Watched the 30 for 30 on him yesterday. As most of you know (if you clicked on this Post you're old enough to care), he got fired for saying racially insensitive remarks.

Was this the first that you had ever heard this happen to a public figure (losing their gig)? I know Campanis and Cosell soon followed , I believe.

The other, more "taboo" question is (this is why I came to the History board)....is what he said about the breeding right, or total made up B.S.?? Because if he made it up, I can see the outrage. If it is historically a fact and actually happened, it gets more complicated (the firing). It sounds like they were done with him anyway and this was the perfect out. It was also interesting seeing how the remarks were a big deal, even 40 years ago. We sometimes think this "PC" concept is a recent development when it's not.

More thoughts on this charged topic, but want to start here.

regarding Jimmy's comments.....

I have no idea if there were breeding programs. But the terrible conditions of capture, transport, and slavery, would tend to be a Darwinian "breeding" program. Not many weak genes could survive that.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I have no idea if there were breeding programs. But the terrible conditions of capture, transport, and slavery, would tend to be a Darwinian "breeding" program. Not many weak genes could survive that.

---

it has nothing to do with a breeding program it is all about the millennia spent in a harsh predator dominated environment where it took amazing physical attributes to survive.

Quote:

---

it has nothing to do with a breeding program it is all about the millennia spent in a harsh predator dominated environment where it took amazing physical attributes to survive.

---

True. But here we get into dangerous territory. One of the discoverers of DNA (can't remember if it was Watson or Crick) basically suggested that some races might not be as smart as others, genetically. Now, I don't believe that, but he was torn apart over it, and it had a chilling effect on science. I think this is because people misinterpret science, which looks at statistical probability. It may be probable that all Scandinavians are stupider than all Pakistanis (just to pick random ethnicities), but there might be 100,000 Pakistanis smarter than any Scandinavian. This is far more true of intelligence than physical attributes because you can only increase your physical ability a small bit above your genes (even then, as Dat Nguyen proved, you can do enough to be competitive and really, really good). But human intelligence can be improved by training to a vast degree beyond anything even conceivably needed for survival and reproductive purposes (lots of God implications here, because "survival of the fittest" can't explain capacity in excess of what's needed to survive). Thus, even if it were true that Scandinavians are biologically stupid, if they had a better education system than Pakistanis and worked hard enough, they would probably surpass them.

Quote:

---

True. But here we get into dangerous territory

---

Which is why Jimmy got into trouble. To acknowledge that there is any possible genetic differences tied to race is a touchy subject. Even if you have something positive to say (blacks are good athletes, in Jimmy's case) it opens the door to negative traits being tied to race. And people are highly sensitive about that.

Quote:

---

(lots of God implications here, because "survival of the fittest" can't explain capacity in excess of what's needed to survive).

---

We're gonna need to get off this rock & spread ourselves around the galaxy in order to survive....

the time period where humans were being hunted by predators was long before "races" broke off. by that time we had tools and were already the king of the jungle.

schmendeler said:

---

the time period where humans were being hunted by predators was long before "races" broke off. by that time we had tools and were already the king of the jungle.

---

I'm gonna kind of go Lee Corso - "Not so fast my friend".

Even in the 20th Century, you've still got isolated tribes who are very primitive. Those primitive tribes are primarily in places like Africa and Asia. You don't find any primitive tribes in North America or Northern Europe.

These primitive tribes are not some sort of super human. Which is what I was referring to. (Running from predators making them more powerfully bred). Those primitive tribes are no different physically from those of us in more advanced technological places. In fact those places where modern nutrition rules, the people are bigger in general. You go pretty much anywhere in the world, and the immediate response of any wild animal to the presence of humans is to run away. Not to adapt a predatory response. We are the danger (humans), not the other way around. The idea of Africans as some sort of Tarzan group is laughable.

schmendeler said:

---

These primitive tribes are not some sort of super human. Which is what I was referring to. (Running from predators making them more powerfully bred). Those primitive tribes are no different physically from those of us in more advanced technological places. In fact those places where modern nutrition rules, the people are bigger in general. You go pretty much anywhere in the world, and the immediate response of any wild animal to the presence of humans is to run away. Not to adapt a predatory response. We are the danger (humans), not the other way around. The idea of Africans as some sort of Tarzan group is laughable.

---

Who eats better in the jungle....the fast tiger or the slow tiger. It works both ways.

powerbiscuit said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

These primitive tribes are not some sort of super human. Which is what I was referring to. (Running from predators making them more powerfully bred). Those primitive tribes are no different physically from those of us in more advanced technological places. In fact those places where modern nutrition rules, the people are bigger in general. You go pretty much anywhere in the world, and the immediate response of any wild animal to the presence of humans is to run away. Not to adapt a predatory response. We are the danger (humans), not the other way around. The idea of Africans as some sort of Tarzan group is laughable.

---

Who eats better in the jungle....the fast tiger or the slow tiger. It works both ways.

---

We aren't tigers. We don't hunt with speed and strength.

If you don't think endurance, strength, and speed helped with Stone Age hunting then I would have to disagree.

You're talking about pre "races" though. Also, those stones had a pretty big role.

schmendeler said:

---

You're talking about pre "races" though. Also, those stones had a pretty big role.

---

Wasn't the Western Hemisphere and much of Africa in the Stone Age in the not so distant past?

I'm talking about the first utilization of tools. Once those came into play it wasn't about running fastest or being the strongest. A spear takes care of that.

This post wound up more rambling than i had planned. Hopefully it doesn't come off racist.

Setting aside pure survival, think of competition for reproduction. Good hunters and warriors in tribal societies typically got multiple wives, while bad hunters/warriors got one, none, or in the case of war-making, just died sooner. Intelligence helps, but speed and strength help more. Same with rich men in trading/commercial societies who usually got that way via some combination of personality and intelligence. Of course, even now height, strength, symmetry, and intelligence improve breeding opportunity, or so I hear.

That said... no idea whether 3,000 years plus a couple hundred years of semi-selective breeding would be enough to create a statistically significant difference between populations. 15 minutes on ESPN shows pretty conclusively that there IS a physical difference. Seems like there would have had to be a difference in the initial populations since the same pressures continue to work to some extent even today, let alone in non-African pre-modern society. Spit balling here, but maybe already-stronger, faster races drove smaller, weaker future Caucasians and Asians out of Africa in the first place?

Howard Cosell didn't get fired for anything like that. They had to get him off Monday Night Football because he was broadcasting hammered. He once puked on Don Meridith's boots but it was more acceptable in the '70's. lol

dcAg said:

---

Howard Cosell didn't get fired for anything like that. They had to get him off Monday Night Football because he was broadcasting hammered. He once puked on Don Meridith's boots but it was more acceptable in the '70's. lol

---

I remembering him calling this player....Garrett, a "little monkey". PC has existed a while. Looking back, I feel bad for Cosell because he was such a champion for Ali early on, and stood up for A-A rights very early as well. He got screwed.

There's no biological basis behind separating people according to race. There's vastly more difference within "races" and local populations than there is between "races."

Dr. Watson said:

---

There's no biological basis behind separating people according to race. There's vastly more difference within "races" and local populations than there is between "races."

---

Honestly, I thought everyone with an education was past needing to have that explained every time genetics comes up. It's so elementary that I'm insulted that you felt it necessary to post.

The real world of genetics is too messy to accomodate cleanly separable "races", whatever that term means, so your insistence on forcing people to prove their existence before discussing genetics is very strange and, as I mentioned, somewhat insulting. I used the term as a shorthand under the assumption that among college graduates in 2017 all of the above "goes without saying".

Still, we are left with differences between genetically related populations. Some are obvious and consistent, like skin color or skull shape.

Others are more statistical in nature, like the majority of elite American athletes coming from a demographic who all came from the same continent at the same time. Do you have an alternate explanation or theory on the topic, or even an explanation of why the phenomenon is an illusion in the first place? That would be a much more interesting addition to the discussion than the pedantic boilerplate you started with.

JJMt said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

There's no biological basis behind separating people according to race. There's vastly more difference within "races" and local populations than there is between "races."

---

If I'm understanding your correctly, you're asserting that there are no genetic markers by which one could determine race? Also, what do you call different skin color, eye shapes, and the like, if not a "biological basis"? And does your second sentence necessarily lead to the conclusion in the first, or are those independent assertions?

---

Genetic markers for skin color do not correlate with things like intelligence. Race is not a valid category of biological analysis. It is a social construction that is used because of tradition and the simplicity of being based on immediate sight.

Ulrich said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

There's no biological basis behind separating people according to race. There's vastly more difference within "races" and local populations than there is between "races."

---

Honestly, I thought everyone with an education was past needing to have that explained every time genetics comes up. It's so elementary that I'm insulted that you felt it necessary to post.

The real world of genetics is too messy to accomodate cleanly separable "races", whatever that term means, so your insistence on forcing people to prove their existence before discussing genetics is very strange and, as I mentioned, somewhat insulting. I used the term as a shorthand under the assumption that among college graduates in 2017 all of the above "goes without saying".

Still, we are left with differences between genetically related populations. Some are obvious and consistent, like skin color or skull shape.

Others are more statistical in nature, like the majority of elite American athletes coming from a demographic who all came from the same continent at the same time. Do you have an alternate explanation or theory on the topic, or even an explanation of why the phenomenon is an illusion in the first place? That would be a much more interesting addition to the discussion than the pedantic boilerplate you started with.

---

Socioeconomics and culture can explain a lot of who becomes successful in certain fields. Do you think middle and upper class white kids from the north and Canada are genetically predisposed to be better hockey players than Africans? Do you think the Maori are genetically predisposed to be better rugby players? Do you think poor whites in Appalachia are genetically predisposed to be dumber than a wealthy kid in Manhattan who goes to a private school?

The pool of people who dream of becoming professional hockey players is almost entirely white. It's also a much more expensive sport to play. So sure, obvious cultural/socioeconomic difference in hockey.

The pool of people who dream of becoming professional basketball or football players is probably >50% white, yet the actual pros are 80% black. Even within a sport, you find most quarterbacks are white, offensive linemen and TEs are 50/50, and virtually all skill positions and most defensive linemen are black. Everyone on the field is a freak athlete at that level, but you see the same trends (if not to the same extent) in college and even high school.

So is there a cultural difference that leads black people toward being defensive linemen and white people toward being offensive linemen? Same sport, same field, same equipment, and same games, yet a dramatic and predictable variation in ancestry. Do you have a cultural explanation?