He must have some white blood in him. :0)

Incidentally, what does so-called ‘black’ mean in American government statistics? I wonder? And does ‘white’ mean whites of any ethnicity?

It makes me wonder why people use such a broad brush based upon skin color rather than narrower geographical extraction. Or even at all. And how dark does one’s skin have to be to be considered ‘black’, not ‘white?’.

I must admit it makes no sense to me, but for some reason it’s important to political types.

PDF link

(I hope I’m reading this correctly)

High school graduate: 28.5%
4 years college: 2.3%
5 years+: 1.3%

PDF link

2005: High school +: 80%
Some college +: 44.7%
Bachelors +: 17.3

Do you have any linkable sources for those statistics please?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

2005: 24.9%
1966: 41.8%
1959: 55.1%

“I find it interesting that in about 40 years, poverty in the Black community has gone from about 60% to about 25% and education levels have risen but people here mention Blacks can’t “get over” the past.”

I think that’s called ‘irony overload’

Do you have any linkable sources for those statistics please?

Regards,

John

Folks claim that the 25% white blood is why black Americans score higher on IQ exams than Africans.

The IQ of Africans in England is higher than the IQ of native white Englanders.

Someone mentioned riots. I find it funny that there have been riots at majority white colleges over the past few years but “white culture” is never called into question.

I find it interesting that in about 40 years, poverty in the Black community has gone from about 60% to about 25% and education levels have risen but people here mention Blacks can’t “get over” the past.

So why don’t West African sprinters dominate track over black Americans, Canadians, Brits, etc. who are mixed with white?

It comes down to statistics. Relatively few West Africans train as professional athletes. That is a leisure that many in the Third World can ill afford and you aren’t going to become a professional athlete unless you spend a substantial amount of time training for it regardless of how much potential you might have. It takes a lot of free time. Furthermore, very few can afford the sort of nutritional supplementation that Americans and Europeans can afford. Time and money spent on training are definitely factors in all professional athletics. Without time and money, you simply cannot approach your genetic potential.

Is there some possibility that people of mixed ethnicity might be superior athletes? Certainly it is possible. It might be the case that some races have genes which, when combined with those of other races, provide for superior performance. We don’t really know at this point. We do know that some races appear to be stronger performers in certain athletic events than other races.

Folks claim that the 25% white blood is why black Americans score higher on IQ exams than Africans.

The 20-25% white ancestry of American blacks does not adequately explain the gap between black Americans and Africans in IQ tests. Malnutrition is the obvious reason for the difference. I strongly believe that one of the best things we can do for Africa is to try and reduce its birth rates (so there are more resources to go around) and help end malnutrition so that Africans can better use their minds to help themselves and their societies.

What Limbaugh did was to indict the media and the NFL for undeservedly favoring Donovan McNabb.

At the time the Eagles (McNabb’s team), were a favorite to win the NFC East, so I didn’t see Limbaugh’s point. Besides McNabb had been a pretty good QB for years and even if you were going to make the case that he was “over-rated compared to the hype around him,” there was clearly no evidence of any media or NFL favoritism.

Just my opinion on that.

On an unrelated thought, I sure wish to God that Kieth Oberman haad stuck to sportscasting and commentary, instead of becoming the veritable Bozo of political commentators, he’s become in recent years.

My point was that I believe Limbaugh was fired for indicting both the media and the NFL for “playing favorites,” and not for any racial sensitivity.

The media didn’t like being chastised. He could’ve impugned McNabb all day, if he desired, so long as he didn’t impugn the integrity (such as it is) of the media elites.

I think many applauded Limbaugh’s firing because they wanted to believe it was because his comments about McNabb were judged to be “racially inflammatory.”

I do not believe that’s why he was fired.

I don’t have the stats in front of me, but I believe a good case can be made that Steve McNair is a better QB than McNabb up through this point in their careers. In fact, up until this year, McNair always played on teams surrounded by far less talent than McNabb had. Moreover, there were people comparing McNabb favorably to Brady and Farve at the time Limbaugh made his comments, but there was little to base that comparison on, at that point.

I meant criticized or appraised on ‘performance and attitude’, not ‘ability’.

Apologies.

I think what Suek meant (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that it is not considered ‘politically correct’ to criticize ‘blackness’ (whatever that is).

I know that players and athletes are criticized whatever colour they are, at least here in the UK, it’s just not an issue. A player is a player. An athlete is an athlete. They get criticized or appraised on ability, and not colour. If that sounds too ‘PC’ I don’t really care, because I’m glad that they get criticized for their ability, not their ‘race’.

Suek, do you even watch sport shows like ESPN and other sports shows who critique athletes? I have never seen them treat players different because of their race. The same criticism I have seen and heard commentators use on white players, they use on black players. I have never seen or heard commentators not criticize a player because he was black. Take Michael Vick for instance, he receives tons of criticism and he is black. Kobe Bryant, another black athlete, is always receiving criticism and he is black. Allen Iverson, the same and the list goes on and on. Rush did not expose anything because there was nothing to expose. He tried to inject race into the equation when it was not needed. There was no point in pointing out Mcnabb’s race and trying to correlate that with him being overrated. What PC are you talking about? There is no PC of that nature in professional sports and collegiate sports. Athletes of all races are subject to criticism and will get the same type of criticism if they perform poorly or seen as being overrated.

Matter of fact, I was watching the Atlanta Falcons game on Sunday. I love my Falcons, but the wide receivers who happened to be black, were performing poorly. The commentators were ripping on their poor play. ESPN ripped them on their poor play. The owner ripped them on their poor play. They did not hold their PC tongue and pen because these guys are black.

You’re missing the point. He said that about McNabb as a commentary on the PC of people _not_ being able to criticize McNabb because he was black. No, he wouldn’t have said anything about race in commenting on a white player, because race isn’t a factor in the criticism. He wants sportscasters to be able to make the same comment about a black player without race being a factor, but that isn’t the case because politically correctness doesn’t “permit” criticism of any black player. Judging by the reaction to his comment, he was right. Criticizing McNabb was considered racist.