Sikh leader was a hero

[srivatsan]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

Hello ProdigyOfZen,

I resent all invaders equally. I am not going into that again on this thread. Vendatta is against bigotry against Indians. Enough of Rant from my end.

What I meant by tolerant is: live amicably in spite of steep differences. Call out what it is, as is.

Apropos with X/Y statements from yours': There can be "racism" within a sect and between a sect. Everyone case is different in some manner.

Are you no longer seeing the AIT in its merit and through the eyes of "caste" ? I do not need answer though.. I understand...

Anyways, thanks for the link to the Italian man, and I do believe that Race is non-existent theme.

-S.

Shiny: I feel bad to have hijacked your thread but my heart felt very heavy on Sunday and could not watch TV at all. Apologizes & Condolences.

[c1ue]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

A terrible tragedy.

But not unexpected given the ongoing demonization of Muslims in the US and elsewhere.

I've been seeing more and more literature even in supposed science fiction which goes on and on about the fundamentally inimicable nature of Islam and its practitioners - of a scale and depth hearkening back to the McCarthy era.

Combine that with a difficult economy in the US and fundamentally low levels of world knowledge...

[astonas]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

While I think it would be a HUGE stretch to blame this on FIRE.......I think the cascading consequences of FIRE.....those 2nd, 3rd, 4th order effects of FIRE is where I think we will see an increase in this type(as well as other types) of unacceptable/abberant behavior in the period ahead.

Agreed. When standards of living are declining on a national level, the resistance to this is expressed in many forms, few of them positive. Fear, anger, hatred will all rise, perhaps to the point that they will be considered acceptable to a broader portion of society than those thought-islands where they are now considered permissible. It makes sense to be both aware of this, and be ready to adapt one's actions for survival in this more tense time.

For that reason, it may be worth taking the opportunity to clarify why comments such as PoZ's are considered by so many to be offensive. Not to pick on PoZ himself, but because this may be a chance to head off future unintended offense. And if times are going to become more intense, we all will need to hone our abilities to resolve conflict amicably.

In this spirit, I did a little reading on the scholar PoZ cited. On a site as broadly available as Wikipedia, one finds this summary.

Cavalli-Sforza's views have altered over time.

(1977) "The differences that exist between the major racial groups are such that races could be called subspecies if we adopted for man a criterion suggested by Mayr (1963) for systematic zoology".[7]

”

“

(1994) The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin.[8]

”

Essentially, the field of study has over time shifted from a belief that race was something that mattered, to something that didn't. This occurred because investigations in biology have repeatedly shown that both genotypes and phenotypes varied vastly more within a given community that they do between separate communities, and that little if any statistical significance was to be found in the original suppositions. Thus much of the work done prior to this point was rejected (by the individual's who first conducted it, no less!) as being based on misinformation.

Thus, to bring up points that connect race to traits which are now accepted to be independent of race, is to step into an obsolete paradigm.

When this is done unintentionally, or without knowledge of the above paradigm shift, the appropriate response is to educate the person using an outdated paradigm that this is no longer a scientifically justified assumption.

But when a person chooses to retain a rejected paradigm that links race to other traits, in spite of evidence that this is no longer considered correct even by its original proponents, one inevitably asks, "why does the speaker insist on retaining this connection?"

In this latter case, the denial of the new evidence points to an unwillingness to accept the underlying equality of the human condition, independent of race, and is thus termed "racism".

So we can see why one might justifiably take offense at the original statement. If one assumes that the speaker is aware of the obsolescence of, for example, Cavalli-Sforza's early opinions, then one might think that the speaker is intentionally stepping into an outdated paradigm to justify their white-supremacist ideals.

Given that most of America has been exposed to this shift in perception over the last many decades, the expectation that a given speaker in the U.S. is aware of it is a reasonable one. But it is not universally accurate. In this case, if I am not mistaken, PoZ has in the past pointed out that he is originally from another country. So it is possible that he has not seen the same shift in perspective, at least in the same way.

Indeed, given that PoZ continued on to cite Cavalli-Sforza's outdated documents in his defense, it might be a better assumption that PoZ was simply unaware that they had been more recently repudiated by their own author.

For this reason, offense is perhaps not as appropriate an answer as pointing out the obsolescence of the information. Whether the statement was a racist one depends on what information the speaker had when making it.

I hope that we all now have the information we need to avoid causing offense, intentional or not.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

I agree clue and that is another interesting point on the fundamental low level of world knowledge. Since when were Sikh's Muslim? I believe some aspects of their religion incorporates aspects of Islam but it is not Islam.

As you and I know difficult economic times always spawn a group of people who need to point out another group as scapegoats.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

Here is the thing Astonas. Cavalli-Sforzas has like most scientist's in order to save his career towed the PC line. This is the same within the Climate debate as well.

And Astonas my comment was offensive to only ONE person not "so many" as you claim.

In my opinion Indians are caucasian but ethnically diverse within their sub continent. The same as I am caucasian but ethnicaly Jewish. (now many people do not consider Jewish people to be any ethnicity and just a religion) Jews are all Semites the same as Arabs or Ethiopians but within the Jewish ethnicity you have 3 distinct groups, 1. Ashkenazi, 2. Sephardic, 3. Mizrahi.

"Anyone here can disparage and deride me all they want but I treat everyone with respect, I am humble, empathetic and love other cultures. It shows to my character that I am open minded enough to consider race exists."

These writings pretty much sum up the race debate. The part about "race is only skin deep" resonates with me since Tay-Sachs disease is pretty much exclusive to the Jewish ethnicity and diaspora as Sickle Cell Anemia is pretty much exclusive to black people. I think there are only two people in the world who are white that have sickle cell anemia.

The very idea that human populations that evolved in a certain geographical area could, through evolution contract a disease like sickle cell anemia that fights malaria, flys in the face of all those scientists who say race doesnt exist for PC reasons. Over 100,000 years different human population groups developed different traits that occurred from evolutions constant need to survive through adaptation. This has resulted in the slight differences you see today in modern humans.

Humans and chimps share up to 99% of the same DNA but are VASTLY different in every way from each other. IMO within humans even if there is .001 difference in DNA that changes the populations traits.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1025122615.htm

"ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2011) — For years, scientists believed the vast phenotypic differences between humans and chimpanzees would be easily explained -- the two species must have significantly different genetic makeups. However, when their genomes were later sequenced, researchers were surprised to learn that the DNA sequences of human and chimpanzee genes are nearly identical. What then is responsible for the many morphological and behavioral differences between the two species?

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have now determined that the insertion and deletion of large pieces of DNA near genes are highly variable between humans and chimpanzees and may account for major differences between the two species"

It is all from the Junk DNA which allows for slight variations within not only chimps and humans but IMO within humans and humans over 100,000 years of evolution.

Now to conclude with the race debate. Interestingly these writings are wrong at the bottom when he discusses "Junk dna" as my story above cites they are very important for variations in DNA.

"Disclaimer" I have not read or know anything about Steve Sailors other writings but I do see from wikipedia there is criticism about him. The race debate in my view is the same as the economic debate, humans dont understand it and dont believe the facts sitting right in front of them.

I have no agenda but the pursuit of truth and honesty and from all that I have read and observed throughout life I cannot in good conscious accept the PC version that race doesnt exist. There is no one race better than another but some can be better at certain aspects of human life on average.

There is a reason why only one caucasian person in the history of the 100m has broken the sub 10 second barrier (Christophe Lemaitre in 2010) and 4 non west africans have broken it in history. It is not because caucasians have not tried to break it, they have been trying for over 100 years now, it is because they physically cannot on average run that fast in 100m.

Anyone here can disparage and deride me all they want but I treat everyone with respect, I am humble and love other cultures. It shows to my character that I am open minded enough to consider race exists.

"05/31/00 - Cavalli-Sforza II and Seven Dumb Ideas About Race

By Steve Sailer on May 31, 2000 at 1:00pm

Cavalli-Sforza's Ink Cloud
Cavalli-Sforza II: Seven Dumb Ideas about Race

Race is a topic of such enormous importance that it's essential to think clearly about it. Yet much of the intelligentsia now attempts to deal with the problem by defining race as merely a mass hallucination afflicting the entire human race - other than we few members of the Great and the Good. As we saw in last week's column on the schizophrenic writings of the leading population geneticist, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, much of the professoriat now publicly deny the very reality of race. Prominent anthropologist C. Loring Brace asserts, "There is no such thing as a biological entity that warrants the term 'race.'" The American Association of Physical Anthropologists recently announced: "… old biological concepts of race no longer provide scientifically valid distinctions…" Similarly, the American Anthropological Association proclaimed " … differentiating species into biologically defined 'races' has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation…"
Well, wishing isn't going to make race vanish into thin air. Let's review some of the major myths about race.
If races exist, then one must be supreme.

Much of the Race Does Not Exist cant stems from the following logic (if you can call it logic): "If there really are different racial groups, then one must be The Master Race, which means -- oh my God – that Hitler Was Right! Therefore, we must promote whatever ideas most confuse the public about race. Otherwise, they will learn the horrible truth and they'll all vote Nazi."
Look, this is one big non-sequiter: Of course, there are different racial groups. And of course their members tend to inherit certain different genes, on average, than the members of other racial groups. And that means racial groups will differ, on average, in various innate capabilities. But that also means that no group can be supreme at all jobs. To be excellent at one skill frequently implies being worse at something else. So, there can't be a Master Race. Sports fans can cite countless examples. Men of West African descent monopolize the Olympic 100m dash, but their explosive musculature, which is so helpful in sprinting, weighs them down in distance running, where they are also-rans. Similarly, there are far more Samoans in the National Football League than Chinese, simply because Samoans tend to be much, much bigger. But precisely because Samoans are so huge, they'll never do as well as the Chinese in gymnastics.
Every person falls into a single clear-cut racial group.

This one is so silly that I doubt that anybody who has thought about race in the real world for more than ten minutes believes this. Nobody can agree on how many racial groups there are, exactly who is in each one, or what to call them.
Since nobody can agree on how many racial groups there are, exactly who is in each one, or what to call them, then race does not exist.

This one's equally daft. Outside of mathematics, and of human inventions like the law, categories almost always fall across continuous dimensions. Where does "young" end and "old" begin? It all depends on the situation. For example, among female gymnasts, 18 is "old." Among architects, 45 is "young." Yet that does not mean that "age" is meaningless. Further, categories are typically fuzzy. Few people are 100% "sick" or 100% "well." But "health" is still a useful concept.
The best example of the fuzziness of natural categories is the concept of "extended family." All the criticisms made about the fuzziness of racial groups apply in spades to extended families. How many extended families do you belong to? Well, at least two: your mom's and your dad's. But they each belonged to their parents' two extended families, so maybe you belong to four. And your grandparents each belonged to two …
And what are the boundaries of your various extended families? If the question at hand is who you'd give a spare kidney to, you'd probably draw the limits rather narrowly. But, when making up your Christmas card list, you probably toss in the occasional third cousin, twice removed. And exactly what's the appropriate name for all these extended families anyway?
In fact, extended families are even less clear-cut than racial groups. Yet, nobody goes around smugly claiming that extended families don't exist.
But why is extended family such a perfect analogy for race? Because it's not an analogy. They are the same thing: kin, individuals united by common descent. There's no natural law defining where extended families end. A racial group is merely an extended family (often an extremely extended family) that inbreeds to some extent. It's this tendency to marry within the group that makes racial groups somewhat more coherent, cohesive, and longer lasting than smaller-scale extended families.
Genetic differences between the races can't exist because there hasn't been enough time for them to evolve in the 50,000 to 200,000 years since modern humans first emerged from Africa.

The popularity of this argument is bizarre, since genetic differences between the races are written on the faces of the people you see every day. If there wasn't enough time for these racially characteristic traits to evolve, how exactly did they come into existence? Magic? It's particularly amusing to hear paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould assert this since his one major contribution to science has been to document that evolution sometimes occurs at the speed of revolution.
In the History and Geography of Human Genes, Cavalli-Sforza calculates the surprisingly short time in which a version of a gene that leads to more offspring can spread from 1% to 99% of the population. If a rare variant of a gene produces just 1% more surviving offspring, it will become nearly universal in a human group in 11,500 years. But, if it provides 10% more "reproductive fitness," it will come to dominate in just 1,150 years. A classic example is the gene for lactose-tolerance. It was almost nonexistent until humans started milking cattle about 10,000 years ago. Today, its prevalence ranges from negligible among East Asians to 97% among Danes.
Race is only skin deep.

I'm sure this bit of conventional wisdom is most comforting to Jews suffering from Tay-Sachs disease, to blacks enduring sickle cell anemia, and to American Indians battling alcoholism. In reality, there is absolutely nothing that restricts racial differences to "mere cosmetics." Races can differ in any of the ways that families can differ from each other.
Most variation is within racial groups, not between racial groups. Two members of the same race are likely to differ from each other more than the average member of their race differs from the average member of another race.

Sure, but so what? No single human category can account for a majority of all the many ways humans differ from each other. Try substituting other categories like "age:" "Most variation is within age groups, not between age groups." Yup, that's true, too. But, it doesn't mean that Age Does Not Exist.
You often hear that between-group racial differences only account for 15% of genetic variation. This number comes from a 1972 study by Richard Lewontin of 17 blood types, comparing variation between continental-scale races and between national-scale racial groups (e.g., Swedes vs. Italians). Now, blood types are, I suppose, important, but they hardly represent all we want to know about human genetic diversity. Certain other traits are known to be more racially determined -- the figure for skin color, not surprisingly, is 60%. What the overall number is for all the important genes remains unknown.
Still, let's assume that Lewontin's 15% solution is widely applicable. That's like going to a casino that has American Indian and African American croupiers, and 85% of the time the roulette spins are random, but 15% of the time the ball always comes up red for Indian croupiers and black for the black croupiers -- pretty useful information, huh?
Most of the human race's genetic variation is among black Africans.

This chestnut is true only for junk genes, the DNA that doesn't do anything. Junk genes are highly useful to population geneticists tracing the genealogies of racial groups, but they don't affect anything in the real world.
Then, are black Africans highly diverse physically? Well, that depends upon who you are lumping together. There are indeed some highly unusual peoples in Africa, but almost none of them were brought to America as slaves. The most genetically distinct people in sub-Saharan Africa are the Khoisan. These are the yellowish-brown, tongue-clicking Bushmen and Hottentots of the Southern African wastelands, the remnants of a great race that once dominated most of Africa before the blacks ethnically cleansed them from the more desirable lands. The most striking contrast in Africa is between the tiny Pygmies and the ultra-tall herding tribes of East Africa. But except for the 7'7", 190-pound basketball novelty Manute Bol, few of either group made it to America. In contrast, the West African tribes that did provide the vast majority of American slaves are relatively homogenous. Cavalli-Sforza sums up the situation on the ground like this, "… differences between most sub-Saharan Africans other than Khoisan and Pygmies seem rather small."
This does not exhaust the list of dumb ideas about race that I've collected. But it does give a taste of how anthropologists try to make race disappear by closing their eyes and wishing. Well, race won't go away, because it's an inevitable outgrowth of family. Our only hope to manage the problems of race is to study it honestly."

[charliebrown]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

My husband was also a convert. One time when we were out walking, a truck drove by and slowed down. The driver leaned out the window and shouted, "Why don't you go back where you came from!" Without missing a beat my husband answered, "You mean Michigan?" The look on the driver's face was priceless.

hardy har har . Thanks for giving me a laugh today Shiny.

God grant you comfort in your grief. I know that God can use this tragedy for good. Perhaps the ignoranant, including me, will learn something about Sikhs from this.

This reminds me of the day in the grocery. I have an adopted child of different race, and one day a lady with a judgemental, condesending tone asked "Is that your child?? ...." I said yes, then she asked "Oh, Is your wife hispanic?" I said "No, but the maid is". Even though it wasn't true, the look on the lady's face was just as priceless. No more questions were asked.

[sunpearl71]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

Your husband's response reminded me of my own similar experience, but while talking to a person from an ethnic minority.

My thoughts and prayers are with you as you continue to battle the loss of your beloved husband.

Being of Indian origin (even though from the deep south and considered as Dravidian despite my physical appearance resembling a northern person), I appreciate the contribution of Sikhs to the well being of India through their valour and bravery that continues till date.

Without taking too much away from this thread, I would like to share this article with an interesting insight on how the term Caucasian has been treated historically in the US.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076/

[c1ue]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

Now to conclude with the race debate. Interestingly these writings are wrong at the bottom when he discusses "Junk dna" as my story above cites they are very important for variations in DNA.

Unfortunately there are just as many errors on understanding in the 'article' as the article seeks to dispel.

For one thing: it does a poor job of delineating the difference between expression of genes and theoretical genetic capabiity.

Junk DNA is called that primarily because we don't see any purpose for it, but the superset of what is called 'junk' today is significantly smaller than what was called 'junk' 30 years ago, or even 5 or 2. Thus 'capability' in the sense of genetic predisposition, much less pre-determination, cannot be said to be understood all that well when we cannot even explain well the line between 'control' and 'noise'.

Secondly all living creatures have, to some degree, some capability to respond to environment. Whether this is due to previously latent processes within the machinery built by genes, or by expression of hitherto inactive 'junk' dna, or some other mechanism, again the sheer lack of understanding inhibits any capability for categorization.

So what exactly do we know?

We do know, to a fair degree of certainty, that a relatively few dominant genes define phenotypes. As Belyaev showed, the phenotype for Siberian foxes was controlled by a demonstrably small number of genes because only a few generations of 'breeding back' unleashed a wildly disparate collection of previously unexpressed phenotypes. Equally so 'mixed' marriages between the major outward human phenotypes result in a clear blend.

The problem then with associating specific 'racial' characteristics to a given phenotype is that there is no scientific basis for doing so. Any given characteristic might be directly tied to the genes behind the phenotype, but they're much more likely to be due to other reasons simply due to the solution space.

Saying West Africans are fast is pretty much meaningless because we don't know the full genetic+socioeconomic options.

The comment that West Africans do great in sprints is not valid because the same generalization could have been said for golf players before Tiger Woods or tennis players before Arthur Ashe.

For all we know the reason West Africans are dominant in the sprint is because one successful West African showed the entire region another path with which to divert their efforts.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

I agree with a lot of what you say here Clue but not this.

"Saying West Africans are fast is pretty much meaningless because we don't know the full genetic+socioeconomic options.

The comment that West Africans do great in sprints is not valid because the same generalization could have been said for golf players before Tiger Woods or tennis players before Arthur Ashe.

For all we know the reason West Africans are dominant in the sprint is because one successful West African showed the entire region another path with which to divert their efforts"

Sure the same generalization could be said before Tiger Woods in golf but that is one person who is only half black. I believe most people are talking about averages. There are always statistical outliers like Lamaert.

Why is it that most of all the long distance running world records are held by one tribe in Kenya? The Kalenjin tribe?

" The Kalenjin tribe of the Rift Valley in Kenya is

so good at long-distance running that they win forty percent of the topinternational distance running events. They only make up .0005 percent of thewhole population on earth. Their performance is extraordinary and has resulted

in a variety of studies."

http://anthropology.ua.edu/bindon/an.../Beardsley.pdf

In my view, the very definition of race is the different variations in genetic makeup that have resulted from the environment/climate the specific human population inhabited over the last 10k to 100k years.

Here again, you don't think caucasian sprinters have not been trying to run as fast as they can in the 100m for the last century? But a sub 10 second 100m has never been accomplished except by one caucasian and by four people of non west african descent. Caucasian people have been diverting their efforts toward the 100m for centuries and still cannot run as fast as west africans.

The greatest display of genetic abilities within population groups is on display as I type, the Olympics. Everyone can see what sports the Chinese dominate and what sports they do not.

Do you not think the Chinese government trains their 100m runners just as hard as their gymnasts and ping pong players? Sent to special schools at age 6 to train day in and day out at their designated sport?

So why do the Chinese win tons of medals in gymnastics and most racket sports but not in track and field? I would say the Chinese track and field participants have received 10x more training (by virtue of elite training starting at age 6) than the Americans or Jamaicans but they cannot hold a candle to even our slowest qualifier.

It is all evolution picking and choosing the right genes to adapt and survive the specific environments.

[c1ue]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

" The Kalenjin tribe of the Rift Valley in Kenya is

so good at long-distance running that they win forty percent of the topinternational distance running events. They only make up .0005 percent of thewhole population on earth. Their performance is extraordinary and has resulted

in a variety of studies."

http://anthropology.ua.edu/bindon/an.../Beardsley.pdf

In my view, the very definition of race is the different variations in genetic makeup that have resulted from the environment/climate the specific human population inhabited over the last 10k to 100k years.

Here again, you don't think caucasian sprinters have not been trying to run as fast as they can in the 100m for the last century? But a sub 10 second 100m has never been accomplished except by one caucasian and by four people of non west african descent. Caucasian people have been diverting their efforts toward the 100m for centuries and still cannot run as fast as west africans.

According to Wiki, there are 1.6M Kalenjin. If every single one of them trained for the 100m - I'm pretty sure that's a big fraction if not a majority of all the professional 100m runners around.

Until the entire rest of the world has trained and run the 100m - then we'll know. Or at least an appreciable fraction.

I for one have never. Have you?

That's what my point about tennis, golf, and African American quarterbacks was about.

For that matter look at China in the ongoing Olympics. Suddenly they're winning gold medals left and right. 20 years ago they were pretty much a non-entity.

Did the genes in China suddenly explode?

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

Lots of people train for all sports all the time. I have not trained for the 100m but I know many many kids from a young age who do of all races. On average the only ones who make it are from the same racial group.

Clue, thats a specious argument "For that matter look at China in the ongoing Olympics. Suddenly they're winning gold medals left and right. 20 years ago they were pretty much a non-entity.

Did the genes in China suddenly explode?"

China didn't start sending more than 20 delegates to Olympic games until 1984 due mainly to political reasons and ever since then have been accumulating medals at a rapid pace.

So basically you can say Chinese olympians didnt compete or exist until 20 years ago. Or to be exact 28 years ago.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/null/116819.htm

"When the 23rd Olympics were held in Los Angeles in 1984, China sent a delegation of 353 members consisting of 224 athletes for gymnastics and another 15 events. China's first gold medal at the L.A. Games was won by Xu Haifeng, a sharpshooter who also became the first Chinese to win such an honor in Olympic history. Wu Xiaoxuan won the title in standard small-bore rifle shooting, becoming the first Chinese woman to win an Olympic gold. Gymnastic star Li Ning won three gold medals, two silver medals and one bronze. Altogether, Chinese athletes took 15 gold, eight silver and nine bronze medals, standing fourth in the gold medals tally. The Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee sent a 67-member delegation, consisting of 57 athletes, and won 2 bronzes. It was the first time China and Chinese Taipei both attended the Olympics since 1948. "


Not to mention the new sports being introduced into the olympics that the Chinese are very good at in general.

[c1ue]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

Lots of people train for all sports all the time. I have not trained for the 100m but I know many many kids from a young age who do of all races. On average the only ones who make it are from the same racial group.

A gross generalization in the absence of evidence.

What's you're really saying above is that you never personally saw many kids make it who weren't black.

Besides the racial overtones, there are all sorts of reasons why your observations are valid. Maybe the black kids are expected to do well in track and field while the white kids aren't. Maybe the black kids see track and field as their best bet to be successful while the white kids focus on other areas. Maybe there is a dominant genetic characteristic. Maybe there isn't.

Whatever - the point is still valid: without exploring the full set of possibilities, or at least trying to, it is extremely dangerous to make generalizations.

So basically you can say Chinese olympians didnt compete or exist until 20 years ago. Or to be exact 28 years ago.

24 years ago, 20 years ago, 16 years ago, even 12 years ago, China wasn't the dominant medaling nation.

They are now.

Clearly there are factors beyond genetics at play, don't you think?

[jk]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

the discussion of "junk dna" reminded me of the old saw that we only used 10% of our brains. that was because some time ago we were only able to map about 10% to specific sensory or motor functions. nowadays i don't think you'd find a neuroscientist willing to say we use any less than 100% of our brains.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

There are always factors beyond genetics at play. I never said there wasn't. Any one person can dominate a specific sport. I never claimed otherwise.

I stated that on average certain groups are predisposed genetically to be better at certain sports. Does the Chinese government training come into play? Of course it does in a big way.

It is not generalizations when everyone knows that people of all races have been trying to train and run as fast as they can for over a hundred years now. How can you say the opposite?

"Besides the racial overtones, there are all sorts of reasons why your observations are valid. Maybe the black kids are expected to do well in track and field while the white kids aren't. Maybe the black kids see track and field as their best bet to be successful while the white kids focus on other areas. Maybe there is a dominant genetic characteristic. Maybe there isn't."

These statements are all true on individual cases but as a whole you can observe with your own eyes who runs the fastest and who doesnt.

Observation is a very powerful learning tool for humans. It is how we have discovered universal truths like gravity. Those scientists were free to observe and then test their hypothesis.

Today's scientists are never free to observe and test their hypothesis for politically correct reasons. You know this to be true in the global warming debate as it is predominately politically driven. The same can be said of genetic research.

There are certain truths that humans as individuals instinctly know but as a group they reject.

[jk]

Re: Sikh leader was a hero

frankly, i don't know whether "race" is a category that exists in some objective way or not. but, for all that this possibly spurious category motivated the shooter, i know it's not relevant to the objective fact of mass murder.

to say that a white supremacist may have been ignorant in thinking that indians were not caucasian, somehow implies that a more knowledgible white supremacist would have been better able to pick appropriate targets.