The Hubster said:
And a note about black people being superior: I have to say that I agree with this, but I am referring to those of African backgrounds - while they may live in poverty, their bodies through generations have adjusted to harsher conditions of life, they are not spoilt by the things which we have in Western society, and thus they can push their bodies further than we can. Look no further than sport: it's black people who always win overall, they are the best atheletes hands down.
Musically, they have had more spirit throughout the ages as well, they have been of a more celebrative nature than that of Western culture which have been controlled or restricted by conservatism.
Just my thoughts here, no offence intended to anyone.
You are entirely mistaken, not only in your generalizations about ability, but also anthropologically.
The whole idea of "African" (the idea of a pan-Africa is a purely Western idea... Algerians are certainly not the same, nor do they conceive of themselves as people from Botswana, Congo, the Ju Wasi, or any other ethnic group) lifestyles (as if they are uniform) being more harsh, and therefor over time and natural selection producing more robust people requires thousands of years to occur. You talk as if Western luxury is incredibly old! Most of what we identify is less than 50 years old, hardly long enough to make any difference even if there was such a contrast.
This is also a misconception. Africans are not running around with a spear flexing their 1337 skills. The amount still living a nomandic, hunter/gathering lifestlye is in the low thousands. The vast majority are located in large urban centers riddled with disease and pollution. Conditions that hardly produce strong, vital people.
As far as demographic domminance determining causality... Would you agree with the statement that if whites dominate science and technical fields in the US that this proves they are smarter? Of course not. You would list many possible factors leading to this outcome, including history, culture, economics, etc.
The same goes for sports.
In virtually all time periods, the groups that dominate physical activites are lower class because they have limited alternatives. If one comes from an educated, middle class background, what real incentive do they have to center their lifestyle and careers around something so uncertain as sports, when they can have a relatively secure future so much more easily? Also, cultural emphasis on these endevours and attitudes about personal worth and especially masculinity have a lot to do with it.
Statisically, i dont agree with the statement that blacks are more successful overall at sports. If you want to argue specifics like say, American basketball, you might have a case (again for a variety of reasons, not because of some mysterious innate ability).
Your statement about music baffles me. If you research the development of music in the Western world you will see that it is quite dynamic and not the puritanical conservativism that you are claiming. Some of the most daring and "modern" music came precisely at the time you would least expect it: Victorian Europe.
I simply dont understand your idealization of a mythological "African" culture.
Your disclaimer about your words being just thoughts doesnt make them any less incorrect.
) argument. If any one is guilty of "racism" it is those arguing the superiority of one above. Even though I think it was in jest, im tired of it being throw around so lightly.
