Black pro riders?

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(erik saunders) said:

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.

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Richard Adams said:

Howard Kveck wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nationallampoon.comnationallampoon.comOpen ↗
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.

Quoted message said:

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 <[email hidden]>,

Top Sirloin said:

Sonarrat said:

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.

"Sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]-
kc.rr.com>, Top Sirloin

Quoted message said:

Sonarrat said:

The fact that the second definition of each word is
the same speaks to

how

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am
calling it

racist to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sonarrat-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]-
kc.rr.com>, Top Sirloin

Quoted message said:

Sonarrat wrote:

> The fact that the second definition of each word is
> the same speaks to

how

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> thin the line is. And definitions vary widely... I am
> calling it

racist to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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

Top Sirloin said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sonarrat said:

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

Quoted message said:

On 04/24/2004 05:07 PM, in article sonarrat-
[email hidden], "Sonarrat"

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Mark &
Steven Bornfeld DDS <[email hidden]>
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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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, [email hidden]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club

Sonarrat said:

In article <[email hidden]-
kc.rr.com>, Top Sirloin

Quoted message said:

Sonarrat said:

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

[censored] and cram it up your socially constructed bung.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald said:

Quoted message said:

"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

Quoted message said:

[censored] and cram it up your socially constructed bung.

Well, I'm a biologist, formerly specialising in population
genetics and I tend to agree. 'Race' is an entirely social
construct because the boundaries of one race or another are
entirely arbitrary. Frequencies of various genes vary all
over the place, but do not follow the boundaries of what
people refer to as different races. White Americans and
Black Americans are closer genetically than Black Americans
and Black Africans. Races are delineated mostly by skin
colour, a pretty meaningless biological variable and people
are assigned to one race or the other on arbitrary grounds.

Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably the
most genetically heterogeneous species of animal. They can
not be divided into 'races' in any non-subjective way
because the variation is continuous and not discrete.
About 85% of the variation is within Africa anyway, since
humans originated there and only small sub-groups migrated
out of Africa.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news.
To get on the news it must be sufficiently rare
that your chances of being involved are negligible!

"Helgi Briem" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably the
most genetically heterogeneous species of animal. They can
not be divided into 'races' in any non-subjective way
because the variation is continuous and not discrete.

That is like saying that calling the sky "blue" or the
grass "green" is subjective because there are many shades
in between.

Just so you know, Tiger has an Asian mother and I think V.
Singh is more black than Tiger, if you are just going to
call a person by a color. I find it interesting that the
world looks at Tiger as a black man and says nothing of his
Asian side.

Respectfully, Curt

"Richard Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sonarrat said:

No intention to be racist here, though it is a racist
question. Are

there

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to ask why there aren't any/more, because I don't want
the RBR trolls' answer to that.)

Also, who is this on the right?
ume.sakura.ne.jp41.jpgOpen ↗

-Sonarrat.

Can't think of any myself, there have been a few of note
in the US, but it's possibly just a situation waiting for
the "Tiger Woods of Cycling" to arrive. I doubt anyone
intellect would bar the next Nelson Vails.

Sonarrat said:

In article <[email hidden]-
kc.rr.com>, Top Sirloin

Quoted message said:

Sonarrat said:

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,

Pigeon Genus: Columba Dove Geni: Zenaida, Columbina,
Streptopelia, Leptotilia

The share the same family (Columbidae) but they are
definitely different species of birds.

In article <[email hidden]>, Proton Soup

Quoted message said:

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

Not sure where the Kalenjin acquired their endurance
ability, but I'm pretty sure they didn't get it from
the Arabs.

Quoted message said:

then you've also got those black Ethiopian Jews. Anyhow,
there's quite a bit of racial diversity in Africa I
suppose.

Yep. "Black" is a very broad generalisation that covers a
lot of different ethnic groups.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

curt said:

Just so you know, Tiger has an Asian mother and I think V.
Singh is more black than Tiger, if you are just going to
call a person by a color. I find it interesting that the
world looks at Tiger as a black man and says nothing of
his Asian side.

Respectfully, Curt

Correct me if I'm wrong. I recall Tiger being asked
this, and his response is that he feels he is African-
American. I don't know what this says about his
relationship to his mother.

Steve

Quoted message said:

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
dentaltwins.comdentaltwins.comOpen ↗

Helgi Briem said:

Lyle McDonald said:

Quoted message said:

"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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] and cram it up your socially constructed bung.

Well, I'm a biologist, formerly specialising in population
genetics and I tend to agree. 'Race' is an entirely social
construct because the boundaries of one race or another
are entirely arbitrary. Frequencies of various genes vary
all over the place, but do not follow the boundaries of
what people refer to as different races. White Americans
and Black Americans are closer genetically than Black
Americans and Black Africans. Races are delineated mostly
by skin colour, a pretty meaningless biological variable
and people are assigned to one race or the other on
arbitrary grounds.

Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably the
most genetically heterogeneous species of animal.

Just recently heard that cheetahs showed (by contrast)
almost no genetic variation from individual to
individual. (I've heard speculation that extensive
inbreeding is one contributing factor in their
difficulties in the wild. OTOH, some of the
designation of taxonomy mystifies me; I thought that
different species if mated, produced offspring who are
sterile (eg. mules). OTOH, wolves and dogs produce
fertile offspring, so on what basis are they distinct
species? Also heard recently that naked mole rats are
cold-blooded--I thought being warm-blooded was a sine
qua non of mammalia.

Steve

Quoted message said:

They can not be divided into 'races' in any non-
subjective way because the variation is continuous and
not discrete. About 85% of the variation is within Africa
anyway, since humans originated there and only small sub-
groups migrated out of Africa.

--
Helgi Briem hbriem AT simnet DOT is

Never worry about anything that you see on the news. To
get on the news it must be sufficiently rare that your
chances of being involved are negligible!

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
dentaltwins.comdentaltwins.comOpen ↗

Helgi Briem said:

Well, I'm a biologist, formerly specialising in population
genetics and I tend to agree. 'Race' is an entirely social
construct because the boundaries of one race or another
are entirely arbitrary. Frequencies of various genes vary
all over the place, but do not follow the boundaries of
what people refer to as different races. White Americans
and Black Americans are closer genetically than Black
Americans and Black Africans. Races are delineated mostly
by skin colour, a pretty meaningless biological variable
and people are assigned to one race or the other on
arbitrary grounds.

Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably the
most genetically heterogeneous species of animal. They can
not be divided into 'races' in any non-subjective way
because the variation is continuous and not discrete.
About 85% of the variation is within Africa anyway, since
humans originated there and only small sub-groups migrated
out of Africa.

Such arguments have little to do with whether race is a
social construct. There are *species* that have larger within-
species variation than the between-species. As distinct
species, these are reproductively isolated and surely not
social constructs.

As you point out, the within- and between-group variability
is a reflection of population history. But there is no
additional meaning to it. A simple way that can create the
greater within- than the between-species diversity is this:
Start with a large genetically diverse population, and take
a pair of individuals that are genetically closest to the
mean. Then keep breeding them in isolation selecting for
mutations favoring the reproductive barrier. Done. Two
different species with the second one most similar to the
typical individual from the first.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

curt said:

Just so you know, Tiger has an Asian mother and I think
V. Singh is more black than Tiger, if you are just going
to call a person by a color. I find it interesting that
the world looks at Tiger as a black man and says nothing
of his Asian side.

Respectfully, Curt

Correct me if I'm wrong. I recall Tiger being asked
this, and his response is that he feels he is African-
American. I don't know what this says about his
relationship to his mother.

It says that you are either misremembering or have not heard
his once-and-never-again statement on his race:

nationalreview.comnordlinger090602.aOpen ↗
sp

Early in the game, he put out a "media statement," which he
declared would be "the final and only comment I will make
regarding the issue" of race and identity (fat chance -- but
the sentiment was nice). He said, "My parents have taught me
to always be proud of my ethnic background. Please rest
assured that is, and always will be, the case. . . .
Truthfully, I feel very fortunate, and EQUALLY PROUD, to be
both African-American and Asian! The critical and
fundamental point is that ethnic background and/or
composition should NOT make a difference. It does NOT make a
difference to me. The bottom line is that I am an American .
. . and proud of it! That is who I am and what I am. Now,
with your cooperation, I hope I can just be a golfer and a
human being."

It didn't really stick, but he has also self-described as
"Cablinasian," a Tiger-made coinage which identifies his
ancestry about as well as any other description.

salon.comtiger970430.htmlOpen ↗

Most importantly, Woods has repeatedly shrugged off attempts
to be made into a political or racial spokesman. He is more
studiously apolitical than almost any other celebrity you
care to name, and seems to want to be left alone to be a
young, supremely talented golfer, and for people not to
presume that he has some special racial or political insight
not granted to other young men.

Think carefully: what proportion of random young humans do
you know who you would trust to have special insights into
race or politics?

Both the above-quoted columns have pretty good summaries of
Woods' public statements on the subject of race. Despite his
best efforts, I think he's a superb, if prudently reluctant,
role model on racial matters. Which is to say, I agree with
what little he has been willing to say in public on the (my
personal feelings) mostly boring and stupid subject of
racial identity.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Correct me if I'm wrong. I recall Tiger being asked
this, and his response is that he feels he is African-
American. I don't know what this says about his
relationship to his mother.

He's reported as saying he is African-American and Asia, not
just one or the other.

JT

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

curt said:

Just so you know, Tiger has an Asian mother and I think
V. Singh is more black than Tiger, if you are just going
to call a person by a color. I find it interesting that
the world looks at Tiger as a black man and says nothing
of his Asian side.

Respectfully, Curt

Correct me if I'm wrong. I recall Tiger being asked
this, and his response is that he feels he is African-
American. I don't know what this says about his
relationship to his mother.

Steve

Quoted message said:

Then Tiger waffled. Initially he didn't want attention drawn
one way or the other, but considered himself as much Thai as
African-American. You could almost see people lining up with
agendas, trying to get him to sign on. I could understand
his discomfort.

Scilians are pretty close....h
"stabile" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:RWWic.21333$cF6.877266@attbi_s04...

Quoted message said:

"Sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sonarrat-
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's more or less what I was thinking... with as many
track stars as Africa has. I would call it something of
a crime that the only African
Div. II team, Barloworld, should consist mostly of
Italians...

Italians aren't black?

I like Lance very, very much!

Tony

Sonarrat.