Diversity

spudgun said:
"It was said..." By whom was it said?

So you are prepared to parrot that all black people have the same body shape that is not suitable for swimming?

Every one of them?

Whereas all Caucasians, I suppose, must have a body shape that is suitable for swimming?

Isn`t that just racial stereotyping?
Click to expand...
Oh ffs stop looking for evil where there isn't any.
I too remember something being said when it was being discussed about why not many black people were competing at swimming. And no I can't remember who said it either.
Mates wasn't racial stereotyping, he was just stating something that had been said and discussed. He even said he didn't know whether it was true or not.
If you can turn his post in to something it obviously isn't, you seriously need help.
 
I remember seeing a documentary about sport and racial genetics. I’m sure it said that different race groups have different genes that affect some muscle groups more than others, that leads to anomalies like most top sprinters being black, most top swimmers being white etc.
Even to the point that most (if not all) of Kenya’s world class marathon runners all came from the same small region (nothing to do with altitude).
 
I can understand Spud’s irritation with Mates who has become something of a master of the idiotic comment where race is concerned, whilst Scara simply becomes increasingly irrelevant with every post he contributes

That apart, it’s an interesting question. I thought that the following reply, on a thread dealing with this very issue, was pretty intelligent

‘As an ex-competitve swimmer who has spent most of his adult life working as a professional diver in Africa I think I can contribute an objective slant to this debate.

Firstly Africa and its inhabitants are as diverse as Europe, it just happens that their skin colour is predominately darker and it is somewhat ethnocentric to see Africa as a single entity. There are ethnic differences around the world Spaniards and Norwegians Kenyans and Cameroonians, the variety in humans is enormous. I worked with many West African divers who were very good swimmers. Not "trained " swimmers, in the competitive sense to which the original question referred, but they certainly had the natural ability to have been good. However they’re a minority who are exposed to swimming. This is where the economic factors come in to play. There are 150 million Nigerians. I am sure if the percentage exposed to competitive swimming was equivalent to that of, say Australia, the number who turned out to be great swimmers would probably be proportionately the same.

I have taught a number of Africans to swim and only once have i met some one who was negatively buoyant. He was extremely athletic and had very low body fat, we over came this through technique.

One of the previous commentators refers to financial incentive this is also a major factor, better to be a Michael Jordan than a Mark Spitz. As western society becomes more cosmopolitan the differences will I suspect even out and people will see things more based on the individual, for example Serena Williams would at one time have been seen as having the classical build for a fly swimmer, I doubt she would have excelled on a road bike though or for that matter as a marathon runner. How would Bradly Wiggins fare as a water polo player? Probably not well.

The eugenics approach is dangerous because it refuses the diversity that is prevalent in all races. I am sure it is possible to prove that some people with more skin pigment have an athletic advantage over some with less, but take a different selection and I am sure you could equally prove the opposite. Equality of opportunity will, I am sure, produce an even distribution of success.
 
Last edited:
Recidivist3 said:
I can understand Spud’s irritation with Mates who has become something of a master of the idiotic comment where race is concerned, whilst Scara simply becomes increasingly irrelevant with every post he contributes

That apart, it’s an interesting question. I thought that the following reply, on a thread dealing with this very issue, was pretty intelligent

‘As an ex-competitve swimmer who has spent most of his adult life working as a professional diver in Africa I think I can contribute an objective slant to this debate.

Firstly Africa and its inhabitants are as diverse as Europe, it just happens that their skin colour is predominately darker and it is somewhat ethnocentric to see Africa as a single entity. There are ethnic differences around the world Spaniards and Norwegians Kenyans and Cameroonians, the variety in humans is enormous. I worked with many West African divers who were very good swimmers. Not "trained " swimmers, in the competitive sense to which the original question referred, but they certainly had the natural ability to have been good. However they’re a minority who are exposed to swimming. This is where the economic factors come in to play. There are 150 million Nigerians. I am sure if the percentage exposed to competitive swimming was equivalent to that of, say Australia, the number who turned out to be great swimmers would probably be proportionately the same.

I have taught a number of Africans to swim and only once have i met some one who was negatively buoyant. He was extremely athletic and had very low body fat, we over came this through technique.

One of the previous commentators refers to financial incentive this is also a major factor, better to be a Michael Jordan than a Mark Spitz. As western society becomes more cosmopolitan the differences will I suspect even out and people will see things more based on the individual, for example Serena Williams would at one time have been seen as having the classical build for a fly swimmer, I doubt she would have excelled on a road bike though or for that matter as a marathon runner. How would Bradly Wiggins fare as a water polo player? Probably not well.

The eugenics approach is dangerous because it refuses the diversity that is prevalent in all races. I am sure it is possible to prove that some people with more skin pigment have an athletic advantage over some with less, but take a different selection and I am sure you could equally prove the opposite. Equality of opportunity will, I am sure, produce an even distribution of success.
Click to expand...

"Firstly Africa and its inhabitants are as diverse as Europe, it just happens that their skin colour is predominately darker".

So, they're not as diverse then?

"Serena Williams would at one time have been seen as having the classical build for a fly swimmer".

Don't believe I've seen any 14 stone competitive women swimmers.

"I have taught a number of Africans to swim and only once have i met some one who was negatively buoyant".

Negatively buoyant 😆

"I am sure it is possible to prove that some people with more skin pigment have an athletic advantage over some with less"

Whatever the reasons for athletic advantage, I'm pretty sure the amount of skin pigment isn't one of them
 
🙄 Compare skin tone, Central Africa to North Africa then compare skin tone, Finland to Cyprus

🙄 Katie Ledecky / Serena Williams - approximately the same weight

🙄 Poster is saying that statistics can tell you what you want to hear. I guess you didn’t want to hear that
 
Last edited:
Recidivist3 said:
I can understand Spud’s irritation with Mates who has become something of a master of the idiotic comment where race is concerned, whilst Scara simply becomes increasingly irrelevant with every post he contributes

That apart, it’s an interesting question. I thought that the following reply, on a thread dealing with this very issue, was pretty intelligent

‘As an ex-competitve swimmer who has spent most of his adult life working as a professional diver in Africa I think I can contribute an objective slant to this debate.

Firstly Africa and its inhabitants are as diverse as Europe, it just happens that their skin colour is predominately darker and it is somewhat ethnocentric to see Africa as a single entity. There are ethnic differences around the world Spaniards and Norwegians Kenyans and Cameroonians, the variety in humans is enormous. I worked with many West African divers who were very good swimmers. Not "trained " swimmers, in the competitive sense to which the original question referred, but they certainly had the natural ability to have been good. However they’re a minority who are exposed to swimming. This is where the economic factors come in to play. There are 150 million Nigerians. I am sure if the percentage exposed to competitive swimming was equivalent to that of, say Australia, the number who turned out to be great swimmers would probably be proportionately the same.

I have taught a number of Africans to swim and only once have i met some one who was negatively buoyant. He was extremely athletic and had very low body fat, we over came this through technique.

One of the previous commentators refers to financial incentive this is also a major factor, better to be a Michael Jordan than a Mark Spitz. As western society becomes more cosmopolitan the differences will I suspect even out and people will see things more based on the individual, for example Serena Williams would at one time have been seen as having the classical build for a fly swimmer, I doubt she would have excelled on a road bike though or for that matter as a marathon runner. How would Bradly Wiggins fare as a water polo player? Probably not well.

The eugenics approach is dangerous because it refuses the diversity that is prevalent in all races. I am sure it is possible to prove that some people with more skin pigment have an athletic advantage over some with less, but take a different selection and I am sure you could equally prove the opposite. Equality of opportunity will, I am sure, produce an even distribution of success.
Click to expand...
Very good post.
There is no doubt that genetics plays a part in natural predisposition to be good at something. For instance, most weight lifters have shorter than average arm length. However, the danger is to start applying stereotypes to a group of people when the reasons for underrepresentation or overrepresentation could be for all sorts of reasons.
For instance, why is the England cricket team and county cricket made up of mainly ex public school boys? A.) Exposure and opportunity.
The bit in the post above about variation within groups is also very valid and finally the point about the Western view of Africa as being a homogenous place is a very good point as well.
 
Surely as people of a colour other than white make up 92% of the global human population technically white people should only be represented in anything a maximum of 8%. It's no wonder people cry institutional racism when a white minority of less than 8% control so much of the world's resources. If white people were an animal species they'd be on the cites red list and we'd all be in special zoo breeding programmes. I'm up for a bit of breeding 🤣🤣
 
spudgun said:
"It was said..." By whom was it said?

So you are prepared to parrot that all black people have the same body shape that is not suitable for swimming?

Every one of them?

Whereas all Caucasians, I suppose, must have a body shape that is suitable for swimming?

Isn`t that just racial stereotyping?
Click to expand...
Do you just like to be confrontational? I did not say all black people and just posted something I remembered being written a long time ago. No, I don’t know who said it.
 
Recidivist3 said:
I can understand Spud’s irritation with Mates who has become something of a master of the idiotic comment where race is concerned, whilst Scara simply becomes increasingly irrelevant with every post he contributes

That apart, it’s an interesting question. I thought that the following reply, on a thread dealing with this very issue, was pretty intelligent

‘As an ex-competitve swimmer who has spent most of his adult life working as a professional diver in Africa I think I can contribute an objective slant to this debate.

Firstly Africa and its inhabitants are as diverse as Europe, it just happens that their skin colour is predominately darker and it is somewhat ethnocentric to see Africa as a single entity. There are ethnic differences around the world Spaniards and Norwegians Kenyans and Cameroonians, the variety in humans is enormous. I worked with many West African divers who were very good swimmers. Not "trained " swimmers, in the competitive sense to which the original question referred, but they certainly had the natural ability to have been good. However they’re a minority who are exposed to swimming. This is where the economic factors come in to play. There are 150 million Nigerians. I am sure if the percentage exposed to competitive swimming was equivalent to that of, say Australia, the number who turned out to be great swimmers would probably be proportionately the same.

I have taught a number of Africans to swim and only once have i met some one who was negatively buoyant. He was extremely athletic and had very low body fat, we over came this through technique.

One of the previous commentators refers to financial incentive this is also a major factor, better to be a Michael Jordan than a Mark Spitz. As western society becomes more cosmopolitan the differences will I suspect even out and people will see things more based on the individual, for example Serena Williams would at one time have been seen as having the classical build for a fly swimmer, I doubt she would have excelled on a road bike though or for that matter as a marathon runner. How would Bradly Wiggins fare as a water polo player? Probably not well.

The eugenics approach is dangerous because it refuses the diversity that is prevalent in all races. I am sure it is possible to prove that some people with more skin pigment have an athletic advantage over some with less, but take a different selection and I am sure you could equally prove the opposite. Equality of opportunity will, I am sure, produce an even distribution of success.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha what’s irrelevant about my post ? It’s your old bias mates being rather silly.
 
Recidivist3 said:
I can understand Spud’s irritation with Mates who has become something of a master of the idiotic comment where race is concerned, whilst Scara simply becomes increasingly irrelevant with every post he contributes

That apart, it’s an interesting question. I thought that the following reply, on a thread dealing with this very issue, was pretty intelligent

‘As an ex-competitve swimmer who has spent most of his adult life working as a professional diver in Africa I think I can contribute an objective slant to this debate.

Firstly Africa and its inhabitants are as diverse as Europe, it just happens that their skin colour is predominately darker and it is somewhat ethnocentric to see Africa as a single entity. There are ethnic differences around the world Spaniards and Norwegians Kenyans and Cameroonians, the variety in humans is enormous. I worked with many West African divers who were very good swimmers. Not "trained " swimmers, in the competitive sense to which the original question referred, but they certainly had the natural ability to have been good. However they’re a minority who are exposed to swimming. This is where the economic factors come in to play. There are 150 million Nigerians. I am sure if the percentage exposed to competitive swimming was equivalent to that of, say Australia, the number who turned out to be great swimmers would probably be proportionately the same.

I have taught a number of Africans to swim and only once have i met some one who was negatively buoyant. He was extremely athletic and had very low body fat, we over came this through technique.

One of the previous commentators refers to financial incentive this is also a major factor, better to be a Michael Jordan than a Mark Spitz. As western society becomes more cosmopolitan the differences will I suspect even out and people will see things more based on the individual, for example Serena Williams would at one time have been seen as having the classical build for a fly swimmer, I doubt she would have excelled on a road bike though or for that matter as a marathon runner. How would Bradly Wiggins fare as a water polo player? Probably not well.

The eugenics approach is dangerous because it refuses the diversity that is prevalent in all races. I am sure it is possible to prove that some people with more skin pigment have an athletic advantage over some with less, but take a different selection and I am sure you could equally prove the opposite. Equality of opportunity will, I am sure, produce an even distribution of success.
Click to expand...

Yep, I had read that fella`s comments too, Recidivist.

It clearly goes some way to debunk the canard that it is to do with a race`s body shape, and more to do with cultural and socio-economic factors amongst other stuff.

Shame some others don`t do a little more research like you...
 
tommytwojags said:
The appointment by the BBC of Miranda Wayland is a clear example of the BBC's move towards and not away from racism. It's hard to believe that she actually judges racism by the company you keep and food you eat. The BBC needs to change direction sharpish or it will be gone.
Click to expand...
That's what happens when you move a Tory to the top of the organisation. Deliberate policy or just shit?
 
It’s simple... As I said earlier in the thread..The ONLY reason that sports like swimming, tennis, rowing, skiing etc. are not dominated by People Of Colour is that those supports are elitist or have been mostly inaccessible....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top