Your answer to why there is only black sprinters in 100M since 1982 is black people don’t like swimming? The not swimming might be mainly cultural. The Nazis didn’t say Ashkenazi Jews were smarter than them. They said they used nepotism because they thought they were innately different (chosen).
I watched a great news video about Black people and swimming called “Why So Many Black People In The US Can’t Swim”. I think you were partly right about it being a cultural thing. Unfortunately, a culture of Black people not swimming seems to have been driven by overtly racist policies and legalized segregation starting toward the end of World War II. And the consequences of all that affect Black people to this day, resulting in a very disturbing statistic about black children and drownings. Nevertheless, this is a very uplifting, inspirational story. Video is about 10 minutes long. Plenty of other videos available on the same subject. th-cam.com/video/zjC2Ucpr__E/w-d-xo.html Regarding your point about Nazi propaganda and Jews, I wonder how many Nazis took part in nepotism to further their own ends.
Hardly surprising one would be master race didn't say another was superior. They did imply it though, by claiming Jews were dishonest, scheming & liable to trick them.
I'm not sure how you define 'black', but are you seriously suggesting that all people with dark brown skins and curly hair don't like swimming? Are you aware of dark skinned pearl divers in Micronesia, Indonesia, etc.?? My step-brother has very dark skin and was a good swimmer in his teens, but didn't have the urge to commit to competing past regional level - he had other interests. He still belongs to a swimming club and takes his kids.
@@MrBlackfalconuk I'm not and I struggle to see how Americans are special in this. My point is that in most cases people group up with likeminded people, whether that's woke idiots or conspiracy theorists, they keep confirming their stupid beliefs, reciting ideological nonsense and smelling each others farts.
Indigenous Australians were separated from Europeans and Africans by half a world for 30,000 years. In all that time, there were no significant genetic changes between these groups, despite a very different environment. That's science!
@yukamikey5000 Utter garbage. Did you even read Rutherford's book? COVID evolves radically every 4 months! 30,000 years is a thousand generations. Plenty of time for people to evolve lighter skin, for example, as in North Africa.
A racist believes in the inherent superiority of one race over another. Why are so many top athletes black especially if they come from a smaller population of participants? Racism is, I wou;ld argue, but race related questions don't have to be. Indians might not be good footballers , but they are good at cricket which is a cultural influence ....neither area of excellence makes them non Indians .
Challenging someone who has reprehensible views isn't always about convincing them but convincing the other people who are listening, especially when you can show that their views are irrational.
@bigchongus_ No, Europeans did not invade Mesopotamia, but none of this matters within the context of the person's argument that I was responding to. Africans indeed were aware of wheels.
Studies have shown that the main reason for dominance of black sprinters and white swimmers is essentially body shape. Other factors such as how many compete in these sports and culture come into it too. There is , in my opinion , the fact that children of African, Asian and Latin decent develop faster in childhood giving a possible advantage in physique . This advantage then plays towards a child feeling and coaches that the more developed child is better than others and so more attention is given to these kids or the kid becomes encouraged to pursue this activity sooner and more intensely. This would give those kids a very good head start. Then by the time white kids catch up at 14-16 the decisions have generally already been made as to who is a good runner, who can play football for the school team. Even who is academic etc.
He doesn't understand evolution either. The idea of natural selection was developed by Darwin who had no idea that genes existed. Natural selection would be true even if genes didn't exit. You can't refute the idea that mankind has evolved in different ways as a response to different environments by pointing to things (genes) that are not part of the theory of natural selection.
Adam Rutherford talks about the genetic isopoint in his book 'How to Argue with a Racist' What he won't tell you is that the concept of the ACA (All Common Ancestors) point was developed largely by Douglas L.T. Rohde , along with others, and Rohde wrote 'Certainly the Japanese and Norwegian have quite different genotypes due to very different ancestry.' (Rohde, On the Common Ancestor of All Living Humans, MIT, November 11, 2003) Why won't Rutherford tell you that? The person who developed the concept that Rutherford used pointed out that it doesn't mean what Rutherford wants it to mean, and Rutherford won't tell the marks who bought his book, expecting to read useful information.
Why have you kept making new posts on this video every few weeks for the past 2 years? You're a very dishonest person by the way. When you write that Rohde said "Certainly the Japanese and Norwegian have quite different genotypes due to very different ancestry", you left out the context and the preceding sentences and later sentences. He writes: "It is likely that the notion of a relatively recent ACA point may lead to some confusion. If we consider only ancestors who lived prior to the ACA point, a *Japanese and a Norwegian today share the exact same set of ancestors* . At first glance this seems patently ridiculous. Certainly the *Japanese and Norwegian have quite different genotypes due to very different ancestry* . *The confusing fact is that both of these statements are true* . Although the Japanese and Norwegian have the *same set of ancient ancestors* , they did not receive an equal hereditary contribution from each of those ancestors. The Japanese owes a small proportion of his genetic makeup to people living in northern Europe several thousand years ago, and a large proportion to people living in and around Japan, while the opposite is true of the Norwegian. Thus, their ancestry does differ considerably, *but only in distribution* ." This is the second time I've seen you misrepresent scientific papers in an effort to discredit Dr. Rutherford, and it is absolutely pathetic. You're going to continue to fail.
@@NanakiRowan A) I did not misrepresent the paper. Your quote simply confirmed the 100% accuracy of what I was saying, and the fact that Rohde himself said that his work does not back up Rutherford's claims. None of what you posted contradicted in anyway anything I said. '....but only in distribution ." You highlighted that so people can see exactly your lack of understanding..... Rutherford's claim of an ACA is correct, but purely a statistical thing ,like the fact that thousands of people on Earth have exactly the same number of hairs on their head as I do. It doesn't mean we have the same hair.... The *distribution* of hair is what counts, like the distribution of ancestors is what counts. B) Unlike Rutherford, I quote my source so you can check it. Because I am honest. Rutherford did not give sources for his claims, because he knew that some people would take the trouble to read the original. So he tried to hide his sources. Rutherford wrote a 'science' book and as far as I can see never cited sources.....
@@stevencarr4002 You absolutely did misrepresent the paper, and I copied and pasted Rohde's entire quote which shows that you did misrepresent it by taking it out of context and ignoring his subsequent statements. Literally everything Rohde said, which I highlighted, backs up Rutherford. You absolutely are a liar, and your obsession with attempting to discredit Rutherford every few weeks (and failing) is one of the most bizarre things I've seen in awhile.
There are medicines that work on people of some ethnic groups and don't work on others. There are ethnic groups who have genes to digest dairy and others who can digest kelp. People also vary in superficial traits like skin colour or other appearance related features. How likely is it that we differ only in things that don't really matter and the things that matter to us like: strength, speed, intelligence etc. show zero variance between populations? I don't think the path of turning a blind eye to these facts pretending they don't exist is the path forward. The more we find out about the world and our technology, medicine etc. improves the more we're going to bump our heads into this thing. It's ok to be different. How about we just get along despite our differences, maybe try to address it where it may be problematic, such as education. Which we can't do if we keep making unfounded assumptions about variance in our populations. Maybe the big woke strategy is to just pretend the differences don't exist untill our genes mix up enough over generations, and that technically could work. However there are a couple of problems I see with this approach: how many generations is it going to take and do we have that sort of time in a fast paced world, where conflicts are abundant. Furthermore, the current trend towards deglobalization and more protectionism works against this. So I guess the answer again is Love. We need to learn to love eachother's differences and accept them. Without forgetting to make more love with the representatives of those different people and in a couple dozen generations we'll all be alike, which is a nice safety net in case we forget the previous lesson.
Ethnicity doesn't always dictate the effectiveness of pills, and digestion of diary or kelp. High probability doesn't make something true or false, and often improbable theories end up being correct. He literally said that significant genetic differences between races doesn't exist, and this is based on a lot of the best scientific research available, not on "unfounded assumptions", "turning a blind eye" to "facts", or "Love".
There are over 3000 ethnic groups in the world. If only there was a higher level category that some of those ethnic groups could be put into, it would make the task of medical research much easier, having to investigate the effects on only 8 or 10 of this new classification rather than on 3000 or more different ethnic groups. But what could we call such a higher level grouping?
Really great video. His voice is so soothing! 100m is a bad example though. As that is a large part physiological / stride length to hip ratio. It's important that saying "The fastest people are black" isn't saying "all black people are fast". But at the tippy top elite level, you couldn't train a white person to run a sub 9.9 second 100m. If Michael Owen had been a sprinter rather than footballer (which he was because of cultural reasons - I get that) from a young age so got elite training, he'd have got nowhere near the GB Olympic team ever. Elite sports are bad examples. As they are the top 0.1% of the top 0.1%.
Rutherford omits the work by Jon Entine and David Epstein on physical differences that help explain why athletes with West African ancestry dominate sprints while East African athletes dominate long distance.
M Steinberg That’s interesting. Does that work include possible reasons for the physical differences? Could their respective environments over time have played some part?
@@harry011984 So you think a white man could win one of the next 5 100m golds at the Olympics? I'll take the bet. Even give you 2/1. What arbitrary numbers did I come up with? The fact no white person has ever broke 9.9 seconds?
@@harry011984 Does every man that showed a glimpse of ever being able to run sub 10 seconds get "discovered"? Yes. Apart from in a minority of areas of a minority of African countries. Which schools don't do "running"?
@@danielwebb8402 Plenty of places don't, have optimal diets, build tracks or have hierarchical sports organisations. I only commented to agree with your principal assertion though: The vast majority of us are under the middle of the bell curve. There will be people of all races, & sexes too, that are better or worse than us at any chosen criteria. If you want to know who is smarter, faster or anything else the only way is to test who is smarter or faster. Even at the extremes of the curve, you are dealing with anomalies that could occur in any sample, so you still couldn't be sure you've found the fastest by only testing the population that tends to be faster on average.
Adam Rutherford surrenders to reality on page 55 of 'How to Argue with a Racist' 'The genetic differences between us, small though they are, account for much, but not all, of the physical variation we can see or assess. The diaspora from Africa around 70,000 years ago and continual migration and mixing since, means that we can see that there is structure within the genomes that underlies our basic biology. Very broadly, that structure corresponds with land masses, but within those groups there is huge variation, and at the edges and within these groups, there is continuity of variation.' What could these land masses be? Sub-Saharan Africa? East Asia and South Asia, separated by the Himalayas? Australia/New Zealand? And perhaps we could also put names to these 'groups'..... You might be able to think of some names yourself. Rutherford wrote his book , because the previous year Angela Saini had written the awful ' Superior: The Return of Race Science.' , and he had to write something that wasn't as easily smashed. But he still can't beat reality. There are still 'genetic differences between us' , which very broadly, corresponds with land masses.
@@fomalhauto Yes, genetic drift in an area the size of sub-Saharan Africa mounts up. Most genetic variation is non-coding , so tribes in Africa which are , or have been, isolated by vast distances from each other will have a lot of non-coding random genetic variation. Africa is a huge place, and the out of Africa theory says humans have been living there longer than anywhere else, so plenty of time for genetic drift. Genetic variation is captured in cluster diagrams. Rutherford mentions clustering studies in two paragraphs, doesn’t show the data, doesn’t explain results, and handwaves it away. Why does Rutherford not show any cluster diagrams of genetic variation in his book, if they are a slam-dunk argument in his favour? Why did he hide the evidence? Have a look at the 2014 paper Genetic Bio-Ancestry and Social Construction of Racial Classification in Social Surveys in the Contemporary United States by Guang Guo, Yilan Fu, Hedwig Lee, Tianji Cai, Kathleen Mullan Harris.
Why have you kept making new posts on this video every few weeks for the past 2 years? It's almost like you're trying to convince *yourself* that the facts Rutherford stated aren't true.
"There are still 'genetic differences between us" Neither he, nor any other population geneticist has ever stated that all humans are the same. There is still more genetic variation within so-called racial groups than between them. Rutherford's statements have been affirmed by genetic sequencing and genetics research institutes.
@@NanakiRowan Look at genetic cluster diagrams in the paper 2014 Genetic Bio-Ancestry and Social Construction of Racial Classification in Social Surveys in the Contemporary United States by Guang Guo, Yilan Fu, Hedwig Lee, Tianji Cai, Kathleen Mullan Harris, and Yi Li You can take a drop of saliva and tell with 99.86% accuracy what race somebody identified as. ''This study used a large data set of 3,636 U.S. patients with high blood pressure, and showed a 99.86 % match between cluster-analysis assignment and self-classification into white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic. '' How can you do that if race is no more a biological reality than star signs are? When Rutherford wrote his book, he didn't dare to show the marks what genetic cluster diagrams looked like. If the facts support him, why did he leave them out of his book? Why are there no genetic cluster diagrams in his book if what you say is true?
actually, there probably is a difference between swimming and running. Olympic swimmers have more body fat whilst the sprinters look "dry" and muscular.
@@awalkwithtilly6512 To be an olympic swimmer or cyclist... you must also grow up very wealthy... if the govt subsidised these sports completely for children from age 0, then I would guess that the ratio of African-Americans being competitive in them would increase.
@@konskift yes undoubtedly the greater the access the more individuals of exceptional ability would be present however that wouldn't account for discrepancies in the UK for example, where access to swimming facilities would be open to most people a quick look at the UK swim team then a side by side comparison with UK Olympic sprint squad would show there are obviously other factors at play.
@@konskift Possibly being a little more accurate in the case you present is going to be more helpful when discussing this subject. Black sprinters happen to be black but they also happen to descend from a very specific area in Africa that happens to convey them a higher prevalence of a particular genetic benefit in this area to them, that benefit is evidently to do with relative torso to limb length which helps when sprinting, if you have a shorter torso being a benefit, being black is not the relevant factor it is merely coincidental that particular line of descent has a much higher representation of this specific characteristic, the opposite is evidently true in swimming where a longer torso length relative to height is important this isn't because the individuals are black or white it is merely a trait that happens to be predominant in their ancestry. Culture will obviously also have a significant effect on this but to deny the reality of the associated genetic component may prove to be a problematic path to take, another example may be Kenyan distance runners having both a cultural background of distance running and a genetic disposition toward this endurance sport. It would be like saying tall people have an advantage in basketball, therefore if there are a group of individuals that are tall within the group you're selecting them from they are highly likely to be over represented in that field of endeavour, if their ancestors happened to also be dark skinned just as they passed down the increase in average height they may have also passed on the skin pigmentation they carry. There's a reasonable amount of evidence that intelligence also has a significant genetic component, in conjunction with a cultural emphasis on intellectual development this will cause obvious deviations between groups and individuals. The pigmentation of the individual's skin isn't the reason for the advantage or disadvantage they may have in any field of endeavour merely a secondary or coincidentally inherited characteristic. Again these factors don't display a rule just an increase in prevalence of a trait within a specific group of individuals. Racism at least to me would not be to deny the reality of this rather to pretend that this makes any one group of individuals not able to exploit whatever genetic advantage they may personally have, as long as it is not to harm or disadvantage others, because of another secondary genetically inherited trait.
Why are there so many Black players in the NBA? Because basketball is popular with the black community. And the ingrained stubborn beliefs that are part of Americans and sports. There were no black students in my school. And My English teacher in 8th grade once said in a conversation with the students " never get in a fight with a black kid. THEY are stronger than THEY look". That was in 1968. For a long time I thought that was just good advice and common sense but the racial remark is thinly disguised. And would a white guy believe that he needed a weapon to give him a fair chance? Hopefully not. But even somewhat harmless conversations can add to sensitive racial issues.
Had to chuckle at the comment made by the English teacher, maybe some irate 'black' kid once slapped him for his stupidity and he'd only remembered the physical assault rather than what led to it...
There may well already be a few Aboriginal scientists and engineers working in related fields. You'd be mistaken if you thought 'white' rocket science existed, I've encountered lots of researchers and practising technologists with brown skins.
no............they're not depends on the person it's not like West Africans are dominating track and field like African Americans have the average African American is around 3/4 Sub Saharan African and around 1/4 Sub Saharan African black and white races are social constructs created out of White Supremacist ideology
Not one person is going to listen to Adam Rutherford and walk away thinking that Algerians, sub-Saharan Bantus and San people, Japanese people and Aboriginal people in Australia have no significant genetic differences. They might be convinced for 24 hours by listening to him and then reality will kick in. Because that's what reality does.....
@Racialist Slayer Wow! You literally can't argue with logic like that. You just can't argue with people who can't tell Japanese and San people apart because they have similar eye shapes. They say to me 'Look. This anime is obviously from Southern Africa, so Rutherford is right'
@Racialist Slayer 'They don't have any significant genetic differences.' We must celebrate diversity and also deny that there is any diversity. Also, there are no significant genetic differences and white people genocided people of colour by introducing diseases which they had no resistance to.
@@fomalhauto Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection means that population groups living in different environments will over time have descendants that are better adapted to those environments. Creationists like Duane Gish and Ken Ham dispute this. Do you think Darwin was wrong?
Possibly being a little more accurate in the case you present is going to be more helpful when discussing this subject. Black sprinters happen to be black but they also happen to descend from a very specific area in Africa that happens to convey them a higher prevalence of a particular genetic benefit in this area to them, that benefit is evidently to do with relative torso to limb length which helps when sprinting, if you have a shorter torso being a benefit, being black is not the relevant factor it is merely coincidental that particular line of descent has a much higher representation of this specific characteristic, the opposite is evidently true in swimming where a longer torso length relative to height is important this isn't because the individuals are black or white it is merely a trait that happens to be predominant in their ancestry. Culture will obviously also have a significant effect on this but to deny the reality of the associated genetic component may prove to be a problematic path to take, another example may be Kenyan distance runners having both a cultural background of distance running and a genetic disposition toward this endurance sport. It would be like saying tall people have an advantage in basketball, therefore if there are a group of individuals that are tall within the group you're selecting them from they are highly likely to be over represented in that field of endeavour, if their ancestors happened to also be dark skinned just as they passed down the increase in average height they may have also passed on the skin pigmentation they carry. There's a reasonable amount of evidence that intelligence also has a significant genetic component, in conjunction with a cultural emphasis on intellectual development this will cause obvious deviations between groups and individuals. The pigmentation of the individual's skin isn't the reason for the advantage or disadvantage they may have in any field of endeavour merely a secondary or coincidentally inherited characteristic. Again these factors don't display a rule just an increase in prevalence of a trait within a specific group of individuals. Racism at least to me would not be to deny the reality of this rather to pretend that this makes any one group of individuals not able to exploit whatever genetic advantage they may personally have, as long as it is not to harm or disadvantage others, because of another secondary genetically inherited trait.
@@gabrielzinho07_ I did contribute with a nuanced and detailed explanation of a position. Which specific current genetic research are you referring to that directly contradicts this position? As far as I am aware nothing in the statement I made is erroneous please feel free to correct any errors I have made in my observation I am not a geneticist and am more than happy to stand corrected.
So based on what you are saying, (which I agree with) is that the environment dictates some portion of genes which in return create different attributes that are better or worse within the context of a sport such as distance running. Therefore the big difference between people who excel in these kinds of sports and those that don't IS genetics
yes I noticed so many Chinese running under 10 sec 100 meter sprints. The Jamicans must be getting worried ........."but clearly the answer to that is no"
JR 2020 Now, now. benbow7’s first statement only mentions “preference”. It doesn’t translate to “all living things abhor those living things that are different from themselves.” See my reply to BigAlFIGala below…
I think these racists would agree that the differences in outcomes are mostly cultural. Jewish people value eduction and that has helped them, but isn’t that racist to say? One can apply a test to see if this is a racist statement by using the same standard to say something negative about a race. For example, Harvard University rejects academically gifted Asian students by saying that they are not interesting.That is racism, and it is based on culture and not inherent to a race. Likewise, people who say that African Americans have a bad culture are being racist. So why isn’t your video racist when you say that different races have different cultures and that leads to them being good or bad at various activities?
Because first, he is not even saying that, in fact I believe he understands "race" is an invalid scientific category but is a social one. Second, pointing out that groups of people have different cultures (at present) is NOT saying that is inherent to those groups of people forever or since always, just pointing out how culture has developed in them. I can see where your point comes from but it's a fallacy in representation and logic.
@@SydBarrettsGhost huh? That doesn’t even make sense in light of the topic. You tried too hard to use that name and it just didn’t work sorry. What’s next...?
Rutherford also omits the work by Jon Entine and David Epstein on physical differences that help explain why athletes with West African ancestry dominate sprints while East African athletes dominate long distance.
The speaker in the video immediately discredits racial differences, making the classic comparison to Nazism in order to besmirch any discussion of genetic variation. Asians and Africans have gone through highly divergent evolutionary pathways, and as such we see different hair, skin tone and texture, musculature, height, eyesight, and so on. Are these differences purely cultural? Charles Darwin and James Watson didn't seem to think so. And why would these differences simply stop at the physical level and have no impact upon different groups' capacity for cognition? Indigenous Australians lived such a unique life with a unique set of evolutionary pressures and obstacles, but as such, they didn't develop a written language. Would this not have created neurological differences over time? We know different races have different brain sizes, does this not impact ones capacity to think? And lastly, the answer is often that any group differences can be chalked up to being merely "cultural" as opposed to genetic. To that I ask, is culture entirely separate from genetics? Or do the genetics of a group influence their resulting culture? I ask these questions not to be inflammatory, but it seems the politicization of science is prompting many to avoid asking and answering serious questions that may help us to fundamentally understand group differences. When we have race-based quotas, grants and subsidies, clearly society is trying to rectify any differences in outcome between racial groups (largely due to historical injustices and subsequent guilt.) But shouldn't we know the full breadth of the problem society is attempting to solve? Will welfare given to underperforming minority communities over, say, 200 years, increase the disparity between themselves and Ashkenazi Jewish people when it comes to Nobel prizes?
Because scientific racism is considered pseudoscientific, and that has nothing to do with politics. One could write a whole series of books about the subtle differences between homeopathic and Ayurvedic treatments, for example, but those would be based predominantly on misconceptions. Humans often behave in ways contrary to the needs printed into our genes because we're not its slaves, or else we would never be able to fly airplanes, do space research, fast, abstain from sex, skydive, take cold showers, et cetera. Our minds have much more information compared to the genome of any species, and the unique genetic information unique to a single person is overwhelmingly smaller than the information contained in their mind. If you think different skin pigmentation, height, brain size, late development of written language, are all significantly more telling than our ability to explain the universe around us and change it into our image, I don't know what else to tell you.
@ Neil The questions you've asked are not new and have been asked previously; your assumptions have been discounted by scientific research - please take some time to investigate the research.
Politically correct Adam Rutherford doesn't address evidence for group differences in athletic traits by the likes of Jon Entine or David Epstein, or the Duke study which helps explain why sprints are dominated by athletes of West African ancestry while East African athletes dominate longer distance running. Or why polynesian athletes are overreprresented in contact sports. There are _average_ biomechanical differences but ideologue Rutherford omits these. Rutherford also avoids the point made by Harvard geneticist David Reich and MIT's Robert Weinberg: traits influenced by genetics, including cognitive & behavioural traits, are expected to differ somewhat across groups as allele frequencies differ.
When did a west African actually win a gold medal in 100m? Americans win as they have better training facilities. Eastern Africans are a different race to west Africans, you like alot Europeans simply judge on skin colour alone. The black race isn't one race and never has been, somalians are different to other Africans etc. American blacks haven't been in Africa for 600 years and have European and native American DNA 🤔. They even look different to other blacks. Blacks from South America have even less African DNA.
Just bought his other book yesterday. Took only a chapter to realise that his bias was shining through. I like my geneticists who dont get into politics.
This is quite naive on your part to think that the way to go is to demonstrate to a racist that racism is bad, because .....they just don't care. The way to go is to state their responsibility in colonisation and slavery ... Either they accept history of this country or they renounce being British .... racists do not stop by themselves, they have to be stopped ....
Aside from race- These same diversion tactics will work on those woke family members, if you yourself are on the right conservative side of an argument. EXCEPT - the woke person will go into a rage, guaranteed. They need to be emotionally coddled. You can control their emotions.
Diversion tactics. Right conservative side of the argument? Oh, I see. So, only so-called WOKE people become enraged and lose control in a left versus right argument. If you’re just engaging them in an argument for the sole purpose of controlling their emotions, then that’s not productive is it? Or is the goal of the conservative person solely to have an “I gotcha” moment, just to be entertained? I hope not. We need conversations. Not confrontations. Too many people are already dying from the latter. In your experience, what issues and resolutions to those issues do BOTH Republicans and Democrats agree on? I would really like to hear your views.
What absolute twaddle. Conservatives fly into a Jesus based rage whenever one points out the hypocrisy of their so called "Christian values" in relation to their opposition to free at source health care for all . I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't heal the sick then invoice them for the privilege.
In the seventeenth century, race wasn’t seen as a very important component for defining who you are. Whites and blacks fought together in the unions for example. At that time, it was more like “the workers against the rich”, but then the elite came up with the great idea of discriminating the blacks and making the whites proud and feel superior, noble and proud based on their “race”, their “whiteness”, and then.... yeah it’s a long story, but it’s also a true story, sadly.... :)
your are particularly simple minded as you're only going by someones external ascetics. I Can show you pictures of people whom you think are white but are actually mixed and vice verse. If I showed you some organs you could only tell me if they were human but not the race. If you needed blood and a Chinese or black person matched your blood type would you be able to tell me which race it came from? After you got it? No .
@@kevin.afton_ So by looking at their skeletons, could they tell if those people were capable of building skyscrapers or complex economic systems? I don't think so.
Because different eyelids, skin colors, and types of hair are definitely more telling than the innate human ability of explaining the universe to create space stations and modern health care systems, _right?_
2:20 *"Most black people don't swim because its a culture thing." -- Racist or Fact?*
*Answer: Give it time.*
Your answer to why there is only black sprinters in 100M since 1982 is black people don’t like swimming? The not swimming might be mainly cultural. The Nazis didn’t say Ashkenazi Jews were smarter than them. They said they used nepotism because they thought they were innately different (chosen).
I watched a great news video about Black people and swimming called “Why So Many Black People In The US Can’t Swim”. I think you were partly right about it being a cultural thing. Unfortunately, a culture of Black people not swimming seems to have been driven by overtly racist policies and legalized segregation starting toward the end of World War II. And the consequences of all that affect Black people to this day, resulting in a very disturbing statistic about black children and drownings. Nevertheless, this is a very uplifting, inspirational story. Video is about 10 minutes long. Plenty of other videos available on the same subject.
th-cam.com/video/zjC2Ucpr__E/w-d-xo.html
Regarding your point about Nazi propaganda and Jews, I wonder how many Nazis took part in nepotism to further their own ends.
Hardly surprising one would be master race didn't say another was superior. They did imply it though, by claiming Jews were dishonest, scheming & liable to trick them.
I'm not sure how you define 'black', but are you seriously suggesting that all people with dark brown skins and curly hair don't like swimming? Are you aware of dark skinned pearl divers in Micronesia, Indonesia, etc.?? My step-brother has very dark skin and was a good swimmer in his teens, but didn't have the urge to commit to competing past regional level - he had other interests. He still belongs to a swimming club and takes his kids.
@@Rippypoo👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I genuinely hate the fact we harp on our differences no matter how small, but we do not celebrate what we have in more common.
Exactly
Bigots aren't into things like that?
That's funny. I find that 99% of human interaction is a circle jerk about things that they have in common.
@@Naegimaggu Not my experience, nor have I ever seen it in reality, however if you are American, that would explain your comment.
@@MrBlackfalconuk I'm not and I struggle to see how Americans are special in this. My point is that in most cases people group up with likeminded people, whether that's woke idiots or conspiracy theorists, they keep confirming their stupid beliefs, reciting ideological nonsense and smelling each others farts.
Indigenous Australians were separated from Europeans and Africans by half a world for 30,000 years.
In all that time, there were no significant genetic changes between these groups, despite a very different environment.
That's science!
@yukamikey5000 Utter garbage. Did you even read Rutherford's book?
COVID evolves radically every 4 months! 30,000 years is a thousand generations. Plenty of time for people to evolve lighter skin, for example, as in North Africa.
A racist believes in the inherent superiority of one race over another. Why are so many top athletes black especially if they come from a smaller population of participants? Racism is, I wou;ld argue, but race related questions don't have to be. Indians might not be good footballers , but they are good at cricket which is a cultural influence ....neither area of excellence makes them non Indians .
Not all top athletes are black. People who win the world's strongest man competitions are almost always white.
Challenging someone who has reprehensible views isn't always about convincing them but convincing the other people who are listening, especially when you can show that their views are irrational.
Yet Africans have never produced any civilisation and never even had the wheel. Sorry if not cultures are equal, but the evidence is overwhelming
@@zapre2284 Huh? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_in_Africa_throughout_history
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_wheel_in_Africa
@bigchongus_ The same way the Europeans did? You sure?
@bigchongus_ No, Europeans did not invade Mesopotamia, but none of this matters within the context of the person's argument that I was responding to. Africans indeed were aware of wheels.
How to arguenwith a racist....name one African civilsation ...oops
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_in_Africa_throughout_history
What was the point of your request?
@zapre2284 you're a moron of the highest order, grow up.
Studies have shown that the main reason for dominance of black sprinters and white swimmers is essentially body shape. Other factors such as how many compete in these sports and culture come into it too. There is , in my opinion , the fact that children of African, Asian and Latin decent develop faster in childhood giving a possible advantage in physique . This advantage then plays towards a child feeling and coaches that the more developed child is better than others and so more attention is given to these kids or the kid becomes encouraged to pursue this activity sooner and more intensely. This would give those kids a very good head start. Then by the time white kids catch up at 14-16 the decisions have generally already been made as to who is a good runner, who can play football for the school team. Even who is academic etc.
The tallest national population is the predominantly white Dutch.
I think you missed the whole point.
He really does not understand sport.
He doesn't understand evolution either. The idea of natural selection was developed by Darwin who had no idea that genes existed. Natural selection would be true even if genes didn't exit.
You can't refute the idea that mankind has evolved in different ways as a response to different environments by pointing to things (genes) that are not part of the theory of natural selection.
I don't what he trying to say that but we love cricket and we are good at.
@jane austin I didn't say India invented cricket. The whole world knows who invented cricket.
@jane austin we love cricket and we good at.
@jane austin not sure what are you debating for but once both the team was at the lowest but that doesn't stop loving this game.
@jane austin yes
I came here for racist dog whistles in the comments. Y’all didn’t disappoint.
Adam Rutherford talks about the genetic isopoint in his book 'How to Argue with a Racist'
What he won't tell you is that the concept of the ACA (All Common Ancestors) point was developed largely by Douglas L.T. Rohde , along with others, and Rohde wrote 'Certainly the Japanese and Norwegian have quite different genotypes due to very different ancestry.' (Rohde, On the Common Ancestor of All Living Humans, MIT, November 11, 2003)
Why won't Rutherford tell you that? The person who developed the concept that Rutherford used pointed out that it doesn't mean what Rutherford wants it to mean, and Rutherford won't tell the marks who bought his book, expecting to read useful information.
Why have you kept making new posts on this video every few weeks for the past 2 years? You're a very dishonest person by the way. When you write that Rohde said "Certainly the Japanese and Norwegian have quite different genotypes due to very different ancestry", you left out the context and the preceding sentences and later sentences. He writes: "It is likely that the notion of a relatively recent ACA point may lead to some confusion. If we consider only ancestors who lived prior to the ACA point, a *Japanese and a Norwegian today share the exact same set of ancestors* . At first glance this seems patently ridiculous. Certainly the *Japanese and Norwegian have quite different genotypes due to very different ancestry* . *The confusing fact is that both of these statements are true* . Although the Japanese and Norwegian have the *same set of ancient ancestors* , they did not receive an equal hereditary contribution from each of those ancestors. The Japanese owes a small proportion of his genetic makeup to people living in northern Europe several thousand years ago, and a large proportion to people living in and around Japan, while the opposite is true of the Norwegian. Thus, their ancestry does differ considerably, *but only in distribution* ."
This is the second time I've seen you misrepresent scientific papers in an effort to discredit Dr. Rutherford, and it is absolutely pathetic. You're going to continue to fail.
@@NanakiRowan A) I did not misrepresent the paper. Your quote simply confirmed the 100% accuracy of what I was saying, and the fact that Rohde himself said that his work does not back up Rutherford's claims.
None of what you posted contradicted in anyway anything I said.
'....but only in distribution ." You highlighted that so people can see exactly your lack of understanding.....
Rutherford's claim of an ACA is correct, but purely a statistical thing ,like the fact that thousands of people on Earth have exactly the same number of hairs on their head as I do. It doesn't mean we have the same hair.... The *distribution* of hair is what counts, like the distribution of ancestors is what counts.
B) Unlike Rutherford, I quote my source so you can check it.
Because I am honest.
Rutherford did not give sources for his claims, because he knew that some people would take the trouble to read the original.
So he tried to hide his sources.
Rutherford wrote a 'science' book and as far as I can see never cited sources.....
@@stevencarr4002 You absolutely did misrepresent the paper, and I copied and pasted Rohde's entire quote which shows that you did misrepresent it by taking it out of context and ignoring his subsequent statements. Literally everything Rohde said, which I highlighted, backs up Rutherford. You absolutely are a liar, and your obsession with attempting to discredit Rutherford every few weeks (and failing) is one of the most bizarre things I've seen in awhile.
There are medicines that work on people of some ethnic groups and don't work on others. There are ethnic groups who have genes to digest dairy and others who can digest kelp. People also vary in superficial traits like skin colour or other appearance related features. How likely is it that we differ only in things that don't really matter and the things that matter to us like: strength, speed, intelligence etc. show zero variance between populations?
I don't think the path of turning a blind eye to these facts pretending they don't exist is the path forward. The more we find out about the world and our technology, medicine etc. improves the more we're going to bump our heads into this thing. It's ok to be different. How about we just get along despite our differences, maybe try to address it where it may be problematic, such as education. Which we can't do if we keep making unfounded assumptions about variance in our populations.
Maybe the big woke strategy is to just pretend the differences don't exist untill our genes mix up enough over generations, and that technically could work. However there are a couple of problems I see with this approach: how many generations is it going to take and do we have that sort of time in a fast paced world, where conflicts are abundant. Furthermore, the current trend towards deglobalization and more protectionism works against this.
So I guess the answer again is Love. We need to learn to love eachother's differences and accept them. Without forgetting to make more love with the representatives of those different people and in a couple dozen generations we'll all be alike, which is a nice safety net in case we forget the previous lesson.
Ethnicity doesn't always dictate the effectiveness of pills, and digestion of diary or kelp. High probability doesn't make something true or false, and often improbable theories end up being correct. He literally said that significant genetic differences between races doesn't exist, and this is based on a lot of the best scientific research available, not on "unfounded assumptions", "turning a blind eye" to "facts", or "Love".
There are over 3000 ethnic groups in the world. If only there was a higher level category that some of those ethnic groups could be put into, it would make the task of medical research much easier, having to investigate the effects on only 8 or 10 of this new classification rather than on 3000 or more different ethnic groups.
But what could we call such a higher level grouping?
"There are medicines that work on people of some ethnic groups and don't work on others. "
Such as?
Really great video. His voice is so soothing!
100m is a bad example though. As that is a large part physiological / stride length to hip ratio. It's important that saying "The fastest people are black" isn't saying "all black people are fast".
But at the tippy top elite level, you couldn't train a white person to run a sub 9.9 second 100m. If Michael Owen had been a sprinter rather than footballer (which he was because of cultural reasons - I get that) from a young age so got elite training, he'd have got nowhere near the GB Olympic team ever.
Elite sports are bad examples. As they are the top 0.1% of the top 0.1%.
Rutherford omits the work by Jon Entine and David Epstein on physical differences that help explain why athletes with West African ancestry dominate sprints while East African athletes dominate long distance.
M Steinberg That’s interesting. Does that work include possible reasons for the physical differences? Could their respective environments over time have played some part?
@@harry011984
So you think a white man could win one of the next 5 100m golds at the Olympics? I'll take the bet. Even give you 2/1.
What arbitrary numbers did I come up with? The fact no white person has ever broke 9.9 seconds?
@@harry011984
Does every man that showed a glimpse of ever being able to run sub 10 seconds get "discovered"? Yes. Apart from in a minority of areas of a minority of African countries. Which schools don't do "running"?
@@danielwebb8402 Plenty of places don't, have optimal diets, build tracks or have hierarchical sports organisations. I only commented to agree with your principal assertion though:
The vast majority of us are under the middle of the bell curve. There will be people of all races, & sexes too, that are better or worse than us at any chosen criteria. If you want to know who is smarter, faster or anything else the only way is to test who is smarter or faster.
Even at the extremes of the curve, you are dealing with anomalies that could occur in any sample, so you still couldn't be sure you've found the fastest by only testing the population that tends to be faster on average.
Great you do this!!!! Thank you!!
Adam Rutherford surrenders to reality on page 55 of 'How to Argue with a Racist'
'The genetic differences between us, small though they are, account for much, but not all, of the physical variation we can see or assess. The diaspora from Africa around 70,000 years ago and continual migration and mixing since, means that we can see that there is structure within the genomes that underlies our basic biology. Very broadly, that structure corresponds with land masses, but within those groups there is huge variation, and at the edges and within these groups, there is continuity of variation.'
What could these land masses be? Sub-Saharan Africa? East Asia and South Asia, separated by the Himalayas? Australia/New Zealand?
And perhaps we could also put names to these 'groups'..... You might be able to think of some names yourself.
Rutherford wrote his book , because the previous year Angela Saini had written the awful ' Superior: The Return of Race Science.' , and he had to write something that wasn't as easily smashed.
But he still can't beat reality. There are still 'genetic differences between us' , which very broadly, corresponds with land masses.
genetic variation in "races" are much greater than genetic variation between "races" though
@@fomalhauto Yes, genetic drift in an area the size of sub-Saharan Africa mounts up. Most genetic variation is non-coding , so tribes in Africa which are , or have been, isolated by vast distances from each other will have a lot of non-coding random genetic variation. Africa is a huge place, and the out of Africa theory says humans have been living there longer than anywhere else, so plenty of time for genetic drift.
Genetic variation is captured in cluster diagrams.
Rutherford mentions clustering studies in two paragraphs, doesn’t show the data, doesn’t explain results, and handwaves it away.
Why does Rutherford not show any cluster diagrams of genetic variation in his book, if they are a slam-dunk argument in his favour? Why did he hide the evidence?
Have a look at the 2014 paper Genetic Bio-Ancestry and Social Construction of Racial Classification in Social Surveys in the Contemporary United States by Guang Guo, Yilan Fu, Hedwig Lee, Tianji Cai, Kathleen Mullan Harris.
Why have you kept making new posts on this video every few weeks for the past 2 years? It's almost like you're trying to convince *yourself* that the facts Rutherford stated aren't true.
"There are still 'genetic differences between us"
Neither he, nor any other population geneticist has ever stated that all humans are the same. There is still more genetic variation within so-called racial groups than between them. Rutherford's statements have been affirmed by genetic sequencing and genetics research institutes.
@@NanakiRowan Look at genetic cluster diagrams in the paper 2014 Genetic Bio-Ancestry and Social Construction of Racial Classification in Social Surveys in the Contemporary United States by Guang Guo, Yilan Fu, Hedwig Lee, Tianji Cai, Kathleen Mullan Harris, and Yi Li
You can take a drop of saliva and tell with 99.86% accuracy what race somebody identified as.
''This study used a large data set of 3,636 U.S. patients with high blood pressure, and showed a 99.86 % match between cluster-analysis assignment and self-classification into white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic. ''
How can you do that if race is no more a biological reality than star signs are?
When Rutherford wrote his book, he didn't dare to show the marks what genetic cluster diagrams looked like.
If the facts support him, why did he leave them out of his book? Why are there no genetic cluster diagrams in his book if what you say is true?
actually, there probably is a difference between swimming and running.
Olympic swimmers have more body fat
whilst the sprinters look "dry" and muscular.
Torso length.
@@awalkwithtilly6512 To be an olympic swimmer or cyclist... you must also grow up very wealthy... if the govt subsidised these sports completely for children from age 0, then I would guess that the ratio of African-Americans being competitive in them would increase.
@@konskift yes undoubtedly the greater the access the more individuals of exceptional ability would be present however that wouldn't account for discrepancies in the UK for example, where access to swimming facilities would be open to most people a quick look at the UK swim team then a side by side comparison with UK Olympic sprint squad would show there are obviously other factors at play.
@@konskift Possibly being a little more accurate in the case you present is going to be more helpful when discussing this subject.
Black sprinters happen to be black but they also happen to descend from a very specific area in Africa that happens to convey them a higher prevalence of a particular genetic benefit in this area to them, that benefit is evidently to do with relative torso to limb length which helps when sprinting, if you have a shorter torso being a benefit, being black is not the relevant factor it is merely coincidental that particular line of descent has a much higher representation of this specific characteristic, the opposite is evidently true in swimming where a longer torso length relative to height is important this isn't because the individuals are black or white it is merely a trait that happens to be predominant in their ancestry.
Culture will obviously also have a significant effect on this but to deny the reality of the associated genetic component may prove to be a problematic path to take, another example may be Kenyan distance runners having both a cultural background of distance running and a genetic disposition toward this endurance sport. It would be like saying tall people have an advantage in basketball, therefore if there are a group of individuals that are tall within the group you're selecting them from they are highly likely to be over represented in that field of endeavour, if their ancestors happened to also be dark skinned just as they passed down the increase in average height they may have also passed on the skin pigmentation they carry. There's a reasonable amount of evidence that intelligence also has a significant genetic component, in conjunction with a cultural emphasis on intellectual development this will cause obvious deviations between groups and individuals. The pigmentation of the individual's skin isn't the reason for the advantage or disadvantage they may have in any field of endeavour merely a secondary or coincidentally inherited characteristic. Again these factors don't display a rule just an increase in prevalence of a trait within a specific group of individuals. Racism at least to me would not be to deny the reality of this rather to pretend that this makes any one group of individuals not able to exploit whatever genetic advantage they may personally have, as long as it is not to harm or disadvantage others, because of another secondary genetically inherited trait.
@@awalkwithtilly6512 Good point... maybe... but how many on the UK sprint team are in actual fact Africans who moved directly to the UK as athletes.
Why are there so many Black players in the NBA? Because basketball is popular with the black community. And the ingrained stubborn beliefs that are part of Americans and sports.
There were no black students in my school. And My English teacher in 8th grade once said in a conversation with the students " never get in a fight with a black kid. THEY are stronger than THEY look".
That was in 1968. For a long time I thought that was just good advice and common sense but the racial remark is thinly disguised. And would a white guy believe that he needed a weapon to give him a fair chance? Hopefully not.
But even somewhat harmless conversations can add to sensitive racial issues.
Had to chuckle at the comment made by the English teacher, maybe some irate 'black' kid once slapped him for his stupidity and he'd only remembered the physical assault rather than what led to it...
So we might see the rise of Aboriginal rocket science soon?
The reason for this is cultural, not genetic.
There may well already be a few Aboriginal scientists and engineers working in related fields. You'd be mistaken if you thought 'white' rocket science existed, I've encountered lots of researchers and practising technologists with brown skins.
Blacks are faster runners, use your eyes.
no............they're not
depends on the person
it's not like West Africans are dominating track and field like African Americans have
the average African American is around 3/4 Sub Saharan African and around 1/4 Sub Saharan African
black and white races are social constructs created out of White Supremacist ideology
Not one person is going to listen to Adam Rutherford and walk away thinking that Algerians, sub-Saharan Bantus and San people, Japanese people and Aboriginal people in Australia have no significant genetic differences. They might be convinced for 24 hours by listening to him and then reality will kick in. Because that's what reality does.....
@Racialist Slayer Wow! You literally can't argue with logic like that. You just can't argue with people who can't tell Japanese and San people apart because they have similar eye shapes. They say to me 'Look. This anime is obviously from Southern Africa, so Rutherford is right'
@Racialist Slayer 'They don't have any significant genetic differences.' We must celebrate diversity and also deny that there is any diversity.
Also, there are no significant genetic differences and white people genocided people of colour by introducing diseases which they had no resistance to.
that doesn't mean that they're races
they are social construct
there is far more genetic variation in "races" than between "races"
@@fomalhauto Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection means that population groups living in different environments will over time have descendants that are better adapted to those environments.
Creationists like Duane Gish and Ken Ham dispute this. Do you think Darwin was wrong?
Can we see this fella argue with a racist anywhere?
He'd get destroyed.
He does it all the time on Twitter
@bigchongus_ No, he just destroys them.
Everyone who objects to this.... You are who he's referring to!
Yes, because I am not retarded, and can actually do statistics, instead of being convinced by emotional arguments
Possibly being a little more accurate in the case you present is going to be more helpful when discussing this subject.
Black sprinters happen to be black but they also happen to descend from a very specific area in Africa that happens to convey them a higher prevalence of a particular genetic benefit in this area to them, that benefit is evidently to do with relative torso to limb length which helps when sprinting, if you have a shorter torso being a benefit, being black is not the relevant factor it is merely coincidental that particular line of descent has a much higher representation of this specific characteristic, the opposite is evidently true in swimming where a longer torso length relative to height is important this isn't because the individuals are black or white it is merely a trait that happens to be predominant in their ancestry.
Culture will obviously also have a significant effect on this but to deny the reality of the associated genetic component may prove to be a problematic path to take, another example may be Kenyan distance runners having both a cultural background of distance running and a genetic disposition toward this endurance sport. It would be like saying tall people have an advantage in basketball, therefore if there are a group of individuals that are tall within the group you're selecting them from they are highly likely to be over represented in that field of endeavour, if their ancestors happened to also be dark skinned just as they passed down the increase in average height they may have also passed on the skin pigmentation they carry. There's a reasonable amount of evidence that intelligence also has a significant genetic component, in conjunction with a cultural emphasis on intellectual development this will cause obvious deviations between groups and individuals. The pigmentation of the individual's skin isn't the reason for the advantage or disadvantage they may have in any field of endeavour merely a secondary or coincidentally inherited characteristic. Again these factors don't display a rule just an increase in prevalence of a trait within a specific group of individuals. Racism at least to me would not be to deny the reality of this rather to pretend that this makes any one group of individuals not able to exploit whatever genetic advantage they may personally have, as long as it is not to harm or disadvantage others, because of another secondary genetically inherited trait.
More accurate than the current research on genetics? You more than welcome to contribute.
@@gabrielzinho07_ I did contribute with a nuanced and detailed explanation of a position. Which specific current genetic research are you referring to that directly contradicts this position? As far as I am aware nothing in the statement I made is erroneous please feel free to correct any errors I have made in my observation I am not a geneticist and am more than happy to stand corrected.
So based on what you are saying, (which I agree with) is that the environment dictates some portion of genes which in return create different attributes that are better or worse within the context of a sport such as distance running. Therefore the big difference between people who excel in these kinds of sports and those that don't IS genetics
@@matthewwilson1460 yes nice succinct sumation. I apologise for my pleonasm.
yes I noticed so many Chinese running under 10 sec 100 meter sprints. The Jamicans must be getting worried ........."but clearly the answer to that is no"
All living things have a preference for others that are similar to themselves. There's nothing more natural than that.
Nice way to justify your racism
Appeals to nature are lazy and almost always redundant
JR 2020 Its called homophilia, look it up sometime and you mightmlearn something about yourself
Are we supposed to be no better than "things in nature?"
JR 2020 Now, now. benbow7’s first statement only mentions “preference”. It doesn’t translate to “all living things abhor those living things that are different from themselves.” See my reply to BigAlFIGala below…
I think these racists would agree that the differences in outcomes are mostly cultural. Jewish people value eduction and that has helped them, but isn’t that racist to say? One can apply a test to see if this is a racist statement by using the same standard to say something negative about a race. For example, Harvard University rejects academically gifted Asian students by saying that they are not interesting.That is racism, and it is based on culture and not inherent to a race. Likewise, people who say that African Americans have a bad culture are being racist. So why isn’t your video racist when you say that different races have different cultures and that leads to them being good or bad at various activities?
Because race doesn't define culture.
Because first, he is not even saying that, in fact I believe he understands "race" is an invalid scientific category but is a social one.
Second, pointing out that groups of people have different cultures (at present) is NOT saying that is inherent to those groups of people forever or since always, just pointing out how culture has developed in them. I can see where your point comes from but it's a fallacy in representation and logic.
The word has become worthless.
Unless of course you’re a minority
It's got less value than a Zimbabwean shilling......whoops have I just been racist
@@SydBarrettsGhost racists tend to do their best to pretend everyone is racist so they blend in.
@@keaco73 like Anifa you mean ?
@@SydBarrettsGhost huh? That doesn’t even make sense in light of the topic. You tried too hard to use that name and it just didn’t work sorry. What’s next...?
Nonsense
Perfect
Rutherford also omits the work by Jon Entine and David Epstein on physical differences that help explain why athletes with West African ancestry dominate sprints while East African athletes dominate long distance.
there are actually some great French track cyclists who are black...
The answer is yes.there are reasons le bron James is a hero, I am your uncle, and I am not your enemy
Brilliant! Can’t wait to read it!
It's shit
how do you do that?
I can now argure witb my friend
The speaker in the video immediately discredits racial differences, making the classic comparison to Nazism in order to besmirch any discussion of genetic variation.
Asians and Africans have gone through highly divergent evolutionary pathways, and as such we see different hair, skin tone and texture, musculature, height, eyesight, and so on.
Are these differences purely cultural? Charles Darwin and James Watson didn't seem to think so.
And why would these differences simply stop at the physical level and have no impact upon different groups' capacity for cognition?
Indigenous Australians lived such a unique life with a unique set of evolutionary pressures and obstacles, but as such, they didn't develop a written language. Would this not have created neurological differences over time?
We know different races have different brain sizes, does this not impact ones capacity to think?
And lastly, the answer is often that any group differences can be chalked up to being merely "cultural" as opposed to genetic. To that I ask, is culture entirely separate from genetics? Or do the genetics of a group influence their resulting culture?
I ask these questions not to be inflammatory, but it seems the politicization of science is prompting many to avoid asking and answering serious questions that may help us to fundamentally understand group differences.
When we have race-based quotas, grants and subsidies, clearly society is trying to rectify any differences in outcome between racial groups (largely due to historical injustices and subsequent guilt.)
But shouldn't we know the full breadth of the problem society is attempting to solve?
Will welfare given to underperforming minority communities over, say, 200 years, increase the disparity between themselves and Ashkenazi Jewish people when it comes to Nobel prizes?
You are clearly head and shoulders above the average bleating snowflake in this comment section. Plenty of good arguments made succinctly. Bravo
More whites are on welfare
I know I’m a year late but brilliant comment
Because scientific racism is considered pseudoscientific, and that has nothing to do with politics. One could write a whole series of books about the subtle differences between homeopathic and Ayurvedic treatments, for example, but those would be based predominantly on misconceptions.
Humans often behave in ways contrary to the needs printed into our genes because we're not its slaves, or else we would never be able to fly airplanes, do space research, fast, abstain from sex, skydive, take cold showers, et cetera. Our minds have much more information compared to the genome of any species, and the unique genetic information unique to a single person is overwhelmingly smaller than the information contained in their mind. If you think different skin pigmentation, height, brain size, late development of written language, are all significantly more telling than our ability to explain the universe around us and change it into our image, I don't know what else to tell you.
@ Neil The questions you've asked are not new and have been asked previously; your assumptions have been discounted by scientific research - please take some time to investigate the research.
Read HTAWAR. Dude’s an absolute hack
@Racialist Slayer DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE FOR THAT???
Politically correct Adam Rutherford doesn't address evidence for group differences in athletic traits by the likes of Jon Entine or David Epstein, or the Duke study which helps explain why sprints are dominated by athletes of West African ancestry while East African athletes dominate longer distance running. Or why polynesian athletes are overreprresented in contact sports. There are _average_ biomechanical differences but ideologue Rutherford omits these. Rutherford also avoids the point made by Harvard geneticist David Reich and MIT's Robert Weinberg: traits influenced by genetics, including cognitive & behavioural traits, are expected to differ somewhat across groups as allele frequencies differ.
When did a west African actually win a gold medal in 100m? Americans win as they have better training facilities. Eastern Africans are a different race to west Africans, you like alot Europeans simply judge on skin colour alone. The black race isn't one race and never has been, somalians are different to other Africans etc.
American blacks haven't been in Africa for 600 years and have European and native American DNA 🤔.
They even look different to other blacks. Blacks from South America have even less African DNA.
@@oldboygeorge7688 Yes, africa is the most genetically diverse continent.
According to R. Dawkins "the deepest divide of counsinship is within africa"
Does this mean he's good at arguing with himself?
Are the differences between cats and humans cultural too? Are cats culturally programmed to hunt mice?
Cats can't fly manned rockets into habitable space stations.
Just bought his other book yesterday. Took only a chapter to realise that his bias was shining through. I like my geneticists who dont get into politics.
Racism will always be politics.
This is quite naive on your part to think that the way to go is to demonstrate to a racist that racism is bad, because .....they just don't care. The way to go is to state their responsibility in colonisation and slavery ... Either they accept history of this country or they renounce being British .... racists do not stop by themselves, they have to be stopped ....
Charlatan, Lightweight, Ideologue
Aside from race- These same diversion tactics will work on those woke family members, if you yourself are on the right conservative side of an argument.
EXCEPT - the woke person will go into a rage, guaranteed. They need to be emotionally coddled. You can control their emotions.
Diversion tactics. Right conservative side of the argument? Oh, I see. So, only so-called WOKE people become enraged and lose control in a left versus right argument. If you’re just engaging them in an argument for the sole purpose of controlling their emotions, then that’s not productive is it? Or is the goal of the conservative person solely to have an “I gotcha” moment, just to be entertained? I hope not. We need conversations. Not confrontations. Too many people are already dying from the latter. In your experience, what issues and resolutions to those issues do BOTH Republicans and Democrats agree on? I would really like to hear your views.
What absolute twaddle. Conservatives fly into a Jesus based rage whenever one points out the hypocrisy of their so called "Christian values" in relation to their opposition to free at source health care for all . I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't heal the sick then invoice them for the privilege.
If race is a social construct then at what point is it constructed? Because I can tell race at birth. I must be a genius.
In the seventeenth century, race wasn’t seen as a very important component for defining who you are. Whites and blacks fought together in the unions for example. At that time, it was more like “the workers against the rich”, but then the elite came up with the great idea of discriminating the blacks and making the whites proud and feel superior, noble and proud based on their “race”, their “whiteness”, and then.... yeah it’s a long story, but it’s also a true story, sadly.... :)
your are particularly simple minded as you're only going by someones external ascetics. I Can show you pictures of people whom you think are white but are actually mixed and vice verse.
If I showed you some organs you could only tell me if they were human but not the race. If you needed blood and a Chinese or black person matched your blood type would you be able to tell me which race it came from? After you got it? No .
@@oldboygeorge7688 Forensic scientists can tell race from a skeleton or a skull.
@@kevin.afton_ So by looking at their skeletons, could they tell if those people were capable of building skyscrapers or complex economic systems? I don't think so.
They also can't define their socioeconomic conditions and culture solely by looking at their remains.
okay i agree culture can be a part of the problem, but the gap is so large that you cannot blame everything on culture
Because different eyelids, skin colors, and types of hair are definitely more telling than the innate human ability of explaining the universe to create space stations and modern health care systems, _right?_
Leftism" "here to help". No thank you
Lol the angry racists in the comment section.
Cope
@@jessethomas9676 Thank you for validating my post😂😂😂😂
@@NanakiRowan That response makes about as much sense as race denial
@@jessethomas9676 Except you validated my post, so it absolutely does make sense, angry racist lmao
@@NanakiRowan Lay off the brain-rotting habits for a bit