DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Michael Johnson: Slave descendants have 'superior athletic gene'

**GeraldCortis** · 07-05-2012, 10:34 AM

and to be honest I think Black athleticism is blown out of proportion.

I sort of agree .. in a way -- I think there are just physical differences, and as with anything in this world where there's give, there's take; you can't look left and look right at the same time after all -- not unless you clone yourself or if you're a bird (tho birds can't look straight in 3 dimensions).

A tall person can't fit through a short hole as easily and a short person reach a tall shelf as easily.

Blacks often have denser bones which translates to more muscle mass or something like that, but being denser translates into sinking easier in a swimming context (yeah, I'm repeating the "whites make the greatest swimmers" thing). Same thing in terms of half-piping, it would seem that greater weight would cause you to get less air. But I don't know. I also a few times read somewhere and a couple times heard in real life that Europeans and particularly more Northern populations had a squatter frame allowing more for heavy lifting, compared to the wiry frames of Africans whether built more for West Afro- quick short-burst activities or the Eastern long distance running stuff (and Kenyans followed by Ethiopians pwn).

But I don't know about all this, I've seen some pretty thick wide ass black American (Meaning West Afro- descended) black people and even (probably Western, or Central) Africans, and ofcourse, there are relatively more short & squat Bouncer-types and more tall & lean [Idk, what do tall and lean people do?] types in every group .. so I guess there's variation in everygroup. Unless someone wanted to interject an extremely simple and stupid racial-monolithic-archetype thing and say all non-Bouncer-type white guys would have to have a descendent-trait from tall-ass Africans / Dinkas or some other group which is absolute retardation non-sense not even worth entertaining considering the tallness & thinness of Swedes and shortness of some Asian groups and Pygmies.

So anyway yeah again I ghess there's variation in every group. But ofcourse they may have meant on average or overall. Wouldn't know how great the overlap though is.

07-05-2012, 10:34 AM	#9
GeraldCortis Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 486 Senior Member	and to be honest I think Black athleticism is blown out of proportion. I sort of agree .. in a way -- I think there are just physical differences, and as with anything in this world where there's give, there's take; you can't look left and look right at the same time after all -- not unless you clone yourself or if you're a bird (tho birds can't look straight in 3 dimensions). A tall person can't fit through a short hole as easily and a short person reach a tall shelf as easily. Blacks often have denser bones which translates to more muscle mass or something like that, but being denser translates into sinking easier in a swimming context (yeah, I'm repeating the "whites make the greatest swimmers" thing). Same thing in terms of half-piping, it would seem that greater weight would cause you to get less air. But I don't know. I also a few times read somewhere and a couple times heard in real life that Europeans and particularly more Northern populations had a squatter frame allowing more for heavy lifting, compared to the wiry frames of Africans whether built more for West Afro- quick short-burst activities or the Eastern long distance running stuff (and Kenyans followed by Ethiopians pwn). But I don't know about all this, I've seen some pretty thick wide ass black American (Meaning West Afro- descended) black people and even (probably Western, or Central) Africans, and ofcourse, there are relatively more short & squat Bouncer-types and more tall & lean [Idk, what do tall and lean people do?] types in every group .. so I guess there's variation in everygroup. Unless someone wanted to interject an extremely simple and stupid racial-monolithic-archetype thing and say all non-Bouncer-type white guys would have to have a descendent-trait from tall-ass Africans / Dinkas or some other group which is absolute retardation non-sense not even worth entertaining considering the tallness & thinness of Swedes and shortness of some Asian groups and Pygmies. So anyway yeah again I ghess there's variation in every group. But ofcourse they may have meant on average or overall. Wouldn't know how great the overlap though is.
	Quote