Questions about Black Americans

[John Harmonic]

What part of Africa did Black Americans originate from? Also did some of the Black Americans come from Madagascar? 

Also why are Black Americans or black people in general muscular and physically superior to other races? The dominate fighting sports like boxing and are amazing at other sports like NFL as well. Why do black people dominate physically demanding tasks? Does it go back to hunter gathering days in wild where it was necessary or is it cause of the slave trade that bringing them to a colder climate made them require less skinny and more muscular and thicker black people? Just questions I am wondering. Thank you in advance.

[iNow]

Regardless of your intent, there’s a lot of biased thinking embedded in these questions.

Just because some humans have more melanin in their skin does not mean they are different in the ways you suggest. We’re all far more alike than not, and all of us share various bits of DNA and common ancestry.

You seem to be working from stereotypes and assuming things about physicality that (if present at all) are better explained by remembering how slave owners selected and bred slaves for specific characteristics. If certain strengths are more common (which I challenge as likely untrue), then it’s not about skin color at all but is about horrid decisions made on plantations about who could and could not have children. There’s also clear confirmation bias in your specific ideas.

Either way, this is one of those threads that is going to rub lots of people wrong and likely won’t stay open long. I’m pretty understanding and it rubs me wrong. 

Suggest you focus first on the historical origins question. To that end, see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_history#African_origins

Edited October 3, 2018 by iNow

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Regardless of your intent, there’s a lot of biased thinking embedded in these questions.

Just because some humans have more melanin in their skin does not mean they are different in the ways you suggest. We’re all far more alike than not, and all of us share various bits of DNA and common ancestry.

You seem to be working from stereotypes and assuming things about physicality that (if present at all) are better explained by remembering how slave owners selected and bred slaves for specific characteristics. If certain strengths are more common (which I challenge as likely untrue), then it’s not about skin color at all but is about horrid decisions made on plantations about who could and could not have children.

‘Either way, this is one of those threads that is going to rub lots of people wrong and likely won’t stay open long. I’m pretty understanding and it rubs me wrong. 

Regardless... Suggest you focus first on the historical origins question. To that end, see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_history#African_origins

He's young and he has been subliminally 'educated' that way,  like a lot of people.

[iNow]

If the questions were genuine and not biased, the OP wouldn’t have a photo like the one chosen. 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, John Harmonic said:

Also why are Black Americans or black people in general muscular and physically superior to other races?

Do you have any evidence this is the case?

I think there are probably two main factors here. One would be media stereotyping: so black people in TV series and movies usually get the roles as sports people or criminals or "the muscle". Similarly, the media talks more about black sportspeople than it does black academics or artists or ...

The other one is a social effect that in countries like the USA, black people and other minorities are often poorer than the average with fewer opportunities open to them. One route to success that is open to them is sports and so if there is a larger proportion successful black athletes (and I have no idea if this is true) that could be a factor.

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

If the questions were genuine and not biased, the OP wouldn’t have a photo like the one chosen. 

Why can't it be genuine and ignorantly biased, in a naive way?

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Why can't it be genuine and ignorantly biased, in a naive way?

Indeed. This sort of casual stereotyping is just as bad, and even more pervasive, than explicit “don’t want them in my street/town/country” racism. 

 

[iNow]

 I’m not right now as willing to give so much benefit to the doubt given the underlying currents and intentional cultural programming driving our world into so many dark places, but I won’t belabor it

[Taxonomist]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Regardless of your intent, there’s a lot of biased thinking embedded in these questions.

Just because some humans have more melanin in their skin does not mean they are different in the ways you suggest. We’re all far more alike than not, and all of us share various bits of DNA and common ancestry.

You seem to be working from stereotypes and assuming things about physicality that (if present at all) are better explained by remembering how slave owners selected and bred slaves for specific characteristics. If certain strengths are more common (which I challenge as likely untrue), then it’s not about skin color at all but is about horrid decisions made on plantations about who could and could not have children. There’s also clear confirmation bias in your specific ideas.

Either way, this is one of those threads that is going to rub lots of people wrong and likely won’t stay open long. I’m pretty understanding and it rubs me wrong. 

Suggest you focus first on the historical origins question. To that end, see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_history#African_origins

Race isn't defined by skin color. Other taxa aren't defined by "fur color" either. Where do you get this absurd idea? 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Taxonomist

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Taxonomist said:

Race isn't defined by skin color. Other taxa aren't defined by "fur color" either. Where do you get this absurd idea? 

I'm clear on the problems with race, and how it's a social construct as opposed to a biological one. As a first post, you should consider that maybe your tone could improve

You'll note the word race does not appear anywhere in my post, as evidenced by your own quote.

[Taxonomist]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I'm clear on the problems with race

Quote

Just because some humans have more melanin in their skin does not mean they are different in the ways you suggest. 

The only thing you're clear on is that you'll immediately reach for the absurd cliched strawman. Rather than whining about my "tone", how about you check your integrity?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

'm clear on the problems with race, and how it's a social construct as opposed to a biological one.

I will also add on top that biological categorization is to various degree also a construct. We are defining and using categories based on parameters that we deem useful for our investigations but they may only correspond to the actual system to a certain degree. 

To OP I will say that much of the aspects are down to societal heterogeneity rather than biological effects per se. And many, many misconceptions are down to rather awful studies by certain psychologists who preferred a strong narrative over strong science.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Taxonomist said:

Race isn't defined by skin color.

As there isn't any sort of objective definition, this is probably the thing that most people will latch onto as a defining characteristic.

[Taxonomist]

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I will also add on top that biological categorization is to various degree also a construct. We are defining and using categories based on parameters that we deem useful for our investigations but they may only correspond to the actual system to a certain degree. 

To OP I will say that much of the aspects are down to societal heterogeneity rather than biological effects per se. And many, many misconceptions are down to rather awful studies by certain psychologists who preferred a strong narrative over strong science.

What is this vague handwaving sophistry? Do you have any data on the specific question in the OP? Just "oh no when it comes to humans we can't notice any differences". Maybe get out of science and into Marxist fiction.

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, Taxonomist said:

The only thing you're clear on is that you'll immediately reach for the absurd cliched strawman. Rather than whining about my "tone", how about you check your integrity?

I’m also clear that you’re obviously worth ignoring and likely won’t be here for long if you continue on the current path. 

No troll feeding today, my friend

[Taxonomist]

Just now, iNow said:

I’m also clear that you’re obviously worth ignoring and likely won’t be here for long if you continue on the current path. 

No troll feeding today, my friend

I'm not a troll, how dare you. Quite obviously this is an echo chamber of pseudoscientific Marxists.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, Taxonomist said:

What is this vague handwaving sophistry? Do you have any data on the specific question in the OP? Just "oh no when it comes to humans we can't notice any differences". Maybe get out of science and into Marxist fiction.

!

Moderator Note

Attack the ideas all you want, but you will be civil here towards other members or you'll be gone. Not negotiable at all.

 

[Taxonomist]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Attack the ideas all you want, but you will be civil here towards other members or you'll be gone. Not negotiable at all.

 

Ah of course. My criticism of your content will be classed as "incivility" to give you the excuse you need to ban me. Go ahead.

[Phi for All]

Just now, Taxonomist said:

Ah of course. My criticism of your content will be classed as "incivility" to give you the excuse you need to ban me. Go ahead.

!

Moderator Note

It will be because you're breaking our #1 rule, repeatedly. Like that was your intention all along. Take today off, in any case. If you come back tomorrow still wanting to break the rules, I can ban you then if you like.

 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m not right now as willing to give so much benefit to the doubt given the underlying currents and intentional cultural programming driving our world into so many dark places, but I won’t belabor it

And the above exchange pretty much validates (in general terms) your assumptions. If someone puts up a post such in OP (with whatever motivation), certain types come out and jump in. Like clockwork, really. Ultimately the world seems to be full of insecure persons who seek validation online. That, sadly is also how self-radicalization works. I am almost getting angry at the thought that there are certain... academics, who exploits those folks for their own benefit.

[MigL]

How is unjustified generalizations about a certain demographic any different than unjust generalizations about poster's intentions ?

The OP was before the above exchange, so one can't be used to justify the other.
Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they actually cross the line.

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

How is unjustified generalizations about a certain demographic any different than unjust generalizations about poster's intentions ?

The OP was before the above exchange, so one can't be used to justify the other.
Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they actually cross the line.

My point is not that the motivation of OP is necessary in question. Rather that the general tone is indicative of a certain rather prevalent undercurrent of thoughts. I mean, within three hours of positing someone made an account specifically to post in this thread.

While OP may not be a hardliner, the same talking points are used. While I am not interested in speculating regarding intention, it is important to let OP know the context of the comments they made and why pushback could be harder than other types of questions.

Edited October 3, 2018 by CharonY

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they actually cross the line.

I believe I was extremely fair in my initial reply. YMMV

Edited October 3, 2018 by iNow

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m not right now as willing to give so much benefit to the doubt given the underlying currents and intentional cultural programming driving our world into so many dark places, but I won’t belabor it

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I believe I was extremely fair in my initial reply. YMMV

Picking upon your initial response. Is it the fault of the OP, given that they are in their formative years, to present such a view - and question it - or are they unwitting victims of 'intentional cultural programming'?

Edited October 3, 2018 by StringJunky

[iNow]

I don’t currently have enough information to answer that credibly.