the guy with stamina takes the guy with the speed to the ground and tires him out, the guy with stamina wins."

I dunno. Before stamina could come into play, Ali had already beaten Jerry Quarry, Holmes had already beaten Gerry Cooney, and Tyson had already beaten Botha. And, I've rarely seen white guys with more stamina than blacks in boxing. Ali had both great speed and great stamina. Hagler and Leonard too.

We all know Olympic boxing has become hopelessly corrupt, but still consider the results long ago. Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc had as strenuous a system in picking and training the best boxers as did Cuba, but that tiny island produced more hall-of-famers than the entire Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. Teofilio Stevenson won the gold three times. In 1992 Barcelona, Cuba took 9 out of 12 golds. Cuban population has many whites and blacks. There is no reason for the white dominated Cuban government to favor blacks in sports, but nearly all the best Cuban athletes in running, gymnastics, boxing, volley ball, baseball, etc are black. Why? Let's stop the BS. I know it hurts white male pride to admit that blacks are better in sports. But, all these rationalizations are sounding downright Gladwellian--like the stuff about there being the greatest number of physics geniuses in Africa. Enough already.

not egg, not young, just foo said...

"What sort of 'extensive observations' are you doing where you ask guys to take off their clothes? What sort of 'extensive observations' are you doing where you ask guys to do chin-ups and bench-presses?"

Like most people, I spent most of my youth in school, and sports, as you know, is a big part of school life.
Boys often play basketball or football with one team being 'shirts' and the other team being 'skin'. Over time, you come to see the differences in muscle tone. Also, lots of guys in track run around with their shirts off.

Also, gym teachers make every student do push ups and chin ups and record the data every year. It's evident from observation that blacks have an advantage in these areas. Also, in the spring and the long jump.

Also, school is where lots of kids get into fights or bully others. In my school, most interracial bullying was black-on-white, black-on-Asian, black-on-Hispanic. Most of the fights were between blacks and blacks since no one else would dare challenge blacks.

Why is there white flight, yellow flight, and even brown flight--not to mention middle class black flight? Too many thugs among blacks who are built like Hagler or Tyson.

Anonymous said...

Can white stamina beat black power? Ask Jim Jeffries who challenged Jack Johnson.

Anonymous said...

But for the same amount of exercise they are no more "built" or "ripped" than the white guys.

As someone who has been doing sports where there is an obvious black/white divide, I'd like to agree with this.

Although, American and Caribbean blacks certain sports, I don't see that they are any stronger or more 'ripped' or 'buffed' than white guys. In fact, most of the black guys I've known, both in the gym and socially are just as flabby as the average white guy.

Having said that, the dominance of Blacks in the 100m dash must be indicative of some natural advantage.

Non-Middletown Anonymous said...

Can white stamina beat black power? Ask Jim Jeffries who challenged Jack Johnson.

Let's see now.

'Jeffries stood 6 ft (183 cm) tall and weighed 225 pounds (102 kg) in his prime. He could run 100 yards (91 m) in just over ten seconds, and could purportedly high jump over 6 feet (180 cm).'

'On his way to the title in 1898, Jeffries knocked out Peter Jackson, the great black boxer '

'Six years after retiring, Jeffries made a comeback on July 4, 1910 at Reno, Nevada. He fought champion Jack Johnson, '

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Jeffries

The bout photograph that makes clear Jeffries is much leaner and more powerfully built than Johnson. While you're at it, ask Johnson abotu Jess Willard.

gumpkins said...

"Although, American and Caribbean blacks certain sports, I don't see that they are any stronger or more 'ripped' or 'buffed' than white guys. In fact, most of the black guys I've known, both in the gym and socially are just as flabby as the average white guy."

We live in different worlds. Just look at images of Africans in PBS documentaries. Or even Haitians or Jamaicans for that matter. Though they are malnourished by our standards, they are muscular and strong as hell. Ever see the movie 'BURN' by Pontecorvo? Every black guy is built like a Terminator.

In the summertime, many people go shirtless. Just compare the muscle tones of blacks to those of whites, Hispanics, and Asians. Many white, Hispanic, and Asian folks are intimidated by the sight alone.
In the NBA, compare the muscle tones in the arm areas between blacks and whites. Black muscles are better defined. Blacks also have stronger legs. I used to work part-time as store clerk in my student days. We used to get delivery from sodapop joints, and it was amazing what black guys could pull off the truck on the dollies. Hispanic and white workers had to carry much less load at a time. If a black guy could pull a stack of 16 cases, the Hispanic or white guy would go with 10.
Also, ever notice that even a lot of big white guys are scared of smaller black guys--like bigger black bears are scared of the smaller cougars? In grammar and highschool, even big white guys would be nervous about small black guys who had rock hard muscles and were fast and explosive as hell. Why is it that some bigger white guys cannot dunk the basketball while even little black guys can dunk it? Also, even white guys who can dunk the ball must often come to a full stop and jump with both feet whereas black guys can dunk it by just jumping on one feet. Compare Bill Laimbeer with Michael Jordan. I don't think Larry Bird ever dunked a ball.

It's true that many black guys are fat, but that's the same thing as being flabby. One can be muscular but have the muscles patted with layers of fat. A truly flabby person is mostly fat with little muscle. Thus, if you see a fat black guy and a fat white guy, it's likely that the black guy has more muscle underneath all that fat. This is why in a general shoving match between a fat white guy and fat black in the NFL, the black guy wins. Under the fat, the black guy has more muscle.

Middleweight Girl said...

"The bout photograph that makes clear Jeffries is much leaner and more powerfully built than Johnson. While you're at it, ask Johnson abotu Jess Willard."

Jeffries ducked most black boxers. After his defeat, he said he wouldn't have beaten Johnson in a hundred yrs.
Also, Johnson traveled all around the world and took on and beat up every white guy. (Wisely, he too ducked other black guys.) It wasn't even close. He finally lost to Jess Willard in a grueling match long past his prime, but he still didn't lose as badly as Jeffries lost to him. Look, Tyson eventually got beaten by some Irish Palooka, but what does that prove? I can beat the current Muhammad Ali with one hand tied behind my back.

Of course, a match between Johnson vs Jeffries in his prime would have been more suspenseful and closer. But, Johnson was clearly the better all-around boxer.

And who held the longest champ title in heavyweight boxing? Joe Louis. Who was the greatest middleweight of all time? Robinson or Hagler.

gumpkins said...

"It's true that many black guys are fat, but that's the same thing as being flabby."

I meant to say "It's true that many black guys are fat, but that's NOT the same thing as being flabby."

Anonymous said...

It's true that many black guys are fat, but that's the same thing as being flabby. One can be muscular but have the muscles patted with layers of fat. A truly flabby person is mostly fat with little muscle. Thus, if you see a fat black guy and a fat white guy, it's likely that the black guy has more muscle underneath all that fat.




Thus?

That word "thus" does not mean what you think it means. There is no "thus" there. The stuff after the "thus" has zero relationshp to the stuff before it.

I don't know about your body, but your mind is flabby as hell.

Anonymous said...

Ever see the movie 'BURN' by Pontecorvo? Every black guy is built like a Terminator.





Oh, well, if you saw it in a movie it must be true. Case closed. All black guys are built like Arnie.

Anonymous said...

Why is there white flight, yellow flight, and even brown flight--not to mention middle class black flight? Too many thugs among blacks who are built like Hagler or Tyson.




I think the problem there is violence, not the mythical fighting prowness of young black men. And your typical black criminal is built nothing like Hagler or Tyson. You don't need any great physical ability to break into an old womans home and rob her.

Anonymous said...

"Thus?"

Thus means 'in this way'.

Fat dosn't necessarily equal flab. 'Thus' or 'In this way', a fat guy is not necessarily flabby.

So, get to the back of the thus, fool.

Truth said...

"You gotta be kidding. You mean the Cuban heavyweight champion in the 2008 Beijing Olympics wasn't black?"

That's right! I had remembered Mijanes wrongly as a freestyler; OK, kills my theory.

What have you got Svigy, I'm trying to help you out here.

Anonymous said...

Fat dosn't necessarily equal flab. 'Thus' or 'In this way', a fat guy is not necessarily flabby.




But that is not what you said following your "thus".

What you said was:

Thus, if you see a fat black guy and a fat white guy, it's likely that the black guy has more muscle underneath all that fat.



And that does not follow at all.

breaker said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrestling_at_the_1992_Summer_Olympics

Héctor Milián was also a black Cuban who won the gold in Greco-Roman wrestling.

Anonymous said...

Fat dosn't necessarily equal flab. 'Thus' or 'In this way', a fat guy is not necessarily flabby.

So, get to the back of the thus, fool.


What you said was:
"It's true that many black guys are fat, but that's [not] the same thing as being flabby. One can be muscular but have the muscles patted with layers of fat. A truly flabby person is mostly fat with little muscle. Thus, if you see a fat black guy and a fat white guy, it's likely that the black guy has more muscle underneath all that fat."

gumpkins/not egg, not young, just foo/Enough Already/give it up/anonymous, if you think the last sentence logically follows from the first three, your reasoning abilities are severely limited. This is of course unsurprising given the quality of your comments.

Anonymous said...

Fat dosn't necessarily equal flab. 'Thus' or 'In this way', a fat guy is not necessarily flabby.




But that is not what you said following your "thus".

What you said was:

Thus, if you see a fat black guy and a fat white guy, it's likely that the black guy has more muscle underneath all that fat.



And that does not follow at all.


What are you, John Simon?

Svigor said...

I dunno. Before stamina could come into play, Ali had already beaten Jerry Quarry, Holmes had already beaten Gerry Cooney, and Tyson had already beaten Botha.

Which was a street fight? Move the goalposts much?

I know it hurts white male pride to admit that blacks are better in sports.

Neither here nor there. The only way to make "blacks are better at sports" true is to narrow the definition of sports. Yes, blacks are better at the most spectator-friendly sports roles (quarterback?), though their dominance is exaggerated for the same reason we get black invention myths.

Svigor said...

Can white stamina beat black power? Ask Jim Jeffries who challenged Jack Johnson.

Ask all the guys the Gracies wore out in early MMA matches about power vs. stamina.

Svigor said...

Sorry T. The one GR wrestling match I watched in the last 20 years (outside of the execrable Modine in Vision Quest lol) was some white favorite losing to some black dude in the olympics. :)

warner sisters said...

"I dunno. Before stamina could come into play, Ali had already beaten Jerry Quarry, Holmes had already beaten Gerry Cooney, and Tyson had already beaten Botha."

Which was a street fight? Move the goalposts much?


What is this, Gladwellian boxing?
So, lessee. If Ali had met Jerry Quarry in the street, Quarry could have started running and Ali would have chased after him. After several miles, Ali would have tired and Quarry would have turned back and KO's Ali. LOL.
But, wouldn't Ali have caught up with Quarry in the first 100 m and beat him up?

"I know it hurts white male pride to admit that blacks are better in sports."

Neither here nor there. The only way to make "blacks are better at sports" true is to narrow the definition of sports. Yes, blacks are better at the most spectator-friendly sports roles (quarterback?), though their dominance is exaggerated for the same reason we get black invention myths.


You're right. Blacks are ONLY better at running faster, jumping higher, punching harder, kicking faster, hitting farther, etc.

They may lose to whites in the belly flop.

It kills me how whites are so quick to insist they are smarter than blacks but can't admit they are weaker/slower than blacks. It's like blacks arguing that black intelligence is ONLY DIFFERENT than white intelligence. Sure, whites can add, read, write, and solve problems better but black IQ can FEEEEEEL things out better in which white folks just don't understand!

Svigor said...

What is this, Gladwellian boxing?

Tell it to the Gracies. Ever heard of groundfighting? Wind beats 'em every time on the ground.

Svigor said...

It kills me how whites are so quick to insist they are smarter than blacks but can't admit they are weaker/slower than blacks. It's like blacks arguing that black intelligence is ONLY DIFFERENT than white intelligence. Sure, whites can add, read, write, and solve problems better but black IQ can FEEEEEEL things out better in which white folks just don't understand!

You seem to have a problem with nuance beyond "me better, you worse."

These are all separate things:

Strength (Caucasoids)
Power (Negroids)
Stamina (Caucasoids)
Speed (Negroids)
Reflexes (Caucasoids)

I know it's hard, but concentrate.

Svigor said...

Oh yeah, forgot:

Skeletal density (Negroids)
Fine motor control (Caucasoids)

(It might seem like I'm trying to rack up more in the white column, but it isn't so; I've already acknowledged that the traits (traits, get it, traits? I.e., "dominance" doesn't make the list?) in which blacks dominate are those more important to the sports most folks actually care to watch)

Svigor said...

It kills me how whites are so quick to insist they are smarter than blacks

And btw, what are you smoking? Or, have you just stepped out of a time machine? Whites are quick to insist they're smarter than blacks?

Svigor said...

the mythical fighting prowess of young black men

It's probably a good idea to keep the terms strict. White men are the by far the world's best "fighters" (historically, a group activity involving tool use and little in the way of arbitration).

svigor, where is your vigor? said...

"And btw, what are you smoking? Or, have you just stepped out of a time machine? Whites are quick to insist they're smarter than blacks?"

You know full well I meant race realist whites. But, even liberal whites and Jews privately think so.

Anonymous said...

Whites have a disproportionate amount of Fast twitch muscle fibers in the upper body. Studies have proven Powerlifting requires the most fast twitch fibers. Whites also have powerful legs,but smaller, and lacking in Fast twitch. Whites overall are more powerful. Their strength is greatly distributed so blacks should stop whining and making stuff up.Further more the study on fast twitch fibers was never done on athletes instead a small sample of people. Case closed.