The Dangers of White Supremacy Ideology in America

[Nereid]

Seems to me that, without knowing the details of the models Turkheimer et al used, there's no way to make your 'flawed study' claim.

Seems to me unless you can prove this study weighed the fact that the more intelligent a person is the higher probability there is that a person will be in higher SES, this study is void correct?

There's a simple way to address this - look at the details of the models. They have not yet been posted here (unless I missed that post). Until we can all look at those details, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere useful.

 

[Nereid]

It's been proven infinite times that Blacks are better runners. I am yet to see a study that states otherwise. If you have one please by all means share it with us.

I think you probably mean 'many times'.

It would help greatly if you could state more clearly what 'Blacks are better runners' actually means.

To pick just one example - the variation in athletic ability among the ~20,000 healthy adults aged 15 to 45 of any mid-sized town anywhere on the planet is enormous; it's certainly far, far greater than the variation between the elite athletes from different countries. Further, no amount of training of those 20,000 will reduce the variation so that it's comparable to that between 20,000 elite athletes; the back of my admittedly very small envelope suggests at least an OOM difference, maybe two.

And

The differences in performance between the elite athletes of any background are razor thin, <0.1%; the fact that if Mark Spitz (sp? - US winner of 7 gold medals for swimming in the 1972 Olympics) were to try for a place on the US *women's* swimming team today - in his favourite distance - he wouldn't even qualify speaks volumes about the role of training, diet, etc.

It may indeed be the case that in the period 1990 to 2010 (say) a few world-level track and field events had a significant number of Kenyans and Ethiopians (for example) among the top 10. However, that's a very different thing than (say) 'there is a complex of ~300 genes, in the genotype of several populations of Africans, which leads to an inherent ability of people with these genes to be able to run 2% faster than those without them.'

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between the average times for groups of high school kids for the 100m and 1500m (or the 'yards' equivalent in the US)?

 

[Marijn]

And that in comparison with the times ran by top athletes (of any color, form, race, fabrication date, favourite color, just all of them. So that takes care of any race issues)

 

[BlackVision]

You don't seem to get it, why would the dutch have an evolutionary advantage to be able to track ice-skate better over other nations?

No you don't get it. Different races will tend to excel in different areas. The fact that Blacks do not dominate ice skating can be attributed to one or many reasons. There are not many Blacks in locations that would have ice, there is a general lack of interest for ice skating among Blacks, and/or Blacks simply do not have the body designed for skating.

You mention a study, let me ask you how that study was carried out: how did they make the comparison that blacks are better runners?

Because studies show that Blacks have narrower hips than other races, longer legs than other races, more testosterone than other races, and faster reflexes.

How can you assume it is mainly genetic?

Because the differences I mentioned above is contributed to genetical differences.

For more information on this. Read "Taboo : Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It" written by Jon Entine. 400 pages of facts and evidence.

Click here for a short review of this book: http://www.sptimes.com/News/020600/Perspective/The_game_in_black_and.shtml

 

[BlackVision]

I think you probably mean 'many times'.

No I think "infinite times" is quite fine.

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between the average times for groups of high school kids for the 100m and 1500m (or the 'yards' equivalent in the US)?

That would be one to look up. And the relevance to this would be?

 

[Monique]

The fact that Blacks do not dominate ice skating can be attributed to one or many reasons.

Right, exactly my point.

Different races will tend to excel in different areas

There are a few elite people that tend to excel, not a whole race. You can't generalize. It's like saying 'heart disease runs in that family, thus everyone in that family has heart disease'.

I think you need to deepen yourself into bioethics.

 

[BlackVision]

Right, exactly my point.
There are a few elite people that tend to excel, not a whole race.

Yes but if a certain race has a higher median, they're also more likely to have more elites.

 

[selfAdjoint]

My wife used to watch a lot of ice skating, especially women, and it's obvious that the sport favors short people with light upper bodies and well developed legs and hips because it involves jumping and maneuvering in the air. There was one black star among the many oriental and white ones, and it seemed from watching her that her problem was her heavier upper body structure. The same factor caused teenage stars to drop out as they matured. So physical characteristics - bone length, basically, seem to be a determining factor for success in this sport. And bone length distribution is a physically detectable, stable difference in the almost reproductively isolated populations formerly known as races.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yes but if a certain race has a higher median, they're also more likely to have more elites.

Not at all necessarily so. The tails of a distribution are dependent on the higher moments, not on the measures of central tendency. A peaky distribution with a higher median may have skinnier tails and fewer representatives far out on a tail than a less peaky one with a lower median.

 

[Nereid]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between the average times for groups of high school kids for the 100m and 1500m (or the 'yards' equivalent in the US)?

And that in comparison with the times ran by top athletes (of any color, form, race, fabrication date, favourite color, just all of them. So that takes care of any race issues)

That would be one to look up. And the relevance to this would be?

It could be a Q&D way to get an indication of distribution of athletic abilities - what sort of variation is there? what shapes are the distributions? Even simple statistical measures - such as means, modes, medians, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis - would give us something concrete to discuss; I find the waffly qualitative stuff (e.g. 'better') so common here to be much too vague for any meaningful discussion (SelfAdjoint's last post illustrate of how easy it is to draw inaccurate conclusions from vague words about unknown distributions).

 

[plus]

I asked you where you get your information, I get mine from the CIA.

Are you claiming that there are no dutch of subsahara african descent?
The CIA statistics notoriously underestimate the numbers of recent immigrants. For example it says the following about the ethnic groups in UK:


English 81.5%, Scottish 9.6%, Irish 2.4%, Welsh 1.9%, Ulster 1.8%, West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other 2.8%

In fact, the percentage of non whites is about 7.5%.

It says the following about the netherlands:

Dutch 83%, other 17% (of which 9% are non-Western origin mainly Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese and Indonesians) (1999 est.)

So this probably means that at least 30% of dutch people are recent immigrants. I get my information from looking around netherlands and talking to people. There are many nigerians in netherlands.

The only African country would be just below Spain. Have you ever seen Dutch Maroccan immigrants compete in ice-skating?

They are irrelevant to this debate, as it was about blacks.

But that's not the issue, mine was an example that you cannot blindly connect one fact to the other.

...and you have trouble doing this yourself.

 

[Nereid]

Yes but if a certain race has a higher median, they're also more likely to have more elites.

Not at all necessarily so. The tails of a distribution are dependent on the higher moments, not on the measures of central tendency. A peaky distribution with a higher median may have skinnier tails and fewer representatives far out on a tail than a less peaky one with a lower median.

On top of that, at least for some sports (e.g. running, swimming), the changes in world records, development of training, incidence of drug taking, etc would all suggest extreme caution about generalising from the performance of a very small elite.

 

[Monique]

plus: whatever, we had this debate before.

 

[Nereid]

The CIA statistics notoriously underestimate the numbers of recent immigrants. For example it says the following about the ethnic groups in UK:

English 81.5%, Scottish 9.6%, Irish 2.4%, Welsh 1.9%, Ulster 1.8%, West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other 2.8%

In fact, the percentage of non whites is about 7.5%.

Well, it would seem that the CIA data is a little dated, but not that far from the UK 2001 Census results (note that the categories are quite different in the 2001 Census, so a straight-forward comparison isn't possible). Where did your figure of 7.5% come from? It seems high, even for just England.

 

[plus]

Well, it would seem that the CIA data is a little dated, but not that far from the UK 2001 Census results (note that the categories are quite different in the 2001 Census, so a straight-forward comparison isn't possible). Where did your figure of 7.5% come from? It seems high, even for just England.

The figure from your census gives 9% for England, and then presumably 8% got UK total.

 

[Nereid]

The figure from your census gives 9% for England, and then presumably 8% got UK total.

Hmm, you are aware that in the context of the UK 2001 Census, 'minority ethnic groups' includes 'White Irish'? That 'Other' is just that ... no way to tell what the 'white/non-white' mix is? That a person who was born in India, and whose grand-parents may have described themselves as 'White British' had they had an opportunity to do so, may have described themself (in the Census) as 'Indian'? And so on.

If you take a look at the various countries' census pages, and look in some detail at their methodologies etc, you quickly realize that mapping results onto US 'race' categories is extraordinarily difficult; the Australian one is particularly illuminating.

 

[Loren Booda]

Statistics are problematic when used to compare individuals.

Can population or genomic probabilities do justice to whether a given white-complected person may have suffered more or less than a given black-complected person?

I believe such an anomaly of statistics, evolved in a survival reflex, to be the cognitive basis of racism: individuals become labeled as ethnicities, and ethnicities as individuals.

Each of us performs similar behaviors semi-consciously many times daily. At best they define our identity; at worst, they confirm our fears of the Other.

 

[AndrewEskeClarke]

I do not want to sound rude, but the handle NoahAfrican strikes in me memories of stories of Marcus Garvey, founder of the "Black Star Line" and a leader in the "back-to-Africa" movement, as well as sounding quite similar to the kind of name one use to spoof a black supremacist for a character in a movie.
Also, the tone of your first post implies that you feel all "whites" are racist. I believe that racism is defined, as per dictionary.com, as "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others." I would think that claiming one group of people shares the same characteristic, of course excluding the pervading characteristic in that group that makes them a group, whether this characteristic is complimenting or insulting, would be racist. Personally that makes me racist because I think the fastest black people are faster than the fastest white people. But it would also make someone racist who says something derogatory about any race, whether or not that race is a minority or not.
I am sorry to bandy about this word racism, because, as Blackvision says, we should debate an arguements merits and not call people racist.
I would like to address the issue of reparations though. Some would have us believe that poor african americans are in such a state in large part because of the reprucussions of slavery. But slavery ended over 140 years ago. And we all have many examples and role models in the "black" community to look up to from 40 years ago, a mere 100 years after slavery was abolished and during a time when racism permeated a much larger part of american culture than it currently does, all of whom overcame not only the more recent reprecussions of slavery but also the much more difficult hurdles of mass racism, which was much more prevasive back then. So how is it that they overcame all these hurdles 40 years ago that we are now supposed to think will still hold down many poor african americans?
These are just my veiws, and are pretty ignorant and not exactly expressed as clearly as i would like, but I'm by far not the brightest nor the most articulate member of these forums and in fact am quite new and not used to how y'all do things, so i hope I haven't offended anyone.

 

[plus]

plus: whatever, we had this debate before.

..and you finished it prematurely by ending the thread. You obviously wanted to say some things otherwise why bother bringing it up again.

You should at least have admitted you were wrong.

 

[Monique]

Get over it plus, we discussed it a long time ago.

 

[Nereid]

I do not want to sound rude, but the handle NoahAfrican strikes in me memories of stories of Marcus Garvey, founder of the "Black Star Line" and a leader in the "back-to-Africa" movement, as well as sounding quite similar to the kind of name one use to spoof a black supremacist for a character in a movie.
Also, the tone of your first post implies that you feel all "whites" are racist. I believe that racism is defined, as per dictionary.com, as "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others." I would think that claiming one group of people shares the same characteristic, of course excluding the pervading characteristic in that group that makes them a group, whether this characteristic is complimenting or insulting, would be racist. Personally that makes me racist because I think the fastest black people are faster than the fastest white people.

Well, no. Why? Because these 'fastest' people - black, white or puce - are such a tiny minority of any group as to be almost invisible; you'd only be a racist in this regard if you believed that the vast majority of blacks were 'faster' than the vast majority of whites (which is clearly absurd, and I'm sure you don't believe that!), and if anyone really cared which group was 'faster'

But it would also make someone racist who says something derogatory about any race, whether or not that race is a minority or not.

Yes, if they are referring to the whole group (not just a tiny, tiny number within that group).

I am sorry to bandy about this word racism, because, as Blackvision says, we should debate an arguements merits and not call people racist.

However, if in the course of such a debate, a debater introduces a quote from an organisation whose public stance is clearly racist (in the true meaning of your definition), it behooves us to make that connection known too.

I would like to address the issue of reparations though. Some would have us believe that poor african americans are in such a state in large part because of the reprucussions of slavery. But slavery ended over 140 years ago. And we all have many examples and role models in the "black" community to look up to from 40 years ago, a mere 100 years after slavery was abolished and during a time when racism permeated a much larger part of american culture than it currently does, all of whom overcame not only the more recent reprecussions of slavery but also the much more difficult hurdles of mass racism, which was much more prevasive back then. So how is it that they overcame all these hurdles 40 years ago that we are now supposed to think will still hold down many poor african americans?
These are just my veiws, and are pretty ignorant and not exactly expressed as clearly as i would like, but I'm by far not the brightest nor the most articulate member of these forums and in fact am quite new and not used to how y'all do things, so i hope I haven't offended anyone.

To extend this, if we think globally, what calculus do we use to redress the myriad of wrongs visited on people in many lands over the past century, millenium, and more? If you are a direct descendant of a slave brought to what we now call Greece, from (say) what we now call Iran, how do we calculate the redress owed to you? Since the pages of history are soaked in blood and tears, there will be a great many claims, and claimants.

 

[Dagenais]

This is true. As shown by the absolute dominance of Africans in track & field.

African-Americans had an extremely strong dominance in the world of Professional basketball as well.

The USA Dream Team has no Caucasian members on it.

The only American that isn't African-American listed on the NBA 2003-2004 Top 50 Scorers is Keith Van Horn.

The only American that isn't African-American that made the All-star team is Sacramento's Brad Miller.

Dirk Nowitzki and Peja Stojakovic are the only 2 other caucasian players that I can think of that made it on the Top 50 scorers list. Both of them are not American.

They train constantly, from a very young age. The kids growing up in the countryside run everywhere they go, often to adjacent towns and settlements that might be many miles away.

A lot of Kenyans are naturally fast though.

This is a pretty sad example, but I saw an ad for Nike, featuring a runner from Kenya, who claimed he was fast - scientists studied him, but don't know why - he's just fast. "I'm just fast, maybe you need these", and he ran off without the Nike shoes! There has to be at least some truth to that.

Let me tell you why the dutch are so good at track ice-skating: practice.

There's a lot of skating going on in Quebec too. You don't see Quebecois taking the Gold in that competition.

Let's say that race doesn't give an advantage in physical activities like sports. Can you explain to me why in hockey, the best player right now is of African descent (Jerome Iginla)? How about the physical domination of Mike Grier, Donald Brashear and Georges Laraque? This is hockey we're talking about - not popular amoung most blacks as other sports are.

If they're not good in winter sports, that would certainly make sense.

All the African-Canadians that make it to the NHL completely dominate the game.

Whether it is on ice or not should make no difference, should it?

It shouldn't make too much of a difference.

That may be why Laraque can beat the crap out of even the toughest NHL enforcers. I've also never seen Iginla lose a fight, and Grier - he's just plain strong. Donald Brashear is probably the best fighter in the NHL aside from Laraque (who is much larger).

 

[NoahAfrican]

Ahhhhh…the catch-22...saying that blacks are physically genetically superior is popular only because most people who say that believe that blacks are mentally and emotionally inferior to the degree that the aggregate of both maintains a white superiority.

I think that there are many reasons why blacks dominate in certain sports. One of the primary reasons that blacks do not dominate ice skating is due to economic cost. To be world class at ice skating requires much ice time as a youth and given the poverty rate of blacks relative to others, blacks simply do not participate in great numbers to produce a star.

Economics is a BIG factor in black sports participation. You must remember that the most prominent people in the world for black people are Athletes and entertainers. Why is this so? Well in America discrimination prevented the elevation and fame in venues of politics and economic power, more so than in Athletics, prior to the civil rights movement. Thus, when black youth look for role models that looked like them, the faces that they saw on TV and newspapers were athletes and thus blacks gravitated towards this. Consequently, black youth see sports and entertainment as the best ticket out of poverty. This also helps to explain the lower SAT test scoring relative to others. They see more examples of athletic and entertainment success for blacks than they do of anything else, which devalues education for many.

One would have to take note that it is the mixed blacks of America who dominate most world sports and not the pure blacks of Africa. Just like the African American has a higher homicide rate than the pure African in Burkina Faso and other West African countries, so does the African American have a higher sports success. If the darker or purer the black made the superior athlete, then the NBA and NFL need to start feeder programs in the SUDAN, where the darkest black people live.

Also, let us be cognizant that not too long ago whites dominated long distance running and there were all kinds of genetic explanations as to why whites were able to dominate the distance races. However, it is funny how such scientific conclusions change only when actual facts prove them wrong. When the East Africans began to dominate the distance races, those genetic theories on why whites could dominate the distance races faded from the literature.

Pretty soon I can only guess that the topic will eventually get to penis size….Hahahahahahahahahah…where else can black vision go?

 

[Prometheus]

Ahhhhh…the catch-22...saying that blacks are physically genetically superior is popular only because most people who say that believe that blacks are mentally and emotionally inferior to the degree that the aggregate of both maintains a white superiority.

Did someone say that blacks are physically genetically superior, or did you generalize this from the idea that blacks dominate in certain sports?

 

[BlackVision]

One would have to take note that it is the mixed blacks of America who dominate most world sports and not the pure blacks of Africa.

False. In America, it is most often the darkest Blacks that dominate track & field.

Consequently, black youth see sports and entertainment as the best ticket out of poverty. This also helps to explain the lower SAT test scoring relative to others.

My is this a horrible connection. Don't slam 2 puzzle pieces together that don't fit.

Hahahahahahahahahah…where else can black vision go?

Since you ignored all my questions and comments, why do I need to stay here? I've already proved my point and you have absolutely failed to refute them.

 

[BlackVision]

Well, no. Why? Because these 'fastest' people - black, white or puce - are such a tiny minority of any group as to be almost invisible; you'd only be a racist in this regard if you believed that the vast majority of blacks were 'faster' than the vast majority of whites (which is clearly absurd, and I'm sure you don't believe that!), and if anyone really cared which group was 'faster'

Yes the vast majority of blacks are faster than the vast majority of whites. The median is set higher for blacks. Every study done on this matter has come to the same conclusion. But you don't like people that accept evidence or facts do you? Ah the "race card". Can't leave home without it.

Yes, if they are referring to the whole group (not just a tiny, tiny number within that group).

The average Black man would run faster than an average White man. What's so hard to understand? This is all addressed in " Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk"

However, if in the course of such a debate, a debater introduces a quote from an organisation whose public stance is clearly racist

To you, any study that shows any different whatsoever between races will be racist to you no matter what the evidence, no matter how much science.

 

[plus]

Get over it plus, we discussed it a long time ago.

It was in mid discussion and it was discussed again this week. Admit that you were lying.

 

[plus]

The average Black man would run faster than an average White man.

Im not so sure about this.There are issues such as putting on weight. The average african american is heavier than the average european american. if you included people of all ages, then maybe the orientals would be faster.

 

[plus]

I think that there are many reasons why blacks dominate in certain sports. One of the primary reasons that blacks do not dominate ice skating is due to economic cost.

Due to living in america and affirmative action, the african americans are one of the most affluent groups of people in the world. You cannot use poverty as an excuse now.

Consequently, black youth see sports and entertainment as the best ticket out of poverty. This also helps to explain the lower SAT test scoring relative to others. They see more examples of athletic and entertainment success for blacks than they do of anything else, which devalues education for many.

Yes. There is a bad attitude towards education in the black communities. Some of this may be due to the media pushing the gangsta rapper images. But again this is an example where the lower black economic levels of sucess relative to others in USA is not due to white on black racism.

When the East Africans began to dominate the distance races, those genetic theories on why whites could dominate the distance races faded from the literature.

There are still some whites beating the blacks at the long distance races though, so the black supremacy in the sprint races is not echoed entirely in the long distances.

Pretty soon I can only guess that the topic will eventually get to penis size….Hahahahahahahahahah…where else can black vision go?

This is an immature comment.

 

[BlackVision]

Im not so sure about this.There are issues such as putting on weight. The average african american is heavier than the average european american. if you included people of all ages, then maybe the orientals would be faster.

No Asians run even slower than Whites. All the little physical advantages that Blacks seem to have over Whites, Whites have over Asians.

 

[plus]

No Asians run even slower than Whites. All the little physical advantages that Blacks seem to have over Whites, Whites have over Asians.

My point was that the asians are generally a little thinner throught their lives than whites, hence might throught their lives be fitter than both whites and blacks. Therefore, at least for middle distances, they on average should run faster.

For the non athletes, time taken to run a distance probably depends more on fitness than on the amount of fast or slow twitch muscles.

 

[Nereid]

Yes the vast majority of blacks are faster than the vast majority of whites.

So here's a good example of a situation where definitions really do matter
Suppose we have two groups of individuals, A and B. Suppose some characteristic (called X) of each individual in each group is measured objectively and each measurements recorded as a number. Suppose the distribution of those measurements is gaussian (so the mean, median and mode will be the same). Suppose the standard deviation of each gaussian is the same. Suppose we call X 'speed'. Then the question 'how many individuals in A are faster than individuals in B?' can be interpreted in several different ways; for example:
1) give each individual in each group a rank, based on their measured speed, starting with the fastest (rank = 1); the question then becomes 'how many individuals in A have a measured speed which is higher than that of individuals in B, for the same rank?'
2) plot the two distributions, normalised for group size; the question then becomes 'what is the ratio of the area of non-overlap to overlap, for those parts of each curve which are greater than the mean of slower group?'

In the first example, the answer depends upon both the difference in the means and the group size; in the second, on the difference in the means.

What I meant by 'the vast majority of blacks were 'faster' than the vast majority of whites (which is clearly absurd ...)' is close to 2).

In what sense do you mean 'the vast majority of blacks are faster than the vast majority of whites'?

The median is set higher for blacks.

Perhaps you mean 'is observed to be higher'?

Every study done on this matter has come to the same conclusion.

That's a pretty sweeping statement! So for clarity, and to ensure that I don't misunderstand you, please give a couple of examples of these studies. Please also clarify what you mean by 'this matter' and 'the same conclusion'.

The average Black man would run faster than an average White man. What's so hard to understand?

As you have capitalised the two words, I assume that you are referring to the US (it's not clear if you are talking about men vs women, or just people in general - please clarify). You also use the word 'average', and earlier 'median', so I guess you mean that the appropriate measure for average is the median.

What's really hard to understand is 'would run'. From the way you tend to write I could guess it means 'if all other conditions were equal'; if so, then this is really hard to understand, if only because I can't see how you could even specify what all the 'other conditions' are, let alone make estimates of their contributions to speed of running.

This is all addressed in " Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk"

Please give a link.

To you, any study that shows any different whatsoever between races will be racist to you no matter what the evidence, no matter how much science.

This is a pretty categorical statement, no 'seems', no 'I, BV, feel that', no tentativeness or uncertainty. It's also pretty ridiculous given my posts here in Social Sciences, particularly my clearly stated intention of trying to find what scientific basis there is to 'human races' (if any).

So, I would like you to either
a) provide evidence to support your assertion, or
b) retract your statement.

For the avoidance of doubt, if you do neither, I will consider that evidence that you have no intention of taking a scientific approach to questions within the domain of the social sciences.

 

[BlackVision]

My point was that the asians are generally a little thinner throught their lives than whites, hence might throught their lives be fitter than both whites and blacks.

What do you mean by fitter? They do tend to live the longest out of any race in the same given environment if that's anything.

time taken to run a distance probably depends more on fitness than on the amount of fast or slow twitch muscles.

Blacks tend to have the most stamina.

 

[BlackVision]

In what sense do you mean 'the vast majority of blacks are faster than the vast majority of whites'?

That the bell curve for Blacks would be set higher in the category mentioned. Was that so hard to understand?

Perhaps you mean 'is observed to be higher'?

Wrong.

Please also clarify what you mean by 'this matter' and 'the same conclusion'.

LOL. Please describe to me what watermelon and sunlight mean.

You also use the word 'average', and earlier 'median', so I guess you mean that the appropriate measure for average is the median.

Both average and median is higher.

Please give a link.

It's a book. Go to a bookstore.

no 'seems', no 'I, BV, feel that'

What the hell are you saying here?

It's also pretty ridiculous given my posts here in Social Sciences, particularly my clearly stated intention of trying to find what scientific basis there is to 'human races' (if any).

Since it's been quite clear that you've been politically motivated from the start, it would not be ridiculous.

There are DNA sequences that are more prevalent or less prevalent in a given race. That certainly is a scientific basis for race which you continue to ignore.

a) provide evidence to support your assertion

Oh yeah because I haven't done this countless times.

I will consider that evidence that you have no intention of taking a scientific approach to questions within the domain of the social sciences.

Believe me that is already what I, and I'm quite sure others, feel toward you.

 

[plus]

What do you mean by fitter? They do tend to live the longest out of any race in the same given environment if that's anything.

Healthier.As in less body fat,lower pulse rate etc. They are shorter,and then would have less strain on the heart. I am only guessing though.
Certainly, I think that the average white puts more emphasis on being healthier than the average black.

Blacks tend to have the most stamina.

Which type of blacks?East or west african?