Black pro riders?

"Top Sirloin" wrote in message
...
Sonarrat wrote:

The fact that the second definition of each word is the same speaks to
how
thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am calling it
racist to
be on the safe side and to put out a warning flag.

Why, are you the Usenet police?

It's well known that different races have many
differences physiologically besides skin color,
some of which accounts for the dominance of
certain racial groups in specific sports.

Does the recognition of reality make me a racist?

Only when you recognize that white people may be better than black people at
certain things. It's fine for you to state that black people are better at
sprinting and basketball, but if you say that white people are better at
cycling and swimming then you're a racist. :-) You're supposed to not notice
things like that.

"Gooserider" wrote in message
om...

"Top Sirloin" wrote in message
...
Sonarrat wrote:

The fact that the second definition of each word is the same speaks to
how
thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am calling it
racist to
be on the safe side and to put out a warning flag.

Why, are you the Usenet police?

It's well known that different races have many
differences physiologically besides skin color,
some of which accounts for the dominance of
certain racial groups in specific sports.

Does the recognition of reality make me a racist?

Only when you recognize that white people may be better than black people at
certain things. It's fine for you to state that black people are better at
sprinting and basketball, but if you say that white people are better at
cycling and swimming then you're a racist. :-) You're supposed to not notice
things like that.

Like what? (how'd I do?)
ps

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
Richard Adams wrote:


Howard Kveck wrote:


http://www.nationallampoon.com/modst...ass/badass.asp


Man. I can still remember when National Lampoon was funny. I'm old and
showing my age.


It seemed like they decided tht the more words they put out, the funnier
it would be. But by the time you got to the end of an article, you'd
forgotten why it should be funny.


The shame is, I picked up a MAD a few months ago just to see what's in
them today. I'd say they're killing the magazine.


It's pretty rank now. No more Dave Berg (he's dead, too bad). Some of
the movie parodies were hilarious. "Cool Hand Luke" = "Blue Eyed Kook".


It would be interesting to see Don Martin or Sergio Aragones give the
TdF their usual treatment. Don left the magazine, then a while back he
left this mortal coil. Sergio's still busy, but his best work seems to
be on his own.

In article ,
Top Sirloin wrote:

Sonarrat wrote:

The fact that the second definition of each word is the same speaks to how
thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am calling it racist to
be on the safe side and to put out a warning flag.

Why, are you the Usenet police?

It's well known that different races have many
differences physiologically besides skin color,
some of which accounts for the dominance of
certain racial groups in specific sports.

Does the recognition of reality make me a racist?

"Race" is entirely a social construct, which has nothing to do with
physiology whatsoever. Consider this: the dove and the pigeon are
identical, the exact same species with the same biology, and they can
produce fertile offspring. But they segregate themselves, just like we
humans do, because they look different...

-Sonarrat.

Howard Kveck wrote:

In article ,
(erik saunders) wrote:


rony martias is from guadaloupe and he is in brioches la boulangere... his
best
friend yoanne gene who is also black will probably join him next year...

clain is brown too, yeah... we were down for the brown back in the day...



A friend used to say, "We're brown, we're down and we're comin' to your
town..."

By the way, how about a race report, Erik?


Are you kidding? I was suprised to see his post. He must be exhausted.

Hopefully after he's had a rest he can enlighten us.

"Sonarrat" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Top Sirloin wrote:

Sonarrat wrote:

The fact that the second definition of each word is the same speaks to
how
thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am calling it
racist to
be on the safe side and to put out a warning flag.

Why, are you the Usenet police?

It's well known that different races have many
differences physiologically besides skin color,
some of which accounts for the dominance of
certain racial groups in specific sports.

Does the recognition of reality make me a racist?

"Race" is entirely a social construct, which has nothing to do with
physiology whatsoever. Consider this: the dove and the pigeon are
identical, the exact same species with the same biology, and they can
produce fertile offspring. But they segregate themselves, just like we
humans do, because they look different...

-Sonarrat.

screw race. let's talk about population groups.

people of west african descent are better sprinters because of genetics.

period

otoh, east africans suck.

they are both black. but very different population groups.

race is not an "entirely social construct"

but that's another issue.

whit

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:33:53 -0700, "marbury"
wrote:


"Sonarrat" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Top Sirloin wrote:

Sonarrat wrote:

The fact that the second definition of each word is the same speaks to
how
thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am calling it
racist to
be on the safe side and to put out a warning flag.

Why, are you the Usenet police?

It's well known that different races have many
differences physiologically besides skin color,
some of which accounts for the dominance of
certain racial groups in specific sports.

Does the recognition of reality make me a racist?

"Race" is entirely a social construct, which has nothing to do with
physiology whatsoever. Consider this: the dove and the pigeon are
identical, the exact same species with the same biology, and they can
produce fertile offspring. But they segregate themselves, just like we
humans do, because they look different...

-Sonarrat.

screw race. let's talk about population groups.

people of west african descent are better sprinters because of genetics.

period

otoh, east africans suck.

they are both black. but very different population groups.

race is not an "entirely social construct"

but that's another issue.

Didn't the Arabs do quite a bit of slave trading in East Africa a few
centuries back? Maybe east Africans aren't entirely "African". And
then you've also got those black Ethiopian Jews. Anyhow, there's
quite a bit of racial diversity in Africa I suppose. Reeelly reeelly
short, and reeelly reeelly tall. Smashed in flat noses, and highly
pronounced honkers. Interesting to say the least.

Proton Soup

In article ,
Sonarrat wrote:

in article , Steven L. Sheffield at
wrote on 4/24/04 5:41 PM:

On 04/24/2004 05:07 PM, in article
, "Sonarrat"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:

Sonarrat wrote:

No intention to be racist here, though it is a racist question. Are
there
any black riders in the pro peloton today? It seems to me that even the
African teams have riders of Caucasian descent exclusively. (I'm not
going

It's a racial question, not a racist question.

ra·cial*adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of race or races.
2. Arising from or based on differences among human racial groups: racial
conflict; racial discrimination.


rac·ist adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of the belief that
race
accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a
particular
race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

The fact that the second definition of each word is the same speaks to how
thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am calling it racist to
be on the safe side and to put out a warning flag.

You're badly misreading those definitions, Sonarrat. Def. 2 of "racial"
is "Arising from or based on differences among human racial groups". Two
usage examples are given, "racial conflict" and "racial discrimination"

So, racial discrimination is racist, but racial participation
disparities are not necessarily due to racial discrimination.

The salient examples here are pro basketball, which is a
disproportionately black-dominated sport; and pro cycling, a
substantially white (and for that matter, European) sport,
participant-wise.

There are obvious cultural reasons for these racial disparities, like
the fact that there aren't that many blacks in cycling-mad Europe, and
aside from Major Taylor, there aren't a lot of black role models in
cycling. Also, basketball has a place in Afro-American culture that
rivals the place of hockey in Canadian culture (as sport which, weirdly
enough, has a surprising (albeit small) number of black or partly black
players, including notables like Grant Fuhr and Jarome frigging Iginla,
who just about singlehandedly knocked my beloved Canucks out of the
playoffs with his performance as best player on the Calgary Flames (he's
a local boy there, having been raised in Alberta).

There may also be a physiological component, though I suspect it is
dwarfed by cultural considerations. Average bone density among whites
and Asians is lower than for blacks, which is why being white or Asian
is a risk factor for osteoperosis (along with smoking, being female, and
consuming certain medications). Bone density is an advantage in most
impact sports, and is probably dead weight in cycling (right up until
you fall off your bike and break your hip...). In fact, cyclists have to
be careful to drink their milk and do some impact activities. So get
your daily prescription of freeriding in, kids.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Top Sirloin wrote:

It's well known that different races have many
differences physiologically besides skin color,
some of which accounts for the dominance of
certain racial groups in specific sports.

Does the recognition of reality make me a racist?

Can you suggest a scientific reference?
There is greater genetic diversity within "racial" (or geographical)
groups of humans than between groups. Racial categories correlate
pretty well with skin color, eye color, hair, and not much else.
(Other than the inability to jump. No, wait, before I say that,
how's your vertical?)


P.S. We've had this discussion before in rbr, and it has evolved
into among other things, a question of whether Tony Cruz counts
or not, and what that says about the malleability of racial categories.

Sonarrat wrote:
In article ,
Top Sirloin wrote:


Sonarrat wrote:


The fact that the second definition of each word is the same speaks to how
thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am calling it racist to
be on the safe side and to put out a warning flag.

Why, are you the Usenet police?

It's well known that different races have many
differences physiologically besides skin color,
some of which accounts for the dominance of
certain racial groups in specific sports.

Does the recognition of reality make me a racist?


"Race" is entirely a social construct, which has nothing to do with
physiology whatsoever. Consider this: the dove and the pigeon are
identical, the exact same species with the same biology, and they can
produce fertile offspring. But they segregate themselves, just like we
humans do, because they look different...


We're going to segregate you from the smart peopele b/c you are a
****ing moron. Race is entirely a social construct? Take your PC
bull**** and cram it up your socially constructed bung.

Lyle