Are some races more succesful due to their ethnicity

[spitshine]

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle...ith-a-new-book-on-race-relations-9111695.html

However academic and impersonal, the subject matter remains contentious: ethnicity, advantage, achievement, ambition. The Triple Package, published this week, examines why eight particular cultural groups (Jews, Indians, Chinese, Iranians, Lebanese, Nigerians, Cuban exiles and Mormons) are proving disproportionately successful in contemporary America. The three traits that Chua and Rubenfeld have identified, which all these minority groups share and which, they posit, when taken together contribute to such success are: a superiority complex — a belief in their exceptionality through difference, a form of “ethnic armour”; insecurity — a feeling that they or their achievements are not good enough; and impulse control — self-discipline and a belief in delayed gratification.[/B

What are people's views on this - are some groups predisposed to be succesful and others no matter how they try will never be a success?

 

[spitshine]

excuse my spellng error in the title!

 

[Baleforce]

I don't think so, I think you are a product of your environment.

 

[spitshine]

I don't think so, I think you are a product of your environment.

As in if you're parents are drunks, drug addicts, you live in Mitcham(as an example), 5 kids in household. But most of the groups mentioned have large families, i.e. Jewish, Nigerian etc

 

[Richie]

I think it is much more likely to be social rather than genetic factors. Take for example in the UK, I think migrants generally have a much better work ethic than British born. Whether that's an entitlement culture of British born people, the tougher conditions that migrants faced in their home country or other environmental factors, I don't think it's genetic.

Someone was talking on TV about schools in Africa, and how many schools are lacking teachers because of HIV/AIDS. The children end up teaching each other because they understand the importance of education and are grateful for the opportunity. The way some people take for granted the opportunities they have in the UK in relation to free education, healthcare etc... drives me crazy, and they still expect more.

A bit off topic now, but people don't value what they don't have to work for. [/rant]

 

[scaramanga]

There's a pre - selection bias in there for starters.

Immigrant families become immigrants because they want more.

On top of that, these studies never find a gap between groups, just 'fuzzing' at the edges of ranges. These studies always show there are far more and greater differences within ethnic groups than between them.

 

[braineclipse]

Because of genetic or biological reasons, obviously not.

Because of cultural or religious reasons, quite possibly (borderline almost certainly). Although "success" as they measure it isn't a great measuring stick imo.

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

I think it is much more likely to be social rather than genetic factors. Take for example in the UK, I think migrants generally have a much better work ethic than British born. Whether that's an entitlement culture of British born people, the tougher conditions that migrants faced in their home country or other environmental factors, I don't think it's genetic.

Someone was talking on TV about schools in Africa, and how many schools are lacking teachers because of HIV/AIDS. The children end up teaching each other because they understand the importance of education and are grateful for the opportunity. The way some people take for granted the opportunities they have in the UK in relation to free education, healthcare etc... drives me crazy, and they still expect more.

A bit off topic now, but people don't value what they don't have to work for. [/rant]

Free?? What do you think taxes pay for?

 

[billyiddo]

if some races can be physically superior to others (in a sporting sense at least) then i don't see it as out of the question that the same can't be said in an academic sense

 

[scaramanga]

if some races can be physically superior to others (in a sporting sense at least) then i don't see it as out of the question that the same can't be said in an academic sense

I don't think that in general any races are superior to others physically. Marathon runners tend to be from parts of the world with rarefied air, top sprinters are usually from parts of the world that suffered from decades of the genetic manipulation of slaves, etc. For example, there's more difference between Dawson and Modric physically than there is between him and Ade.

The one that does confuse me is all the scandis that win the World's Strongest Man competitions - they breed some serious monsters out on those elk farms.

There is an argument that evolution has played a part in the different average body shapes in parts of the world, but that's not really applicable to intelligence/academic ability/success as we only need to be able to outsmart our competitors/predators/prey in order to have done enough for natural selection. If anything, the comfort in which most people in the first world now live (and the safety nets available) means that we'll probably get more dumb over time.

 

[Baleforce]

if some races can be physically superior to others (in a sporting sense at least) then i don't see it as out of the question that the same can't be said in an academic sense

I don't think they are inherently. I think generalisations are made where natural climate and social interactions are far more relevant.

 

[Mr_B]

why is it blacks dominate every race in the olympics 400m and less but they can't swim ?

 

[Superted]

why is it blacks dominate every race in the olympics 400m and less but they can't swim ?

Africans generally have muscles with greater high twitch fibers, which makes them more explosive.

And they aren't as buoyant as Caucasians, therefore not great swimmers.

I'm surprised after Tiger Woods hit the scene, we havent seen a wave of black golf players dominate. Just the power he gets off the tee which is generated from his fast pitch fibers, gives a couple stroke advantage at least.

 

[Superted]

So leading on from that, did the black Jamaicans originally come from Africa way back when?

It's funny, the native American and Central American has a distinct look. However a group of islands a short jump east seem to have more in common with Africans than any native Americans, North and South.

 

[scaramanga]

So leading on from that, did the black Jamaicans originally come from Africa way back when?

Mostly West Africa, yes. The indigenous people of that area were originally South American.

 

[scaramanga]

why is it blacks dominate every race in the olympics 400m and less but they can't swim ?

Mostly success in sports is driven by cultural factors.

In the 1930s, basketball was considered a Jewish sport. According to any number of half-baked scientific papers that was because of their better hand-eye coordination, better balance, faster reaction speeds, etc. I'm not sure anyone ever claimed they could jump well though

The truth is that basketball is an inner-city sport. Whoever makes up the population in those areas will, on the whole, make up most of the NBA eventually.

Swimming is usually the preserve of those with money. Swimming pools often need driving to, they need hours if practice and support from parents before and after school every day. Much like rowing, skiing etc, it's not a sport where excellence is likely to be achieved outside of the more comfortable middle classes.

The racial makeup of sporting competitors isn't selected by the sport, it's already selected in the groups that make up the classes from which those sports take their competitors.

 

[The Portugeezer]

There's no difference between a Hitler baby and a Gandhi baby. They did a study to see if a Chinese baby would learn Chinese quicker than a baby of a different ethnicity. They found that an ethnic Chinese didn't learn quicker than a non-ethnic one. Made no difference whatsoever. We are product of our environment and our environment is fundamentally warped.

 

[SteveAWOL]

I think it is much more likely to be social rather than genetic factors. Take for example in the UK, I think migrants generally have a much better work ethic than British born. Whether that's an entitlement culture of British born people, the tougher conditions that migrants faced in their home country or other environmental factors, I don't think it's genetic.

Someone was talking on TV about schools in Africa, and how many schools are lacking teachers because of HIV/AIDS. The children end up teaching each other because they understand the importance of education and are grateful for the opportunity. The way some people take for granted the opportunities they have in the UK in relation to free education, healthcare etc... drives me crazy, and they still expect more.

A bit off topic now, but people don't value what they don't have to work for. [/rant]

Agreed. Two of my friends taught at schools in Ghana for a couple of years and said that those children appreciated the education they received a lot more than their students here in England.

why is it blacks dominate every race in the olympics 400m and less but they can't swim ?

Economic reasons certainly play a significant part, as Scramanga said. I remember when "Eric the Eeel" competed at the Sydney Olympics and he said that he had to train at a local hotel as there wasn't a single competition sized swimming pool in the whole of Equatorial Guinea. There's also cultural and historical reasons which explain why most black Americans still don't learn to swim:

BBC News - Why don't black Americans swim?

The role that the slave trade played in the dominance of black American and Caribbean athletes at the Olympic sprint events was examined in this interesting documentary:

Michael Johnson: Survival of the Fastest - Channel 4

So leading on from that, did the black Jamaicans originally come from Africa way back when?

It's funny, the native American and Central American has a distinct look. However a group of islands a short jump east seem to have more in common with Africans than any native Americans, North and South.

When Christopher Columbus stumbled across the islands, the Caribbean was inhabited mostly by Caribs and Taino-Arawaks. Their populations were subsequently decimated by the European settlers, much like the indigenous peoples of the Americas, and they now make up only a tiny fraction of the islands modern day populace.

 

[Richie]

Economic reasons certainly play a significant part, as Scramanga said. I remember when "Eric the Eeel" competed at the Sydney Olympics and he said that he had to train at a local hotel as there wasn't a single competition sized swimming pool in the whole of Equatorial Guinea. There's also cultural and historical reasons which explain why most black Americans still don't learn to swim:

BBC News - Why don't black Americans swim?

Even if we accept that the lack of black swimmers is down to social factors raised in that article, it is still clear the black people dominate many events where there are no barriers to white people such as sprinting. I find it hard not to put it down to black people just being superior genetically.

 

[scaramanga]

Even if we accept that the lack of black swimmers is down to social factors raised in that article, it is still clear the black people dominate many events where there are no barriers to white people such as sprinting. I find it hard not to put it down to black people just being superior genetically.

It really is just a by product of slavery. When you say 'black people' in regard to successful sprinters, you're really talking about people from the Caribbean/US whose ancestors were slaves. The difference is not a difference between races, it's a product of what was essentially cattle farming with people.

There are (for example) a lot of black people in a lot of countries in Africa, yet those countries are hugely underrepresented in sprinting events if race is the source of excellence in that field.