can someone please explain to me the Cal connection with stone Gettings. does Cal have a connection which places them in a enviable position or is Cal simply one of many suitors vying for his services???
Basketball staff contacting Stone Gettings - Graduate Transfer posiibility
25,826 Views |
154 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by SFCityBear
What is this?sunewoco said:Right. My bad.parentswerebears said:
It's hard to beat the team that has the father of one of them as an assistant coach. It's also hard to beat the fact that said assistant is a father figure to the other and is much closer than Grace. This was the expected outcome of hiring Mobley from the moment it was announced. This is not a "David Grace can't recruit thing" or a problem with Jones.
An admission of being wrong?
In the Trump era?
Unprecedented!!!!
Go to the head of the class, Sunewoco!
Have you ever thought of running for elected office?
Monty was the best I've seen. He proved me wrong every season he was here.mikecohen said:Given the roster as you describe it, could anyone coach this team into a chance for the post season?HKBear97! said:If the grad transfer was that much of a difference maker, he wouldn't be going to another school - he'd be headed to the draft.MoragaBear said:HKBear97! said:
You honestly believe a grad transfer with this roster means potential NCAA Tourney? We would be hard pressed to say that even if we got Jordan Brown. We are looking at a bottom half of the PAC-12 finish this year. 15 wins will be our ceiling
I wouldn't say it if I didn't believe it because if they get him and don't challenge to make the tourney, there will be no shortage of people reminding me of my prediction.
This roster is severely challenged. The front court is a non-factor. Kelly looks impressive, but he'll be a freshman. Vanover is two to three years away from making a meaningful contribution. Anticevich and Davis would have to make unbelievably tremendous strides this off-season to be impact players. Overall, that suggests we play small ball and for small-ball, you need shooters - at least three or four of them. Who exactly are our shooters? We have, what, perhaps two? None of this factors in injuries, which sadly, are part of the game.
Would love to believe we'll make that huge of a turnaround, but it's not a plausible scenario. If we actually have a chance for the post season this year, then I'd change my tune on Wyking.
His srecruiting stank, and I constantly lamented our prospects on paper, and he overplayed his hand annually on the court.
Absolutely, sir!
I hear you, SFCity! I've always said that basing your livelihood on the performance/behavior of 18-21 year olds is the definition of crazy.
just thinking: If Gettings will only be available for part of the Pac-12 season but not part of the non-conference schedule, i'm wondering out loud if the benefit will outweigh thge cost. This should be a discussion for the staff primarily but other posters should weigh in.
MoragaBear
Joined:
Jul 13, 2008
Posts:
52,694
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
It's looking like Gettings would prefer to sit out the '18-19 season and play a full final year in '19-20
Count me in if this is his intention . He would be a potential starter , and, along with Bassey ( keep your fingers crossed) would give Cal a starting line-up on a par with most if not all pass-12 teams. ( that's pac)
We need a decent big to come in right away and fill the current void, then free up a scholarship for the year after that, when we will hopefully have a more complete roster.
we need another 3 point shooter. they count 50% more then a 2. time for small ball.
Dear Mr. H2P: crossing your fingers for Bassey because he went to the same high school as one of our incoming frosh. So cute.helltopay1 said:
Count me in if this is his intention . He would be a potential starter , and, along with Bassey ( keep your fingers crossed) would give Cal a starting line-up on a par with most if not all pass-12 teams. ( that's pac)
True. However, some of our young wing can conceivably be or become good 3-point shooters. None of our players are going to become bigger.calgo430 said:
we need another 3 point shooter. they count 50% more then a 2. time for small ball.
Dear Civil: Cute and Bassey do not go together in the same sentence. cute is reserved for little girls who have ribbons in their hair. Unless I'm missing something. And, I'm not.
helltopay1 said:
Probably a typical white kid. Slow
You sound like a real basketball aficionado.
DearBarabbas: Not necessarily, although I've been playing basketball for 72 years. ( started when I was 8) However, I am not afraid to state the painfully obvious facts of biology. The great majority of african'americans can run faster and jump higher than their caucasian counterparts. That is not a value judgment. I'm simply stating in print what most if not all players know too be true but choose not to say for reasons best known to them. We cannot have conversations if obvious biological truisms are either denied or suppressed. At my tender age, I am not cowed by political correctness or sociological silliness. Thank you.
-- continuing the OT:helltopay1 said:
DearBarabbas: Not necessarily, although I've been playing basketball for 72 years. ( started when I was 8) However, I am not afraid to state the painfully obvious facts of biology. The great majority of african'americans can run faster and jump higher than their caucasian counterparts. That is not a value judgment. I'm simply stating in print what most if not all players know too be true but choose not to say for reasons best known to them. We cannot have conversations if obvious biological truisms are either denied or suppressed. At my tender age, I am not cowed by political correctness or sociological silliness. Thank you.
Good grief. How do you determine who is black and who is white? There has been so much racial intermixing over many generations. Using archetypes, "the black" or "the white" (or "the reds" or "the bronze", etc) ignores the diversity of individuals, and that kind of simplification is an element of racism.
You understandably choose to avoid political correctness, and I'm with you on that; however, your observation approaches Jimmy the Greek mode.
You'd be more accurate playing "skins or shirts".
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
Ha. Funny.joe amos yaks said:-- continuing the OT:helltopay1 said:
DearBarabbas: Not necessarily, although I've been playing basketball for 72 years. ( started when I was 8) However, I am not afraid to state the painfully obvious facts of biology. The great majority of african'americans can run faster and jump higher than their caucasian counterparts. That is not a value judgment. I'm simply stating in print what most if not all players know too be true but choose not to say for reasons best known to them. We cannot have conversations if obvious biological truisms are either denied or suppressed. At my tender age, I am not cowed by political correctness or sociological silliness. Thank you.
Good grief. How do you determine who is black and who is white? There has been so much racial intermixing over many generations. Using archetypes, "the black" or "the white" (or "the reds" or "the bronze", etc) ignores the diversity of individuals, and that kind of simplification is an element of racism.
You understandably choose to avoid political correctness, and I'm with you on that; however, your observation approaches Jimmy the Greek mode.
You'd be more accurate playing "skins or shirts".
He speaks some truths and you bury it right back up again with your political correctness, which you claim to avoid. Post doesn't follow a logical path to making a clear point.
It's not so hard.Quote:
How do you determine who is black and who is white?
Quote:
There has been so much racial intermixing over many generations. Using archetypes, "the black" or "the white" (or "the reds" or "the bronze", etc) ignores the diversity of individuals, and that kind of simplification is an element of racism.
And yet, Stanford's genetics researcher Spencer Wells discovered enough pockets of regional purity around the globe to come up with a fairly detailed map of human migration history Out Of Africa. If there was "so much" mixing, this wouldn't be possible, nor would my 23&me results say I'm 100% Northern European. Of course, you're right, because my ancestors were originally black- but that was so many mutations ago that you're wrong. And there are many people like me, black, white, asian, etc. In other words, there hasn't been so much racial mixing yet that, yes, we can still make plenty of generalizations.
By stating that blacks were bigger and stronger because the white slave owner would breed his people like draft horses to get better farm productivity, Jimmy the Greek was racially insensitive, historically and scientifically inaccurate, and plainly a stupid dope. The prior post was merely, as he stated, making an obvious, viewable fact. Just look at the Olympics track and field Finals. Or that the NBA is, what, 80% black? (74.4% vs 12.5% US population)Quote:
however, your observation approaches Jimmy the Greek mode.
It's not Jimmy the Greek racist to recognize that as humans moved around the globe to live in isolation from one another, differentiation thru random mutation began to occur. We can see some of these differences thru height, skin color, sprinting speed, oxygen processing ability at high altitude. There may be other differences that we can't see as easily. And that's just fine!
All these various diversified beings are our cousins, and we celebrate our human diversity when we marvel at talents such as Lebron, Harden, Durant. And sure, there are also non-black basketball talents such as Porzingas, Yao Ming....
It can become very tribal and sensitive to talk about. But let's go ahead and recognize our differences, and celebrate them, not hide or deny as if ashamed of them.
Check out the Wells documentary: The Journey of Man! It's on YouTube! It's OUR story. Celebrate US.
Ha-ha. Who is politically correct?concordtom said:Ha. Funny.joe amos yaks said:-- continuing the OT:helltopay1 said:
DearBarabbas: Not necessarily, although I've been playing basketball for 72 years. ( started when I was 8) However, I am not afraid to state the painfully obvious facts of biology. The great majority of african'americans can run faster and jump higher than their caucasian counterparts. That is not a value judgment. I'm simply stating in print what most if not all players know too be true but choose not to say for reasons best known to them. We cannot have conversations if obvious biological truisms are either denied or suppressed. At my tender age, I am not cowed by political correctness or sociological silliness. Thank you.
Good grief. How do you determine who is black and who is white? There has been so much racial intermixing over many generations. Using archetypes, "the black" or "the white" (or "the reds" or "the bronze", etc) ignores the diversity of individuals, and that kind of simplification is an element of racism.
You understandably choose to avoid political correctness, and I'm with you on that; however, your observation approaches Jimmy the Greek mode.
You'd be more accurate playing "skins or shirts".
He speaks some truths and you bury it right back up again with your political correctness, which you claim to avoid. Post doesn't follow a logical path to making a clear point.
What is "african'american," and what is a "caucasian counterpart"? Or do you mean "caucasian-amercian"?
If a "Non-Sub-Saharan-African-American" (an "African-American" by way of Morocco / Savoy) or a "Caucasian-American" (by way of Southern Italy / Savoy), who is to say what? Do you say it's skin color, jumping ability, nationality or rate of speed or because of some dihybrid cross? Get real.
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
Yes, all generally correct. The path of least resistance hire is looking like the disaster anticipated. Still can't get over the very public cutting of two players you just recruited. It is one thing to be lousy but another to be lousy and have no integrity. I guess one can vent knowing he will still be here at least another year or just tune out. Choose to vent. The folks who first went after Tedford etc. were by piled on by the usual cheerleading types which is fine but it doesn't matter...socaltownie said:Because it delays the inevitable. There is VERY little to suggest that Jones is the guy (or probably more precisely, the guy at this stage in his career). There were moves last year that boggled the mind. The fiasco with the 2 guys we are trying to get off scholarship (but failing) is...well....a fiasco. We missed on supposedly our program changing target (which isn't that unusual....we have been talking about Bay Area program changing guys at LEAST since Gordon). We had the worst season in Cal basketball in modern history and in several games looked so bad (and uncompetitive) I simply switched the game off and did other things - something I NEVER did before.Big C said:Every regular on this board knows that socaltownie is a true Cal Basketball fan, not an actual troll, but the fact that Civil Bear even used the term just shows how cynical socal's posts have been lately.parentswerebears said:
Nope. He was the guy who got that petition going a couple of years back. He's a good guy, just upset about the direction he thinks the program is going (or not going). One of the most passionate Cal fans here.
Seriously, we have a chance to get a guy who could help us for a year (and only take up a schollie for that one year). How can that not be a good thing? Because it's not an even better thing?
And it gives people unrealistic hope and clouds their clearer vision. Yes, this is the AD's decision. But as fans we simply deserve better.
The question is, Why would a half decent Grad transfer want to come here with the program in the state it is in? Can,t be because he wants to go to the ncaa tournament. Education? Maybe. Friends of one of the coaches? Maybe.
My guess is that nobody half good will come here. But i am usually wrong, so who knows. We will find out soon.
My guess is that nobody half good will come here. But i am usually wrong, so who knows. We will find out soon.
Go Bears!
Well, you are wrong this time.oskidunker said:
The question is, Why would a half decent Grad transfer want to come here with the program in the state it is in? Can,t be because he wants to go to the ncaa tournament. Education? Maybe. Friends of one of the coaches? Maybe.
My guess is that nobody half good will come here. But i am usually wrong, so who knows. We will find out soon.
The incoming grad transfer will be a spectacular addition to this young team.
Have faith and thrive.
Go Bears!
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
Dear joe Amos Yaks: In response to your brilliant biological and sociological question, " how do you determine who is black and who is white," at the risk of seeming glib and/or frivolous, may I suggest a visit to your friendly optometrist who should be able to recommend an astounding new invention called glasses. You simply place them over your eyes, and, I promise you, you will see things that you have never seen before.
Of course it is easy to tell Black from White. You mean like the great Black golfer, Tiger Woods? Or Obama our first Black president? Or Kamala Harris the Black senator from California? Of course there are pockets of "regional purity" around the globe but that is not reality in the United States where there has been hundreds of years of racial mixing and where few African Americans can claim purely African DNA.concordtom said:It's not so hard.Quote:
How do you determine who is black and who is white?Quote:
There has been so much racial intermixing over many generations. Using archetypes, "the black" or "the white" (or "the reds" or "the bronze", etc) ignores the diversity of individuals, and that kind of simplification is an element of racism.
And yet, Stanford's genetics researcher Spencer Wells discovered enough pockets of regional purity around the globe to come up with a fairly detailed map of human migration history Out Of Africa. If there was "so much" mixing, this wouldn't be possible, nor would my 23&me results say I'm 100% Northern European. Of course, you're right, because my ancestors were originally black- but that was so many mutations ago that you're wrong. And there are many people like me, black, white, asian, etc. In other words, there hasn't been so much racial mixing yet that, yes, we can still make plenty of generalizations.By stating that blacks were bigger and stronger because the white slave owner would breed his people like draft horses to get better farm productivity, Jimmy the Greek was racially insensitive, historically and scientifically inaccurate, and plainly a stupid dope. The prior post was merely, as he stated, making an obvious, viewable fact. Just look at the Olympics track and field Finals. Or that the NBA is, what, 80% black? (74.4% vs 12.5% US population)Quote:
however, your observation approaches Jimmy the Greek mode.
It's not Jimmy the Greek racist to recognize that as humans moved around the globe to live in isolation from one another, differentiation thru random mutation began to occur. We can see some of these differences thru height, skin color, sprinting speed, oxygen processing ability at high altitude. There may be other differences that we can't see as easily. And that's just fine!
All these various diversified beings are our cousins, and we celebrate our human diversity when we marvel at talents such as Lebron, Harden, Durant. And sure, there are also non-black basketball talents such as Porzingas, Yao Ming....
It can become very tribal and sensitive to talk about. But let's go ahead and recognize our differences, and celebrate them, not hide or deny as if ashamed of them.
Check out the Wells documentary: The Journey of Man! It's on YouTube! It's OUR story. Celebrate US.
I have a degree in Anthropology. Your post is a good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
First of all, human beings are actually remarkable as a species in their lack of genetic variation. That stems from an evolutionary quirk that our ancestors hit a severe genetic bottleneck where we almost died out as a species a relatively short time ago in evolutionary history. Because of this our differences are largely superficial.
Do we have biological differences? Of course we do. However, those are frequently hard to actually see since cultural and environmental factors often outstrip genetic ones. Turns out that Italians and Irish are not naturally good boxers, for instance. You present percentages of NBA players and Olympic track athletes as showing an obvious biological fact. Except that kind of evidence has proven time and time again to be faulty. I know you remember a time when Blacks almost universally failed to succeed at passing a football at the highest levels and it was assumed that they couldn't do it. That is laughable today. Blacks are a small percentage of swimmers, but Blacks that put their minds to it have succeeded. Similarly, there are too many white athletes that are speed athletes at the highest level to brush them aside based on one superficial physical trait.
You defend hell's comment saying he stated an obvious viewable fact and then pointed to the NBA being 74% Black vs. 12.5% of the population as evidence. Okay. Then you would be entirely comfortable with someone stating Blacks are pre-disposed to crime because they make up 37% of the US prison population. And then further extrapolating that to saying an individual Black person is pre-disposed to crime. It's the same argument. You willing to make it or are you too PC? I would argue that there has been no genetic/physiological causality found for either trait. And there are tons of obvious cultural factors that lead to both traits. Do you see the danger in this line of thinking?
We have over and over again in our history attributed expressed traits to genetics and found out we were wrong. So far, no one has had any definitive or even good explanation for why Blacks are supposedly faster. Black Americans and White Americans are very close on average in both height and size. There are no significant measurable differences in physiology that anyone has found yet to explain why there are more Black speed athletes. Which is why people latch onto theories like the fast twitch gene which turned out to be poppycock as a large majority of White Americans have the same gene. Yet we have seen over and over again how cultural factors have impacted the success of a population in certain activities and how that success has changed drastically when cultural conditions have changed.
Even if you could prove your obvious biological fact that Blacks are faster vs. being culturally pre-disposed to certain activities, the way you and hell are applying that possible fact is not how it works across populations. Populations as a whole may have ON AVERAGE certain traits, but applying that to draw conclusions about individuals is scientifically unsound. The differences are not that great.
We see this all the time. When I was young, I knew an Asian guy who played high school football. He was a reasonably big guy. He told me that his coach had told him he was too small to play linebacker though he was the biggest linebacker on the team. We see all the time where a White or Asian kid are timed at 4.5, but scouts view them as slower than another player timed at 4.6. That is the problem with this obvious biological trait stuff. It leads to barriers being placed on individuals and prejudgment that leads to conclusions that are counter to actual empirical data on an individual.
But at base, there was one very specific thing wrong with hell's "analysis". He took one irrelevant trait this player's skin color and extrapolated what type of player he was from it. I'm willing to give you that statistically Blacks in America are overrepresented in the population of speed athletes. However, he knew nothing about this guy, but gave the analysis "Probably a typical White kid. Slow". That is flat out lazy. You know the best way to find out what type of player he is? Do some research. He is a basketball player. You can find film on the guy. You can find scouting reports. And if you can't, why don't you just wait and see what type of player he is when you see him. Maybe he is slow, but if he is, it is not due to his pigment. I assume you would acknowledge that there are plenty of fast, agile White basketball players. Do you really want to defend making an individual analysis of a kid's abilities knowing nothing but the color of his skin? I think it is fair to ask that he be judged on HIS ACTUAL TRAITS.
And yes, celebrating diversity and the diverse traits people bring to the table is great. Pigeonholing people into traits by population is not celebrating diversity. "Hey! Blacks are fast. Whites are slow. This is America celebrate the differences", is a pretty bullshyte way of using celebration of diversity to excuse stereotyping. Of course all of our ethnicities bring their unique blend to our population. But all of the individuals within those ethnicities bring their uniqueness as well and the physical and cultural variation of individuals within ethnicities is great. We are not a country of a handful of diverse ethnicities each acting as one. We are a country of 300+ million diverse individuals. Congratulations for moving on from the melting pot theory, but this brand of diversity celebration where we eat potstickers with chopsticks and feel all woke about it is very 1990
Does your optometrist think Obama is Black? Tiger Woods?helltopay1 said:
Dear joe Amos Yaks: In response to your brilliant biological and sociological question, " how do you determine who is black and who is white," at the risk of seeming glib and/or frivolous, may I suggest a visit to your friendly optometrist who should be able to recommend an astounding new invention called glasses. You simply place them over your eyes, and, I promise you, you will see things that you have never seen before.
What about Klay Thompson? And I'm just curious is Klay's right leg fast and his left leg slow? Just trying to figure out how that works.
The average person who identifies as African American has around 24% European DNA. That is average, so it varies widely among individuals. Some are less African than European. So if this is the genetic reality, what does it do to your obvious biological observations?
You might want to consider that maybe your eyes can only read a fraction of the information that is relevant to the question.
helltopay1 said:
Dear joe Amos Yaks: In response to your brilliant biological and sociological question, " how do you determine who is black and who is white," at the risk of seeming glib and/or frivolous, may I suggest a visit to your friendly optometrist who should be able to recommend an astounding new invention called glasses. You simply place them over your eyes, and, I promise you, you will see things that you have never seen before.
Well, Heavens, hell_. You're not being glib, but you're living under a dim bulb.
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
I think Harvard's Henry Louis Gates has served the American population a great service in terms of understanding races and our shared history via his PBS show "Finding Your Roots".Quote:
Of course it is easy to tell Black from White. You mean like the great Black golfer, Tiger Woods? Or Obama our first Black president? Or Kamala Harris the Black senator from California? Of course there are pockets of "regional purity" around the globe but that is not reality in the United States where there has been hundreds of years of racial mixing and where few African Americans can claim purely African DNA.
I particularly enjoyed... was it the Chris Rock segment... where he showed Chris (whose stage comedy skits have often been about white's oppression of blacks) how he had a white gg grandparents. So, when Chris cracks on whites, he's ripping on his own heritage. It made Chris think. This education gets repeated in many of Gates' segments. It makes the viewer think, too.
Gates, who is of African-American and Irish descent, also said that most Blacks have less than 1 percent Native American in their DNA, and average around 24 percent European.
You brought up Tiger, Obama, Harris - if you thought I was trying to classify people as either ALL WHITE or ALL BLACK, you were very mistaken. However, it would appear that there are some athletic benefits the more "African" genes one has, and the three quarters of the NBA who have some "black" genes have 75% more than me.
The great grandparents of my wife came from the Azores to Fall River MA around the turn of the century. I haven't had my kids tested yet, but I heard that an aunt on this line has a small % of African genes. This would make sense, as the Azores is off the African coast (pertains to Portugal, considered "European", though like Andalucia Spain, has darker skin that my English and Irish ancestors. One of my daughters has visibly darker skin that the others, and she tans up nicely. I imagine she got that gene, which bypassed my wife, though her Dad took a tan well, too. Interesting thing, genes. We are still just learning about them...
It's also fair to note the many variations in Africa (just as variation of whites in Europe as someone wrote here), so the term should not be used universally, as has been so far in this conversation: for instance, Kenyans do not have the heavy musculature of Nigerians for instance, which lends to long distance more than power lifting. And yet, nothing is guaranteed here. I both outplayed and got dunked on by both black and white guys when I played. I am sure you can claim the same.
This is not a problem. I'm sorry if I offended in any way. I'm sure I did. You can't hardly mention race without offending somehow. We'll all get over it. We ARE getting over it.
Was I stereotyping recklessly?OaktownBear said:
And yes, celebrating diversity and the diverse traits people bring to the table is great. Pigeonholing people into traits by population is not celebrating diversity. "Hey! Blacks are fast. Whites are slow. This is America celebrate the differences", is a pretty bullshyte way of using celebration of diversity to excuse stereotyping. Of course all of our ethnicities bring their unique blend to our population. But all of the individuals within those ethnicities bring their uniqueness as well and the physical and cultural variation of individuals within ethnicities is great. We are not a country of a handful of diverse ethnicities each acting as one. We are a country of 300+ million diverse individuals. Congratulations for moving on from the melting pot theory, but this brand of diversity celebration where we eat potstickers with chopsticks and feel all woke about it is very 1990
Is there any truth to the common belief that blacks are faster, or jump higher, than whites? Or is it merely a stereotype? Let's go back the last 30 years and count how many Olympic medalists in the sprints were from where?
I don't know what you're talking about when you say I've moved from the melting pot theory, though it probably IS a good thing if people do learn how to recognize eating potstickers with chopsticks. The vast middle of this country (who stereotypically elected Trump and march streets with flags and guns after school shootings) don't know diddle about the rest of the world. I don't know much either, but was an International Relations major in college. Perhaps that's one step beyond chopsticks.
We're on the same page, I'm sure. Just hard to talk about this stuff without offending or making a gaffe somehow, which is why someone said long ago that most don't bother saying anything.
OaktownBear said:concordtom said:Quote:
You defend hell's comment saying he stated an obvious viewable fact and then pointed to the NBA being 74% Black vs. 12.5% of the population as evidence. Okay. Then you would be entirely comfortable with someone stating Blacks are pre-disposed to crime because they make up 37% of the US prison population. And then further extrapolating that to saying an individual Black person is pre-disposed to crime. It's the same argument. You willing to make it or are you too PC? I would argue that there has been no genetic/physiological causality found for either trait. And there are tons of obvious cultural factors that lead to both traits. Do you see the danger in this line of thinking?
If they are predisposed to crime, it's because they haven't had the advantages of education and wealth that folks like me have had from my parents, grandparents, ggggggg grandparents.... NOT genetic - I agree with you.
We need to repair that, but then you get into affirmative action which plenty of people have a problem with.
In college (American U in DC), this was discussed in class and I said that it didn't seem fair to me that if I prepared and got a qualifying score for something that someone else presenting less should get the "award".
Then a young women next to me lashed out and said something very pointed which really put me in my place. She was from Jamaica, and she said that whites like me have been given advantages for generations and generations, and blacks like her have been struggling systematically to make things work. Why was it unfair that now, just this once, she might be given some sort of advantage over me in this small way that has nothing to do with all the advantages conferred upon my ancestors which gave me the large advantage that I possess in society today? I really had NOTHING to say, other than after class I caught up to her and told her I thought was she said was very insightful and I appreciated it. (She has still pissed off and my comments probably arrested her just as hers did me.)
And, yeah, I know where you are going. Blacks get screwed by the justice system compared to whites when convicted of the same crimes.
The comment that hell made was that Gettings was probably slow. He based that on one data point. He is white. That is the definition of stereotyping. He was, I believe rightfully called out on it. You defended him with a lot of mostly anecdotal statistics that pertain to whole populations to defend ascribing a trait to an individual based on nothing more than his being one of a large population. That is what stereotyping is.concordtom said:Was I stereotyping recklessly?OaktownBear said:
And yes, celebrating diversity and the diverse traits people bring to the table is great. Pigeonholing people into traits by population is not celebrating diversity. "Hey! Blacks are fast. Whites are slow. This is America celebrate the differences", is a pretty bullshyte way of using celebration of diversity to excuse stereotyping. Of course all of our ethnicities bring their unique blend to our population. But all of the individuals within those ethnicities bring their uniqueness as well and the physical and cultural variation of individuals within ethnicities is great. We are not a country of a handful of diverse ethnicities each acting as one. We are a country of 300+ million diverse individuals. Congratulations for moving on from the melting pot theory, but this brand of diversity celebration where we eat potstickers with chopsticks and feel all woke about it is very 1990
Is there any truth to the common belief that blacks are faster, or jump higher, than whites? Or is it merely a stereotype? Let's go back the last 30 years and count how many Olympic medalists in the sprints were from where?
I don't know what you're talking about when you say I've moved from the melting pot theory, though it probably IS a good thing if people do learn how to recognize eating potstickers with chopsticks. The vast middle of this country (who stereotypically elected Trump and march streets with flags and guns after school shootings) don't know diddle about the rest of the world. I don't know much either, but was an International Relations major in college. Perhaps that's one step beyond chopsticks.
We're on the same page, I'm sure. Just hard to talk about this stuff without offending or making a gaffe somehow, which is why someone said long ago that most don't bother saying anything.
I brought up the prison population statistic because I knew you'd see the fallacy of that argument, but I wanted you to see that the same applies to your other arguments. You are taking results you see and attributing genetic causality to them when there are so many other factors and when our genetic variation between populations is just not as great as you seem to think. I'm asking you to learn from our past. Italians and Irish were really good at boxing and people thought they were physically predisposed to it. Turned out it was they were culturally predisposed to it and with changes in culture, their success has changed. There were all sorts of physical attributes that were supposed to be detrimental to Blacks playing golf, or tennis or quarterback. Hockey and swimming aren't popular with Blacks, so the vast majority of swimmers and hockey players are not Black. Do you think that means they can't be?
You mention in another post Kenyans and distance running. I don't know about their entire genetic makeup, but I do know that on average Kenyans have a couple genetic traits that are actually a disadvantage to distance running. But Kenyan's normal cultural behavior creates a population with a good deal of endurance because they need it in their daily lives. Then a few Kenyans have success on the world stage and more Kenyans see distance running as a way out of poverty so it becomes very popular. But you are not aware of this so you talk about body types.
What I'm asking you to consider is that Blacks might be good at basketball and sprints because they do those things in much higher numbers. Whites are represented in the MLB and NHL in numbers greater than African Americans because Whites participate more in those sports. (You also have an interesting issue explaining why African American numbers have crashed in MLB, but Black players from Latin countries are flourishing. ) What I'm saying is that with all the different times we ascribed traits to people because it was so obvious they had them, only to find out that when circumstances changed traits changed, maybe that can inform our judgment today so that we don't assume a White basketball player is slow because he is White.
I'm also going to point out that race is an artificial construct. Genetically Africans have by far the most variation among all populations. In fact, there is more genetic variation on the continent of Africa than there is between the continent of Africa and everywhere else. It is very possible, for instance, that Carl Lewis has as much or more in common with you than he does with Usain Bolt (or Bolt has more in common with you than he does with Lewis). So looking at the color of skin of international Olympic athletes is not telling a genetic story.
As for the melting pot comment:
Melting Pot era - Hey, we are all Americans and everyone comes and blends in and we act like they are the same. Only the same means basically White.
Post Melting Pot era - It's an insult to treat everyone the same and expect them to "act White". Chinese people eat potstickers with chopsticks and that's okay. Read, Whites are like this and Chinese People are like that.
Post Post Melting Pot era - Just because someone's Chinese doesn't mean they eat potstickers. People are who THEY are and they have their own individual histories. Don't judge them by ascribing population traits to them.
There was an episode of Barney Miller where they had the following gag. White, intellectual type police detective meets Japanese police detective. White detective is being all knowledgeable about Japanese culture and talking to Japanese police detective like he "understands" him. Japanese detective waits for him to finish and then says incredulously "I'm from Omaha!" White detective responds with "That's funny. There's a city in America with the same name!"
dear Concord: i was with you until you started to apologize. Think about your case. Make your case . make your case with conviction. And, if you are convinced that your case has merit, don't apologize at the drop of a hat. Majoring in Anthropology is useful and informative when applied reasonably and judiciously; however, it rarely is a substitute for common sense and is rarely a substitute for what folks can see clearly with their eyes. are there some whites who are blazing fast??Clearly. Are there some whites who can jump high??clearly. Are there some african-americans who cannot run very fast or jump high??Clearly. but, generalizations clearly have a purpose when they are stated with mountains of supporting evidence. generalizations are never meant to be all-inclusive. most generalizations are not manufactured out of whole cloth or thin air. I stand by my statement. Those who disagree are arguing causation. i am not interested in causation. to me, it is irrelevant whether great speed and innate leaping ability is caused primarily by environmental factors, culture or hundreds of years of genetic DNA. The result is still the same. concentrate on the reality rather than the causation. This will be my last explanation of my statement. The next time Cal recruits a "white" player, I will probably say ' i hope it doesn't take him and hour-and-a-half to get from the top of the key to the basket." if i say that I would hope that some viewers will refrain from typing a Ph.D dissertation on the inherent "racism" of my remark. however, hope and 2.75 will only get me a cup of coffee. In other words, lighten up.
Okay, I follow you. And I agree with you.OaktownBear said:
The comment that hell made was that Gettings was probably slow. He based that on one data point. He is white. That is the definition of stereotyping. He was, I believe rightfully called out on it. You defended him with a lot of mostly anecdotal statistics that pertain to whole populations to defend ascribing a trait to an individual based on nothing more than his being one of a large population. That is what stereotyping is.
For the record, I was not intending to support the specific singular example of Gettings (the original comment). I felt I was commenting on the overall statement that based upon large sample sizes, it's pretty much true. But I did NOT intend to say that Gettings was slow. That comment bothered me, too, believe it or not. How can you tell for ONE guy just based on race alone?
Apologies I was not more specific on the portion I was commenting on.
I'm wasn't talking about Golf.OaktownBear said:
I brought up the prison population statistic because I knew you'd see the fallacy of that argument, but I wanted you to see that the same applies to your other arguments. You are taking results you see and attributing genetic causality to them when there are so many other factors and when our genetic variation between populations is just not as great as you seem to think. I'm asking you to learn from our past. Italians and Irish were really good at boxing and people thought they were physically predisposed to it. Turned out it was they were culturally predisposed to it and with changes in culture, their success has changed. There were all sorts of physical attributes that were supposed to be detrimental to Blacks playing golf, or tennis or quarterback. Hockey and swimming aren't popular with Blacks, so the vast majority of swimmers and hockey players are not Black. Do you think that means they can't be?
I'm not talking about Tennis or QB.
I'm not talking about Hockey or swimming.
But now that you mentioned it, I do think they should enter those sports in greater numbers. Soccer, too! If they want to.
I think you are trying too hard to explain away any genetic difference. I've heard this before and I have decided why I think such a denial of differences exists.
You certainly know how the various species of tortoises on the Galapagos Islands came to be different. Separation, lack of interbreeding. Naturally and (it is believed) random mutations occur. Initially, for humans, the differentiation led to very slightly different races. Had we all continued to remain apart (no sailboats, no long distance venturers) we would have collectively mutated our way into being different species - same as Gorillas, Chimps, Humans, etc. It's always been this way.
To me, it's okay to accept that there are differences. I agree with you - they are not great. But, to me, there are differences. I realize this is toxic talk to many, and you'll likely say I'm just a racist. Have you ever hiked in the Andes or Himalayas? Have you heard about the tests they've done on those high altitude populations? Test results show the differences are not cultural.
Regardless of any inherent differences that may exist, society should give everyone the same opportunity to excel in whatever they want to. Just like we do within our family for our 5 individually unique children, similar as they are.
Actually, I'll buy that!OaktownBear said:
You mention in another post Kenyans and distance running. I don't know about their entire genetic makeup, but I do know that on average Kenyans have a couple genetic traits that are actually a disadvantage to distance running. But Kenyan's normal cultural behavior creates a population with a good deal of endurance because they need it in their daily lives. Then a few Kenyans have success on the world stage and more Kenyans see distance running as a way out of poverty so it becomes very popular. But you are not aware of this so you talk about body types.
What I was saying is that it's easier to run long distances if your build is more sleight.
Nigerians (greater muscle mass on frame) have a better average build for middle linebackers than Kenyans.
ON AVERAGE.
Whatever, I think I get where you are coming from, and that is probably too toxic sounding for you.
I totally disagree with this assertion.OaktownBear said:
What I'm asking you to consider is that Blacks might be good at basketball and sprints because they do those things in much higher numbers.
This is like in the 80's people tried to float that it was because a lot of black kids sat around in the park after school playing hoops.
Come on, man.
There are SO many kids who want to Be Like Mike.
I haven't seen him yet.
I also played competitive basketball, and have my own sample size of experience influencing me here.
I did not know this, but I guess it makes sense, thinking about migration patterns and such. We started in Africa, so those that remain there have had more time to mutate apart from one another.OaktownBear said:
Genetically Africans have by far the most variation among all populations. In fact, there is more genetic variation on the continent of Africa than there is between the continent of Africa and everywhere else. It is very possible, for instance, that Carl Lewis has as much or more in common with you than he does with Usain Bolt (or Bolt has more in common with you than he does with Lewis). So looking at the color of skin of international Olympic athletes is not telling a genetic story.
Skin color is just ONE small aspect of all this. It's also the most obvious - visible.
But if you are going to suggest that genetics is not reason for why some populations excel in the Olympics while others don't, then I think we aren't going to be able to agree. Of course, there is SOOOO much more that goes into success. Training for one. But you gotta start with a mazeratti, at the very highest levels. I don't think you are actually trying to suggest that genes are not a factor.