Rowan Croft the gran torino

Wibbs

Odhinn wrote: »

Bizzarre bit of 19th century thinking there.

Indeed, it's simplistic, but clearly there are factors going on that have left sub saharan Africa almost entirely out of the mix as far as human innovation goes since recorded(and prerecorded) history. Some hypotheses consider the environment being one issue, lack of navigable rivers, jungle, disease etc, but that doesn't explain how the mesoamericans created sophisticated civilisations one after the other in areas just as jungle and disease ridden. Cambodia the same. China has huge areas of barren land, massive mountains, swamps etc and the Chinese went and damn near terraformed the place. The Middle East wasn't exactly great climate wise and that's pretty much where civilisation started. The Greek countryside wasn't exactly brilliant either, to the degree that they were among the first to philosophically go against the almost global idea of working with nature and instead try to tame it.

The list of animals and plants domesticated in sub saharan Africa is also a short one. Shorter than pretty much anywhere else but Australia(and the Dingo was a later import). Again the mesoamericans didn't exactly have many animals to choose from for domestication, but they found a few and found a lot of plants to domesticate, next time you have cornflakes for brekkie and spuds for dinner etc. And they were largely isolates and off the beaten track.

Does it then follow that it's down to population genetics? Possibly, but that's extremely hard to quantify. Which populations for a start? Sub saharan Africans are about the most diverse folks on the planet. Secondly the world is full of examples of the same population with the same genetics having quite extreme shifts from the top to the bottom, or the meh. Go back a few thousand years and the Middle East made the rest of us look like monkeys compared to what they were up to. Today, they're followers at best. At the height of the Greek city states they pretty much invented most of the seeds of the modern western world, in science, philosophy, art, architecture, civics and law, yet today Greece is an also ran, just another European nation and lower down the totem compared to most. Go back to that time and the Greeks generally thought of Jews as a quirky little superstitious lot and yet today they're winning the Nobel prizes not the Greeks.

Is it possible some populations over time and internal selection for traits end up being less innovative and intelligent? Certainly, though I would say the capacity for intelligence and innovation and civilisation appears to be generally global among the human populations, but environment and culture are what select positively and negatively for whether it comes along or not. In Eurasia environment and culture selected positively more often and in more places than it seems to have done in Sub Saharan Africa.

Wibbs

Morty Whelan wrote: »

If we're all equal then how come the Europeans conquered Africa and not the other way around?

Depends on how one looks at it. Africans came outa the place in at least two mass migrations and conquered the world, making a few existing humans(and loads of animals) extinct, hence the modern human populations are majority genetically African in heritage.

The conquered and the conquerer can shift too. The Italians kicked the French arse in the Gallic Wars, then later on the French went and kicked the arses of various Italian city states on the regular. The Vikings were a bunch of barely literate scattered farmers who went on to conquer much of Europe and then as Normans the rest. Rome fell to barely literate migrants. As did Greece. China fell to migrant horsemen. Being a conquerer is more about cultural cohesion and intent than near anything else. EG in the Gallic wars the Gauls were on a military par with Rome and on home ground, yet lost because they were too busy fighting among themselves. One could argue the same of the Irish when the Normans came along. It's not a great argument really.

mcmoustache

Morty Whelan wrote: »

If we're all equal then how come the Europeans conquered Africa and not the other way around?

You've managed to fit a lot of ignorance into one sentence there.

EDIT: Go and find out about why so many places in the south of the Iberian peninsula have names beginning with "Al".

Boop1

Morty Whelan wrote: »

If we're all equal then how come the Europeans conquered Africa and not the other way around?

The answer to your question is quite long and complicated and I suspect that even if I did write a long detailed post with the relevant citations you would either not read it, or just come back with some nonsensical rebuttal.

The generally accepted conscientious is that with few exceptions the reason that Africa did not develop technology or society on par with say Europe, India or Asia. Is down to geography and geology.

In the most simplistic terms Europe has nice long rivers, with no waterfalls or geology impediments restricting travel on them. It also has nice long sea borders. Both of these facilitate trade. People living on the coasts or on the rivers could travel with there goods to other places and visa versa. From here we get the establishment of citys and city states. City states become hubs for people. University and founded, knowledge advances and is exchanged, merchants back new innovations, technology and society advances.

Yes Africa has a large coast line. But strong currents make large swatches of it unnaviagable in simple boats and rafts. So trade can not be facilitated by it. Like wise, almost every long river traversing the continent has some sort of impediment to transiting along it. Mostly waterfalls, and fast currents.

With out the navigable rivers or seas it was a lot harder for trade to prosper and for cities and cities states to develop, impeding transfers or knowledge.

Now before you try and nitpick or tell me I am wrong because of Timbutu or the Zimbabwae civilisation. This is a greatly simplified explanation.

If you want a longer more informed and complex explanation they are out there. And you dont need to read academic journals to find them. Try Guns, Germs and Steal or Prisoners of Geography. They where both bestsellers and you will find them in paperback.


Edit: This post mostly refers to central and southern Africa.
There have been plenty of cases of North Africans conquering large swatches of Europe. The Cartaginians for starters and lets not forget a good chunck of spain was conquered by the Moors.

EDIT 2: Do you know what a book is? If not please find out and read one.

Boop1

Dr Brown wrote: »

On average a black person is likely to be a much faster runner than a white person.

Care to back this up with some evidence
Or are you looking at a few outliers and making assumptions.

That works both ways, on average gingers tend to be uglier then normal folk.

Patty Hearst

Boop1 wrote: »

The answer to your question is quite long and complicated and I suspect that even if I did write a long detailed post with the relevant citations you would either not read it, or just come back with some nonsensical rebuttal.

The generally accepted conscientious is that with few exceptions the reason that Africa did not develop technology or society on par with say Europe, India or Asia. Is down to geography and geology.

In the most simplistic terms Europe has nice long rivers, with no waterfalls or geology impediments restricting travel on them. It also has nice long sea borders. Both of these facilitate trade. People living on the coasts or on the rivers could travel with there goods to other places and visa versa. From here we get the establishment of citys and city states. City states become hubs for people. University and founded, knowledge advances and is exchanged, merchants back new innovations, technology and society advances.

Yes Africa has a large coast line. But strong currents make large swatches of it unnaviagable in simple boats and rafts. So trade can not be facilitated by it. Like wise, almost every long river traversing the continent has some sort of impediment to transiting along it. Mostly waterfalls, and fast currents.

With out the navigable rivers or seas it was a lot harder for trade to prosper and for cities and cities states to develop, impeding transfers or knowledge.

Now before you try and nitpick or tell me I am wrong because of Timbutu or the Zimbabwae civilisation. This is a greatly simplified explanation.

If you want a longer more informed and complex explanation they are out there. And you dont need to read academic journals to find them. Try Guns, Germs and Steal or Prisoners of Geography. They where both bestsellers and you will find them in paperback.


Edit: This post mostly refers to central and southern Africa.
There have been plenty of cases of North Africans conquering large swatches of Europe. The Cartaginians for starters and lets not forget a good chunck of spain was conquered by the Moors.

EDIT 2: Do you know what a book is? If not please find out and read one.

Another factor (which will be probably be rejected here) is that neither Rome, Christianity, nor Islam succeeded is establishing itself to any great degree (In the 1st Millennium) below the Sahara.

Patty Hearst

Boop1 wrote: »

The answer to your question is quite long and complicated and I suspect that even if I did write a long detailed post with the relevant citations you would either not read it, or just come back with some nonsensical rebuttal.

The generally accepted conscientious is that with few exceptions the reason that Africa did not develop technology or society on par with say Europe, India or Asia. Is down to geography and geology.

In the most simplistic terms Europe has nice long rivers, with no waterfalls or geology impediments restricting travel on them. It also has nice long sea borders. Both of these facilitate trade. People living on the coasts or on the rivers could travel with there goods to other places and visa versa. From here we get the establishment of citys and city states. City states become hubs for people. University and founded, knowledge advances and is exchanged, merchants back new innovations, technology and society advances.

Yes Africa has a large coast line. But strong currents make large swatches of it unnaviagable in simple boats and rafts. So trade can not be facilitated by it. Like wise, almost every long river traversing the continent has some sort of impediment to transiting along it. Mostly waterfalls, and fast currents.

With out the navigable rivers or seas it was a lot harder for trade to prosper and for cities and cities states to develop, impeding transfers or knowledge.

Now before you try and nitpick or tell me I am wrong because of Timbutu or the Zimbabwae civilisation. This is a greatly simplified explanation.

If you want a longer more informed and complex explanation they are out there. And you dont need to read academic journals to find them. Try Guns, Germs and Steal or Prisoners of Geography. They where both bestsellers and you will find them in paperback.


Edit: This post mostly refers to central and southern Africa.
There have been plenty of cases of North Africans conquering large swatches of Europe. The Cartaginians for starters and lets not forget a good chunck of spain was conquered by the Moors.

EDIT 2: Do you know what a book is? If not please find out and read one.

I think when people here are speaking about Africans they're referring to Sub Saharan Africans rather than Berbers, Semetics etc

Boop1

Patty Hearst wrote: »

Another factor (which will be probably be rejected here) is that neither Rome, Christianity, nor Islam succeeded is establishing itself to any great degree (In the 1st Millennium) below the Sahara.

No, that is not really a factor.
But I would like to hear a bit more about your reasoning for this.
Did you read it somewhere? Or is it just your idea?
If its your idea can you expand on it a little.
Thanks.

Wibbs

Boop1 wrote: »

Yes Africa has a large coast line. But strong currents make large swatches of it unnaviagable in simple boats and rafts. So trade can not be facilitated by it. Like wise, almost every long river traversing the continent has some sort of impediment to transiting along it. Mostly waterfalls, and fast currents.

With out the navigable rivers or seas it was a lot harder for trade to prosper and for cities and cities states to develop, impeding transfers or knowledge.

Now before you try and nitpick or tell me I am wrong because of Timbutu or the Zimbabwae civilisation. This is a greatly simplified explanation.

Yet like I pointed out civilisations arose in MesoAmerica which had similar conditions, with added periods droughts on a massive scale. Great Zimbabwe while impressive for an Iron Age peoples also shows how behind they were given it's what, 12th-13th century in origin.

Patty Hearst wrote:

Another factor (which will be probably be rejected here) is that neither Rome, Christianity, nor Islam succeeded is establishing itself to any great degree (In the 1st Millennium) below the Sahara

I'd agree P and for it would be a big factor in this. For all the "religion bad" stuff of latter years, those faiths most certainly enabled a sense of larger community and cohesion and stability and sharing of ideas over large distances. "Rome" as a concept did similar. In the Americas religion attached to the state also had a large impact. Whereas when you have a loose bunch of tribal societies that larger sense of cultural self is far harder to create and maintain. That Sub Saharan Africa remained largely a disparate bunch of slightly related animist faiths which outside of the occasional strong leader which when they die power tended to pass and dissipate to the immediate family and then disappear entirely could well have had a lot to do with the lack of larger civilisations springing up. "Gods' live much longer in the cultural mind. Nigh on every large civilisation has had a cohesive faith stamped into it. Rome was more a pick and mix, but Rome itself was the faith in many ways.

The Arabs of the Middle East a great example. Before Islam they were a bunch of migrating tribes of differing faiths who barely registered at all on the world stage. Even though they ere bounded by literate civilisations like the Byzantines there is almost nothing of note written about them or their cultures. Islam comes along binds them all together under one faith banner and within a generation they took the Arabian peninsula and within two more created the caliphate and lead to an all too brief flowering of Muslim civilisation. One could argue albeit on a much smaller scale Christianity did similar for the Irish when it first showed up.

Boop1

Patty Hearst wrote: »

I think when people here are speaking about Africans they're referring to Sub Saharan Africans rather than Berbers, Semetics etc

No they are not. They are talking about Africans being genetically inferior. North Africans are decended from the same people in central africa

Wibbs

Boop1 wrote: »

No, that is not really a factor.

It kinda is.

Wibbs

Boop1 wrote: »

No they are not. They are talking about Africans being genetically inferior. North Africans are decended from the same people in central africa

Not quite. They're a different branch, mostly centred and springing from around the Horn of Africa, which is also where the guts of the Modern Human population first came from and spread across the world.

Boop1

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet like I pointed out civilisations arose in MesoAmerica which had similar conditions, with added periods droughts on a massive scale. Great Zimbabwe while impressive for an Iron Age peoples also shows how behind they were given it's what, 12th-13th century in origin.

/QUOTE]

You are right in what you are saying. But are we comparing like with like. How wide is Mesoamerical at its widest point. Compare that with the African continent. Its exponentially more navigable.

I dont think Africans are genetically inferior to those outside of Africa. Do you? And if you do can you provide something to support that? I would be interested in reading it.

batgoat

Boop1 wrote: »

Care to back this up with some evidence
Or are you looking at a few outliers and making assumptions.

That works both ways, on average gingers tend to be uglier then normal folk.

Dr Brown tends to remind me of the son in "Get Out"...

Boop1

batgoat wrote: »

Dr Brown tends to remind me of the son in "Get Out"...

If the son ate all the pies and had a receding hairline.

Boop1

Wibbs wrote: »

Not quite. They're a different branch, mostly centred and springing from around the Horn of Africa, which is also where the guts of the Modern Human population first came from and spread across the world.

My mistake sorry.

Wibbs

Boop1 wrote: »

I dont think Africans are genetically inferior to those outside of Africa. Do you?

No and it depends on what one means by "genetically inferior" anyway. We've got the horn for genetics at the moment and apply it to damned near everything in a very reductive manner, even though we're only beginning to really get into the bones of the science.

On the inferior angle, I'm so pale I make Dracula look like he's overstayed his welcome in the spray tan booth and this would make me inferior to a local lad if we were both traversing the Namib desert. On the other hand I'm superior to someone from India because I can drink a glass of milk and eat buttered toast without getting a dose of the liquid sit downs. Adaptations tend to be local and contextual. Human populations are closely related with local adaptations in the mix. Skin, hair, dietary, body shape etc. We're quite the diverse bunch on that score. Compared to the other great apes we're like a bunch of subspecies, on phenotype differences anyway.

Could intelligence be in that mix? I don't see why not given selective pressure is going to be high enough for it, or against it. It was high enough to drive our massive increase in brain size over the last million years. But then we come down to the definition of intelligence itself and the different types. In the West we naturally tend to laud what we define as the intelligence that suits our environment and it tends to be more of the "bookish" kind. There is also emotional intelligence, tactical intelligence, physical intelligence, existential intelligence, practical intelligence and so on. We can see those different types even among friends and family and those different types are going to be within any population. It's how those are selected for that seems to make the difference. If a society and culture selects more for tactical and physical intelligence then that will encourage more within that society with those traits. In another culture bookish intelligence might be more selected for.

It would be me take anyway that overall the capacities of different populations is roughly the same over time, but how those capacities are fostered is what makes the difference. Like Batgoat noted earlier if you're living in a stateless craphole riven with civil war bookish intelligence isn't really in demand.

recedite

Dr Brown wrote: »

I said in the politics forum that a certain individual was a convicted terrorist.
Just making that true statement was enough to get me banned from the politics forum.

Wear it as a badge of honour.
Most quality contributors are banned from that forum, including my good self.
There's a few trolls who have been baiting you here on this forum over the last few pages. I wouldn't even bother replying to them any more if I was you.

Its a tiresome little game they play; trying to trick others into saying something that fits their definition of "racist", then reporting the person and demanding they be banned. All the while contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion themselves.

Dr Brown

I just got a load of PMs from people claiming to know who I am.


I'm not sure why this is even relevant.


Ask not who I am but if I'm right!

Yer Da sells Avon

Dr Brown wrote: »

Ask not who I am but if I'm right!

You are far right.

batgoat

Dr Brown wrote: »

I just got a load of PMs from people claiming to know who I am.


I'm not sure why this is even relevant.


Ask not who I am but if I'm right!

You're incredibly wrong. How's that for you? The reason your views are unacceptable is because they are racist. Those who tend to agree with you are invariably racist.

TheRepentent

Lol racist posters complaining about being banned from Politics for posting racist crap.

Dr Brown

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

You are far right.

I'm not far right I'm just very correct:pac:

Dr Brown

TheRepentent wrote: »

Lol racist posters complaining about being banned from Politics for posting racist crap.

What did I say that was "racist" ?

TheRepentent

Dr Brown wrote: »

What did I say that was "racist" ?

You tell us ? You'd do us all a favour and get banned from AH :pac::pac:

Dr Brown

TheRepentent wrote: »

You tell us ? You'd do us all a favour and get banned from AH :pac::pac:

Yet another poster accusing me of being "racist" without any proof.

recedite

batgoat wrote: »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c03f/f20904c35a370534a9d3710453dd6dc7a2d2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjU7dzayq7hAhU-SRUIHUHZAMYQFjABegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw33Q-wbNJxWJQtiXAYKbImD&cshid=1554111034710

One such analysis of the field in this study. No indication of it being more advantageous to have "European genes". Any gap in iq tended to be more related to environmental factors. Also the role of stereotypes tends to hold a role as well.

Currently there is no actual evidence that racial genetics connect to intelligence. All research is considered to be "inconclusive" and there are too many uncontrolled aspects to make such a conclusion. Eg mixed race children have been found to perform as well as non mixed race children.

I'm sure you can link me to a meta analyses that establishes a clear link to race and intelligence rather than it relating to socioeconomic factors etc.

Had a skim over this article and there is very little of substance in it. Mostly its cherrypicking out bits of other people's research and trying to use that to add gravitas to a conclusion which has been reached in advance.
I did enjoy this bit though...

Results for nations that began modernization as far back as the 19th century suggest that its effects on IQ can reach an asymptote. Scandinavian nations show IQ peaking or even in mild decline...
If Sweden represents the asymptote that we are likely to see for modern nations’ gains, the IQ gap between developing and developed nations could close by the end of the 21st century and falsify the hypothesis that some nations lack the intelligence to fully industrialize...

And then I'll just drop this video here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etZF-PSRftg

batgoat

Dr Brown wrote: »

What did I say that was "racist" ?

You're actively avoiding saying what you said. Your support of apartheid South Africa is actually racist enough its own right. Let's clarify with some easy questions.

1. Do you support miscegenation laws or have a problem with a child being of mixed race?
2. Do you favour segregation and separation of groups based on race?
3. Do you oppose mixed race marriages or view them as wrong?
4. Do you believe in racial superiority?

recedite wrote: »

Had a skim over this article and there is very little of substance in it. Mostly its cherrypicking out bits of other people's research and trying to use that to add gravitas to a conclusion which has been reached in advance.
I did enjoy this bit though...

And then I'll just drop this video here.

So you're classifying a respected, well known study that has been peer reviewed as poor quality. Meanwhile you're trying to debunk it with a youtube video from some racist youtube channel....

recedite

batgoat wrote: »

So you're classifying a respected, well known study that has been peer reviewed as poor quality. Meanwhile you're trying to debunk it with a youtube video from some racist youtube channel....

Hmmm... well if they say the intelligence gap between Sweden and Somalia is narrowing, I have to say I am not surprised.

However I'm not buying into the suggestion that it has something to do with nutrition. Nor am I very confident that this means Somalia is on the fast track to becoming a liberal, successful industrialised society.


But if you asked whether Sweden is going down the toilet, I might be inclined to agree.

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

Hmmm... well if they say the intelligence gap between Sweden and Somalia is narrowing, I have to say I am not surprised.

However I'm not buying into the suggestion that it has something to do with nutrition. Nor am I very confident that this means Somalia is on the fast track to becoming a liberal, successful industrialised society.


But if you asked whether Sweden is going down the toilet, I might be inclined to agree.

Right so... You clearly have zero in evidence based research and just wish to go off on your rants.

Wibbs

Boop1 wrote: »

That works both ways, on average gingers tend to be uglier then normal folk.

I missed this. Boop you gingerist* you. :mad:






*had quite the few red hairs among the black, sadly missed as they went grey first. I miss the ginge

WinnyThePoo

Dr Brown wrote: »

TheRepentent wrote: »

You tell us ? You'd do us all a favour and get banned from AH :pac::pac:

Yet another poster accusing me of being "racist" without any proof.

You where banned from the politics forum permanently for racism.

Repugnant views on different races being together wasn't it.

Patty Hearst

Boop1 wrote: »

No they are not. They are talking about Africans being genetically inferior. North Africans are decended from the same people in central africa

You mentioned Carthaginians, who are regarded to have been Semetic in origin with a bit of Berber in the mix. They were at least regarded to have been largely from areas around the East Mediterranean rim.

Not quite the same as Sub Saharan African.

Libyans were considered to have been Berber in origin and Egypt had numerous groups in control at one time or another at least one of which (Nubians) being 'black' African.

Its not quite accurate to group ancient North Africans with Sub Saharan Africans.

Patty Hearst

Boop1 wrote: »

Care to back this up with some evidence
Or are you looking at a few outliers and making assumptions.

That works both ways, on average gingers tend to be uglier then normal folk.

Would you argue against the fact that African Americans are more likely to develop Prostate Cancer or that Ashkenazi Jews are more prone to Tay-Sachs disease?

What about South East Asians and Lactose Intolerance?

There are many differences between racial sub groups and it need not be controversial.

Patty Hearst

Good article here for anyone interested.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

How genetics is changing our understanding of Race.

batgoat

Patty Hearst wrote: »

Good article here for anyone interested.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

How genetics is changing our understanding of Race.

But the thing is you and Dr Brown are intent on pushing a stereotype of black people being less intelligent as a result of genetics. There's no actual proof of this being remotely true... So it's an agenda.

recedite

batgoat wrote: »

But the thing is you and Dr Brown are intent on pushing a stereotype of black people being less intelligent as a result of genetics. There's no actual proof of this being remotely true... So it's an agenda.

Is there any proof that they can run faster than whitey, as a result of genetics? As was suggested by somebody earlier in this thread.

Patty Hearst

batgoat wrote: »

But the thing is you and Dr Brown are intent on pushing a stereotype of black people being less intelligent as a result of genetics. There's no actual proof of this being remotely true... So it's an agenda.

IQ testing proves that by this standard at least, Africans (Sub Saharan broadly) are less intelligent in general.

This does not mean that all Africans are less intelligent it just means the average IQ is lower.

Intelligence is now widely considered to be largely hereditary (Genetic) and a product of environment to a lesser degree than previously thought.

Medical Science would not get very far by discounting Genetics would it?

You may argue that IQ testing is redundant..fair enough. Many would disagree though. Irish people do not fare well either and I'm Irish so its not as if it has us coming out smelling like roses.

If you think (which it seems you do) that I think Sub Saharan Africans are 'Genetically Inferior' you're wrong.

My issue with mass migration from Africa is Cultural not Genetic.

Odhinn

Dr Brown wrote: »

............


Ask not who I am but if I'm right!

Given your habit of dodging and refusing to answer questions, I'll take a pass on that one.

Dr Brown wrote: »

What did I say that was "racist" ?

Your support of the now defunct apartheid regime in Africa, your reference to known white supremacists as "sources"......


Also - Do you believe that a "black" person is - on average - equal to his "white" counterpart in regards to intellect and capabilities?

You stated that "Dr James Watson has made some interesting points.". What points specifically were you referring to?

Odhinn

Does anyone know what specific regiment this Rowan Croft was a member of?

recedite

The Roan Rangers.
Fighting for an even tan.

dingledosser

Odhinn wrote: »

Does anyone know what specific regiment this Rowan Croft was a member of?

Royal Engineers. He was an explosives expert.

Boop1

Anyone have a link to the video where he talks about being in the British Army?

Wibbs

Patty Hearst wrote: »

Good article here for anyone interested.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

How genetics is changing our understanding of Race.

It's an interesting take, though hardly novel. Though I can see a few issues with some parts and do wonder if getting to specialised means many reserarchers get blinkered and don't know or read about other areas of sciences that butt up to theirs. EG:

You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work.

Clearly the author hasn't been reading much on population shifts as in Europe alone there have been a fair number of waves of gene influx from outside over that time(never mind archaic admixture around and before that time). The European of today is a very different animal to the European of 40,000 years ago, even 10,000 years ago, when Middle eastern farmers crossed the continent. Take the Basque peoples, they consider themselves apart from the surrounding populations and more ancient, and their language is, but the Basques today are mostly the same as those around them and a different set of genetic lines from Basques of 5000 years ago. Here in Ireland the original Palaeolithic and mesolithic lines were almost completely replaced. West African genes have also been a bit of a muddle, albeit more geographically local, even Australians who were isolated for a long chunk of time, had at least one extra genetic influx around (IIRC) 6000 years ago, around the time when the dingo came along(the tourists brought their doggies. As you do ).

I don't doubt adaptations can happen quite quickly. The genes for digesting gluten and especially lactose in milk spread like wildfire within Europe and the ME remarkably rapidly. I would suspect they can happen much faster than we think today. A couple if generations faster actually. Epigenetics is gaining more traction as an area of interest in this very area(though my 19th century fist shakes at the come back of Lamarckism by another name ) A couple of researchers have mused that maybe the Irish have a higher level of coeliac disease than other European populations because we relied more on the potato than grains for carbs over a few centuries, so more lost the ability to process gluten.

You may argue that IQ testing is redundant..fair enough. Many would disagree though. Irish people do not fare well either and I'm Irish so its not as if it has us coming out smelling like roses.

Indeed, and that should tell you all you need to know about biases, subtleties and co factors in this field. The Irish are pretty much genetically identical to Scots, Welsh and English, which showed slightly higher IQ's in tests, the bulk of which were taken many decades ago and "concluded" the highest IQ among a band that stretched across the middle of Europe, the Germanic and the Saxon. The Latins were also below par, which says it all. The Italians alone have made contributions to advancement of the sciences and art and all the rest that the Dutch or the Germans could only dream of. And then there's the Greeks. If we went back to the early medieval when the Irish were blossoming intellectually no doubt their interested parties would have held the English and others to be a little slower by comparison.

recedite wrote:

Is there any proof that they can run faster than whitey, as a result of genetics? As was suggested by somebody earlier in this thread

There is some evidence to show the ancestors of the Atlantic slave trade in Africans can have an advantage there. Through that trade there were horrific and powerful selection pressures. Even making the journey resulted in large losses. Those that survived that and survived the hostile working lives would surely have been the strongest among them. On the other hadn't the same population has higher kidney disease, diabetes and cardiovascular illness than the populations of their African cousins that remained in Africa.

Though again culture comes into it. If it was just that African ancestry folks were athletically superior on average then they'd dominate every sport. But they don't. There have been no Black Tour De France cycle race winners for example, but they do dominate much of track and field and sports like basketball. For a start they're cheaper to get into. Running requires bugger all but a flat surface and shoes and in the US basketball courts are everywhere and free to use and the local culture expects to see the kids getting into those sports. The Venus sisters were seen as oddballs by their peers for being into tennis. Consider the Tour De France again. The vast majority of winners over its more than a century history have been French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and the like. All countries with a long history in kids taking up cycling as a pastime and sport. Germans and Scandinavians were thin on the ground because their kids didn't. Americans started to make inroads after a couple of Americans did well in the 80's as rank outsiders and this encouraged more to take it up and almost exclusively among European Americans. One might apply a similar framework to academic performance too and I would strongly suspect it would fit too.

recedite

Wibbs wrote: »

Though again culture comes into it. If it was just that African ancestry folks were athletically superior on average then they'd dominate every sport. But they don't. There have been no Black Tour De France cycle race winners for example, but they do dominate much of track and field and sports like basketball. For a start they're cheaper to get into. Running requires bugger all but a flat surface and shoes and in the US basketball courts are everywhere and free to use and the local culture expects to see the kids getting into those sports. The Venus sisters were seen as oddballs by their peers for being into tennis. Consider the Tour De France again. The vast majority of winners over its more than a century history have been French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and the like. All countries with a long history in kids taking up cycling as a pastime and sport. Germans and Scandinavians were thin on the ground because their kids didn't. Americans started to make inroads after a couple of Americans did well in the 80's as rank outsiders and this encouraged more to take it up and almost exclusively among European Americans. One might apply a similar framework to academic performance too and I would strongly suspect it would fit too.

If it was just culture, then you would expect Africans to dominate in olympic swimming. It costs nothing to swim in your local tropical river, lake or sea. You don't even need the running track and the shoes. The kids spend a lot of time in the water, but they don't win at swimming. Nor do they tend to win at cycling. Probably never will.


I'd be willing to bet you that the next olympic 100 metre sprint champion will have West African genes, whether he be from Nigeria, USA, Jamaica or UK. That is not due to "culture" or "a social construct". It is due to an inbuilt genetic advantage, pure and simple.

Likewise the next marathon winner will be descended from tribes living around the Rift Valley region of east Africa. Their genes have not been spread around so much in the past, so he is likely to be a native of Kenya, Ethiopia Somalia or Uganda, possibly running under the colours of an adopted western country (like Mo Farah). A different genetic advantage, but again its there, and its not something you can train into somebody who hasn't got it to start with.

Different races tend to have their own special advantages. There is no race that is "superior" in a general way, but also it is futile to pretend that differences do not exist, or are only a social construct.

recedite

BTW, 4 of the last 6 Tour De France races have been won by an African
Chris Froome.

WinnyThePoo

He's British when he wins! .

There are few black riders recently that have appeared in the tour de France.

There is also a newish team from South Africa that have ambitions to put through more African talent into cycling aswell.

Wibbs

recedite wrote: »

If it was just culture, then you would expect Africans to dominate in olympic swimming. It costs nothing to swim in your local tropical river, lake or sea. You don't even need the running track and the shoes. The kids spend a lot of time in the water, but they don't win at swimming. Nor do they tend to win at cycling. Probably never will.

Actually Black Americans don't swim nearly as much as White Americans and their rates of drowning are much higher. There are quite a few cultural reasons for this.

I'd be willing to bet you that the next olympic 100 metre sprint champion will have West African genes, whether he be from Nigeria, USA, Jamaica or UK. That is not due to "culture" or "a social construct". It is due to an inbuilt genetic advantage, pure and simple.

Certainly, but not specifically "African" and far more descendants of African slaves. So Black athletes from the US, USA, Caribbean, but much less so Nigeria.

Likewise the next marathon winner will be descended from tribes living around the Rift Valley region of east Africa. Their genes have not been spread around so much in the past, so he is likely to be a native of Kenya, Ethiopia Somalia or Uganda, possibly running under the colours of an adopted western country (like Mo Farah). A different genetic advantage, but again its there, and its not something you can train into somebody who hasn't got it to start with.

Well leaving aside the rumours and exposes of doping among a few of those training camps, yes there may be something to that in populations that have adapted to higher altitudes and are also more likely to be very lightly built, both attributes that lead to more of a population being more adept at long distance running, though useless for sprints. Tibetan populations have even more genetic adaptations to higher altitudes but you don't see them troubling marathons as they tend to be shorter of limb and heavier set.

Different races tend to have their own special advantages. There is no race that is "superior" in a general way, but also it is futile to pretend that differences do not exist, or are only a social construct.

Oh I don't deny there are differences, but it's how big and throughout a population those differences are. Only a tiny proportion of say Jamaicans are going to be top flight athletes, ditto for type flight cyclists among say the French. They're the outliers in a population where all the genetic ducks line up and the slight advantages that may be present in a population clump together. Add in cultural end socioeconomic selective pressures and you see what you see. Differences within a population are far larger, but we naturally focus on the extremes.

RWCNT

Where does the Jamaican bobsleigh team stand in all this?

Wibbs

recedite wrote: »

BTW, 4 of the last 6 Tour De France races have been won by an African
Chris Froome.

Froome is as White as I am and that's saying something.