i am sick of inside the nfl on hbo (1 Viewer)

[Saint by the Bay]

There is an NAAWP.

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

 

[peglegpeet13]

I have stayed away from Inside the NFL for the last 2 years. I don't know if it is Costas or Collinsworth, but I just can't stomach it anymore.

 

[ibelieve]

i turned it off in the middle of larry johnsons interview......lost some respect for him

 

[St. Pike]

All of this over the course of 350 years effected the genetic stock of people of African decent in America. There are actually some pretty distinct differences between Americans of African decent and native Africans today.

Funny, I am IN Africa, and I have not notice any difference. additionally, I don't know if it s the automatic weapons, but the National police and army guys look just as big and athletic as their "American cousins." Well, on average, they don't have nearly as many Africans with "cream." I don't know what you are basing your "facts" on, but where I am standing,... there isn't any difference.

 

[CT Saints Fan]

Good old David Duke, huh? Who's that guy who used to be on the Howard Stern show from Georgia and his group was Wake Up, White People!? His neck was so red it was unbelievable.

There is an NAAWP.

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

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Funny, I am IN Africa, and I have not notice any difference. additionally, I don't know if it s the automatic weapons, but the National police and army guys look just as big and athletic as their "American cousins." Well, on average, they don't have nearly as many Africans with "cream." I don't know what you are basing your "facts" on, but where I am standing,... there isn't any difference.

The difference in any people is subtle and typically takes much more than "they look the same" to determine. That's the nature of genetic differences. My "facts" come from 2 decades of reading on the subject of the history of blacks in America. As I stated I don't know enough about biology to state if it's accurate or not but enough of black academia is on board with the theory to say it has some teeth. Heck it isn't even my theory, I'm only the messenger for people like Brenda Smith Huggins, C. Peter Ripley and Patrick Rael. The point is what JTG says has a basis in fact wether people are offended by it or not. I'm not going to argue wether it is a fact or not because I don't know. I know many who have dedicated their lives to studying and writing on subjects like this believe it is.

 

[antipop]

is the theory that hard to believe?? any creature can be bred for certain traits....this happens all the time.....why should humans be any different???

 

[HouDat]

is the theory that hard to believe?? any creature can be bred for certain traits....this happens all the time.....why should humans be any different???

Simple answer, pop: agendas.

 

[St. Pike]

The difference in any people is subtle and typically takes much more than "they look the same" to determine. That's the nature of genetic differences.

My observations aren't just casual. I watch adults and children play sports here in Africa. There is nothing athletically inferior about the African to African- Americans. I also teach Physical Education both in the States (minority schools) and in here in Africa. I do not see any difference.

My "facts" come from 2 decades of reading on the subject of the history of blacks in America. As I stated I don't know enough about biology to state if it's accurate or not but enough of black academia is on board with the theory to say it has some teeth. Heck it isn't even my theory,...

It may be a minor issue, but it isn;t to me,... you can't call something "fact," then refer to it as a theory. Its either or, not both.

When I was in college I read alot of stuff that many of the "black acamedia advanced. My black friends thought many were fools. I had a rather lengthy discussion with my Seniors about African- Americans and their ancestral roots in Africa. I was the one defending the African Americans. Themost contentious issue is the love affair with Egypt and Nubia. "African- Americans are from West Africa!" The Egyptians were semitic, not African! (They didn't understand that at all).

I'm only the messenger for people like Brenda Smith Huggins, C. Peter Ripley and Patrick Rael. The point is what JTG says has a basis in fact wether people are offended by it or not. I'm not going to argue wether it is a fact or not because I don't know.

How can claim someone's opinion is based on fact, but then claim you are not sure of it? Besides, what facts is it based on? What primary source is this based. I own the peculiar Institution, which is "the source" for all books based on slavery. It makes no mention of it.

This "fact" seem that it is based on some hidden agenda than real factual evidence. I guess I have to ask the man on the grassy knoll his thoughts.

In the meantime, give me a source,...otherwise, its all a supposition.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

My observations aren't just casual. I watch adults and children play sports here in Africa. There is nothing athletically inferior about the African to African- Americans. I also teach Physical Education both in the States (minority schools) and in here in Africa. I do not see any difference.




It may be a minor issue, but it isn;t to me,... you can't call something "fact," then refer to it as a theory. Its either or, not both.

When I was in college I read alot of stuff that many of the "black acamedia advanced. My black friends thought many were fools. I had a rather lengthy discussion with my Seniors about African- Americans and their ancestral roots in Africa. I was the one defending the African Americans. Themost contentious issue is the love affair with Egypt and Nubia. "African- Americans are from West Africa!" The Egyptians were semitic, not African! (They didn't understand that at all).





How can claim someone's opinion is based on fact, but then claim you are not sure of it? Besides, what facts is it based on? What primary source is this based. I own the peculiar Institution, which is "the source" for all books based on slavery. It makes no mention of it.

This "fact" seem that it is based on some hidden agenda than real factual evidence. I guess I have to ask the man on the grassy knoll his thoughts.

In the meantime, give me a source,...otherwise, its all a supposition.

You seem to be confusing two differnet aspects of the debate.

FACT: Slave owners used selective breeding.

THEORY: That has contributed to superior black athletes.

Now evidence on the selective breeding can be found in The America Slave: A Composite Autobiography by George Rawick (there are a number of volumes but I believe it was talked about in both the Alabama and Mississippi naratives) or in Slavery: History and Historians by Peter Parish. This is two sources, I've read numerous others but these two stick out to me.

As to the theory on athletics I'll have to wait until I'm home (at work now) and do some digging as I've never read anything that went into great detail on it, it's merely been mentioned here or there.

EDIT: Reb, who's much better read on these subjects than I, can probably provide even better supporting material to the selective breeding.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Simple answer, pop: agendas.

I think for many if you mention any difference at all you open yourself to a discussion of if one is superior and that's where people (myself included) don't want to go with the discussion.

 

[St. Pike]

Now evidence on the selective breeding can be found in The America Slave: A Composite Autobiography by George Rawick (there are a number of volumes but I believe it was talked about in both the Alabama and Mississippi naratives) or in Slavery: History and Historians by Peter Parish. This is two sources, I've read numerous others but these two stick out to me.

As to the theory on athletics I'll have to wait until I'm home (at work now) and do some digging ...

.

I appreciate your time and effort.

Its an interesting concept. Based on my knowledge of genetics/ biology, I don't believe a mere 240 (approoximately) years will produce a a mutation that people are suggesting. If you consider the various shades of African- Americans, it gived rise to plausibility to such a theory.

Another factor is how soon did it develop? While I mentioned 240 years, it is probably kmuch smaller than that. With the vast ability of Imported slaves, it seems inconceivable that they would want more effiecient slave force when it was realtive cheap. This would probably push it back until the after 1780 (When the importation of slavery was prohibited by Congress in 1775). My instincts would put the practice much later. This lead to about 3 to 4 generations at best.

Another factor: How many slave owners actually engaged in the activity? The larger the "pool" the better the chance they would unwilling participant after the cessation of slavery. My instincts tell me that the "pool" would have been relative small, therefor, it would had "watered" itself down over time.

This being said, I would like to read up on the facts to ascertain these basic questions,...When did it start, how many owners engaged in the activity?

 

[HouDat]

I think for many if you mention any difference at all you open yourself to a discussion of if one is superior and that's where people (myself included) don't want to go with the discussion.

The unfortunate thing about the JtG situation is that the agendas in play at the time were based on noble causes (equality), but the discussions were being hijacked by parties with less-than-noble agendas.

I didn't mean to imply any intent on helping transmute this topic into Bell Curve dynamics, or anything of that ilk. There are enough of those slippery slope discussions on other threads, both present and gone-but-not-forgotten.

 

[johnnyd]

I appreciate your time and effort.

Its an interesting concept. Based on my knowledge of genetics/ biology, I don't believe a mere 240 (approoximately) years will produce a a mutation that people are suggesting. If you consider the various shades of African- Americans, it gived rise to plausibility to such a theory.

Natural selection, no, 240 years is much too short of time. Artificial selection for specific traits (what we are talking about) can take place in in just 3 or 4 generations.

 

[Random Fan]

On a similar note Pam Oliver did a piece on the old lack of black coaches/front office on Fox before the game last weekend. I can't believe they are still enforcing a quota system requiring people to interview at least one black coach when a team has a vacancy -- that, to me, just seems demeaning. Moreover, it seems completely unnecessary unless the argument is that the majority of team owners are latent/subconscious racists who grew up in less enlightened times.

Even if an owner isn't driven by wins and losses he is, at the very least, driven by profit and most of the time winning teams make more money than losing teams. If I were sitting there after watching Pam Oliver's piece; rather than wring my hands and say "oh dear oh dear that sure is a problem" like pretty much the whole panel did (Jimmy, Terry, Howie, etc), I would have pointed out some homely-looking white girl in the crowd then pointed at Pam and said: if I wanted to... ahem... 'date' one of you two, it would be you... because, surprise, you are more attractive. And I wouldn't hire Art Shell or Dennis Green, not because they are black but because they are mediocre football coaches like Jim Mora and Dave Wannstedt, etc.

Perhaps I am naive, but I just think being 'racist' in terms of hiring your coach or GM makes about as much sense a team of all white players.