Michael Johnson - Why the progeny of slaves will strike gold at the Olympics

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167996/Why-progeny-slaves-strike-gold-Olympics.html

MJ Not afraid to face controversey it would appear

If you're in the uk it's on tonight at 9.00pm channel 4

Is it any surprise that the sons and daughters of sportsmen often become sportsmen?

Interesting that the breeding programme that was slavery to build the best cotton pickers built stronger men. I wonder how many of them have 100% west african heritage and not mixed with the slave owner or overseer's genes?

Are you going to take this up with Mr Johnson now?

If I can yes I will. He is entitled to his opinions. Linford Christie said something different.

Make sure you let him know your opinion that a midget is just a likely to become an NBA player as a 7ft tall guy because it's all about trying hard.

I feel that will back up your arguments really well.

Yes I will let him know that you said that I support that. I will also let him know that your level of understanding of the written word is still at early learning skills stage.

[i][quote="azania"]Is it any surprise that the sons and daughters of sportsmen often become sportsmen?

Interesting that the breeding programme that was slavery to build the best cotton pickers built stronger men. I wonder how many of them have 100% west african heritage and not mixed with the slave owner or overseer's genes?[/quote][/i]

There is another side to this. Son's of successful business men often become successful business men. This isn't through genetics. It is through opportunity and nurture. The person they looked up to and received guidance from either deliberately or subconsciously coached their son into being good at business. They would have instilled all the necessary skills whilst growing up. Surely this is the same growing up in a household full of good sports people?

djlovesyou & azania can you stop the silly jibes at each other, it makes poor reading and destroys the forum. Try and understand what each other are trying to say without nit picking semantics.

Given that you're often the one that starts the nonsense ryan, do you think you're in any position to give orders about what other people should be doing?

ryanbailey wrote:

azania wrote:Is it any surprise that the sons and daughters of sportsmen often become sportsmen?

Interesting that the breeding programme that was slavery to build the best cotton pickers built stronger men. I wonder how many of them have 100% west african heritage and not mixed with the slave owner or overseer's genes?

There is another side to this. Son's of successful business men often become successful business men. This isn't through genetics. It is through opportunity and nurture. The person they looked up to and received guidance from either deliberately or subconsciously coached their son into being good at business. They would have instilled all the necessary skills whilst growing up. Surely this is the same growing up in a household full of good sports people?

djlovesyou & azania can you stop the silly jibes at each other, it makes poor reading and destroys the forum. Try and understand what each other are trying to say without nit picking semantics.

Business is a talent that can be learned. Sports is something you are born with and then harnessed. Many people can play football but only a few are Premier league quality. And fewer still are international quality.

Hey, I'm only reacting to more childish jibes. My initial contribution was in keeping to the thread until some mental pigmy decided to start with some silly nonsense.

djlovesyou wrote:Given that you're often the one that starts the nonsense ryan, do you think you're in any position to give orders about what other people should be doing?

Keep to the thread son.

azania wrote:

Keep to the thread son.

Boxing troll does patronising.

You do know you're a laughing stock on that board too?

[quote="djlovesyou"]Given that you're often the one that starts the nonsense ryan, do you think you're in any position to give orders about what other people should be doing?[/quote]

Pot... Kettle... Black... lol... I'm in a very good position to give you orders that much is obvious. You struggle to keep to the thread and jump to childish insults very quickly without even posting anything of any relevance. This started off as a potentially good thread, but instead all you've done is try to destroy it.

Going back to the thread (hopefully sticking to it). My point regarding business family's having kids that are good at business was relative. A family good at sport will stand more chance of having kids good at sport for more reasons than just genetics.

I actually thought I kept perfectly to the thread.

EO posted that link to get azania all hot and bothered. Have you noticed he hasn't exactly come back to join in the 'debate' has he?

I just carried on with the original purpose of the thread.

No, sorry I've not noticed.

Seems like an odd thing to do and an odd thing to get all hot and bothered about.

Its a pretty good debating point. It is a shame if that is really the reason it was posted.

Azania is a lot like you in the sense that he likes to get involved in arguments involving race.

But in another way different, because you tend to call anyone who disagrees with you racist, while he doesn't like anyone suggesting certain populations of people have a propensity to be successful in certain areas.

This article has MJ suggesting that Jamaicans have a genetic advantage when it comes to sprinting. This angers azania (he doesn't have much interest in athletics, he's essentially just an odd guy from the boxing board.)

lol.. crikey mate you are a judgemental man. I've never accused anyone of being racist for no reason.

If you were to say that every Englishman was a drugs cheat, that would be a racist comment. I've never said anything other than similar to that. You can't accuse entire nations of being drugs cheats.

You called me racist for suggesting that Gatlin was a disgusting, filthy, cheating scumbag.

I found the programme really interesting actually, it's amazing how far back you can trace someone DNA.

It was really informative, but they did point out that while genetics are obviously an influence, nuture and the environment have a fair bit of sway too. Lots to discuss really if posters would only quit it with the childish bickering/pointscoring

djlovesyou, your are wrong. I said you were slanderous for accusing Gatlin of cheating at present. I did not say you were racist. Please go back and check the postings.

A combination of both is why African americans are successful in sport really. It's a mix of Nature and nurture.

djlovesyou wrote:

azania wrote:

Keep to the thread son.

Boxing troll does patronising.

You do know you're a laughing stock on that board too?

And what has that got to do with the thread? You are hard work.

ryanbailey wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:Given that you're often the one that starts the nonsense ryan, do you think you're in any position to give orders about what other people should be doing?

Pot... Kettle... Black... lol... I'm in a very good position to give you orders that much is obvious. You struggle to keep to the thread and jump to childish insults very quickly without even posting anything of any relevance. This started off as a potentially good thread, but instead all you've done is try to destroy it.

Going back to the thread (hopefully sticking to it). My point regarding business family's having kids that are good at business was relative. A family good at sport will stand more chance of having kids good at sport for more reasons than just genetics.

Yes of course, there are certain advantages. It becomes learned behaviour and being in a business environment makes it easier for one to enter into the business world.

djlovesyou wrote:I actually thought I kept perfectly to the thread.

EO posted that link to get azania all hot and bothered. Have you noticed he hasn't exactly come back to join in the 'debate' has he?

I just carried on with the original purpose of the thread.

Wrong again son. I have not gotten hot and bothered. Quite the opposite. I remain calm and only resort to bickering when subjected to petty bickering from those who have little interest in the subject at hand.

And I have a life that often requires that I am away from a pc. I suggest you try that someday. Go out and have some fun.

Its also very childish to post what is a fascinating topic just to get another poster hot and bothered. Try debating without resorting to insults. First try a wo/man to relax you.

djlovesyou wrote:Azania is a lot like you in the sense that he likes to get involved in arguments involving race.

But in another way different, because you tend to call anyone who disagrees with you racist, while he doesn't like anyone suggesting certain populations of people have a propensity to be successful in certain areas.

This article has MJ suggesting that Jamaicans have a genetic advantage when it comes to sprinting. This angers azania (he doesn't have much interest in athletics, he's essentially just an odd guy from the boxing board.)

It doesn't anger me. I just don't subscribe to that school of thought. Do nordic countries have an advantage when it comes to javelin? Or is it more of a tradition?

djlovesyou wrote:Azania is a lot like you in the sense that he likes to get involved in arguments involving race.

But in another way different, because you tend to call anyone who disagrees with you racist, while he doesn't like anyone suggesting certain populations of people have a propensity to be successful in certain areas.

This article has MJ suggesting that Jamaicans have a genetic advantage when it comes to sprinting. This angers azania (he doesn't have much interest in athletics, he's essentially just an odd guy from the boxing board.)

Amazing. I started a thread about MLF and some poster twisted it into a race issue. Should I simply back down like a good little house boy because the masser's are taakin'?

rugbydreamer wrote:I found the programme really interesting actually, it's amazing how far back you can trace someone DNA.

It was really informative, but they did point out that while genetics are obviously an influence, nuture and the environment have a fair bit of sway too. Lots to discuss really if posters would only quit it with the childish bickering/pointscoring

Is that genetics linked to ethnicity? Or was a land of 'supermen' created (accidentally) in-spite of race? If you put the fittest, strongest white people in one place don't you think they will have a propensity to do better? Race in this instance is a consequence of slavery.

You're there with over 10000 posts in little over a year (most of them embarrassing yourself) and you're telling me to get a life? Funny stuff.

[quote="djlovesyou"]You're there with over 10000 posts in little over a year (most of them embarrassing yourself) and you're telling me to get a life? Funny stuff.[/quote]

Honestly djlovesyou can you just clear off. 99% of your posts are just trolling the boards. You've got little or nothing of interest to say. Your posts used to be quite ok on the old forum, but you've now taken to wumming and trolling, nothing more. Can we either have the old djlovesyou back or wumoff?

djlovesyou wrote:You're there with over 10000 posts in little over a year (most of them embarrassing yourself) and you're telling me to get a life? Funny stuff.

Yep. Try it. A life that is. And also try sticking to the OP instead of simply throwing insults. It isn't hard unless you don't find the OP interesting. Quit being a mental midget. I know you can.

Hahaha not surprised Azania is on here spurting similar drivel.

Just to clear this up.

It was yet another dangerous and misguided attempt to justify a contemporary superiority using eugenics. It appeals to peoples egos/arrogance/superiority complex to try and "prove" their superiority and that is why eugenics has been debated so much. At the same time Michael dismissed "Nazism" as evil for advocating (his) "inferior" genes, Michael went on to endorse his "superior" genes. It was remisce in a number of areas:

1. By denouncing Nazism, he failed to acknowledge the less palatable inference of his argument. If slave "genes" were superior in sprinting. Is it not possible other "genes" were superior in other areas? If he (and Azania) accept he may have genes that make him "superior" as an athelete. Then surely, you have to acknowledge you have genes that are inferior in say... intellect etc. Thus, if you accept his argument, you are possibly justifying Nazism.

2. He failed to point out the greatest slaving nation, Brazil, hasn't a distinguished record at the sprinting events.

3. And the biggest omission is he failed to investigate the nurture side of the debate.

"If you put the fittest, strongest white people in one place don't you think they will have a propensity to do better?" Lets substitute intellect for fittest, strongest and we have a KKK argument.. well done Azania!!

Just because there is a coincidental link and it vindicates your superiority complex, doesn't mean it is so.

Michael Johnson, great athelete, nice person, but seriously misguided.

Not sure that being a slaving nation makes for good sprinting. I don't think that point has any relevance. I think you've deliberately missed the point on that one.

The nurture side of things is interesting though, and strange that MJ avoided that one, especially given the topic he was talking about. There is a real culture of sprinting in Jamaica that is nurturing more and more talent. However, having said that he has talked about the culture of sprinting in Jamaica before.

Ryanbailey - his argument was that the forced selection of slavery promoted "accelerated Darwinism". Well, Brazil received by far the largest number of slaves, more than the US and Caribbean put together if my memory serves me right. So, given the competition in Brazil amongst slave decendents, surely it should be the "best".

You hit the nail on the head. Its about motivation and determination. One of the Jamaican kids in the documentary said that is why he felt Jamaica was so good but Michael ignored it to pursue Nazi style views....

I think I remember seeing a documentary with Bert Sugar where he pointed out there were waves of "racial" boxing supremacy. Irish, Jewish, russians etc. in america which was largely driven by poverty. The consistent African American "excellence" was due to the same reason.

When it comes to achieving, its really down to desire and avenues open to you to excel, real or imagined. They used to say all strikers came from the NE, the All Blacks dominate rugby and the WI had a fantastic cricket team during the 80's and 90's (but not now). Homosexuals are over represented in the arts!

Welcome back traveller. Please explain what drivel I am supposed to be spouting. If you read my posts you will see that I disagree with Johnson.

Thanks

Happytravelling. Aren't you agreeing entirely with the nonsense azania brought over here?

Happytravelling wrote:Ryanbailey - his argument was that the forced selection of slavery promoted "accelerated Darwinism". Well, Brazil received by far the largest number of slaves, more than the US and Caribbean put together if my memory serves me right. So, given the competition in Brazil amongst slave decendents, surely it should be the "best".

You hit the nail on the head. Its about motivation and determination. One of the Jamaican kids in the documentary said that is why he felt Jamaica was so good but Michael ignored it to pursue Nazi style views....

I think I remember seeing a documentary with Bert Sugar where he pointed out there were waves of "racial" boxing supremacy. Irish, Jewish, russians etc. in america which was largely driven by poverty. The consistent African American "excellence" was due to the same reason.

When it comes to achieving, its really down to desire and avenues open to you to excel, real or imagined. They used to say all strikers came from the NE, the All Blacks dominate rugby and the WI had a fantastic cricket team during the 80's and 90's (but not now). Homosexuals are over represented in the arts!

Not much for me to disagree with there.

The nurture side of things is not really relevant though. Of course you need a system and a culture to produce such fast athletes.

Why have nations such as Germany and Russia always failed to produce great sprinters, despite all the 'nurture' you could think of? China too in recent times.

It doesn't make any sense. These countries spent years picking out prime candidates for running fast at a young age, training them very thoroughly, often using proven doping methods too. Why could they still not compete?

Genetics, evolution etc. are nowhere near as neat as any of you are trying to make out.

You can breed horses, dogs etc. because you do so in a very controlled environment. Humans just aren't that controlled.

Pedigree dogs soon become mongrels if their breeding is not controlled. Genetics encourages diversity for evolution. So, even if you are born to two atheletes its no way certain you will be one.

djlovesyou - yet the UK and US, both black and white have split the 100m between them... its nurture. There is a history in these nations. Like there was a history of cricket in the WI until recently.

My comment was "desire and avenues open to you to excel, real or imagined." The avenues can be real, as in social exclusion due to poverty or imagined as in "I am from NZ so I play rugby".

Russia, Germany etc. excel at field events. Because there is a qudos and history behind it. Italian football typically venerates defenders, English strikers. Does it mean Italy doesn't have strikers and vica versa?

Up until recently, black people didn't win golf tournaments and Switzerland didn't win the America's cup...

Happytravelling wrote:djlovesyou - yet the UK and US, both black and white have split the 100m between them... its nurture. There is a history in these nations. Like there was a history of cricket in the WI until recently.

Yeah. Show me these white 100m sprinters from either country. The US and UK both have relatively small black populations (at least compared to white people) but the top level sprint results are completely dominated by black athletes (nearly always of West African origin). Why?

Because black people see sports more of a career option than whites due to economics. Plus there is a history of working harder to beat "the man". But more importantly there is a culture of excelling at sprinting which will bring more people into it who believe that they will win and put off people who believe they are 'naturally' slower. The will to win and self belief or self doubt can not be quantified. Why do you think Powell excells in GP meets but not at the majors?

Happytravelling wrote:Ryanbailey - his argument was that the forced selection of slavery promoted "accelerated Darwinism". Well, Brazil received by far the largest number of slaves, more than the US and Caribbean put together if my memory serves me right. So, given the competition in Brazil amongst slave decendents, surely it should be the "best".

An interesting debate. Regarding the above point Brazil as a Portuguese colony would not have been sent slaves from the same parts of Africa as the French and Brits, who had West Africa sown up between them.

Slaves left mainly from west africa, but they came from all parts of africa.

Really fed up with the bickering sometimes. Also confused as to how some (most?) people seem to see what is an extraordinary complex issue in such black and white (no pun intended) terms.

Personally I feel that obviously nurture does make a difference.

azania wrote:Because black people see sports more of a career option than whites due to economics.

Quite.

azania wrote: But more importantly there is a culture of excelling at sprinting which will bring more people into it who believe that they will win and put off people who believe they are 'naturally' slower.

I agree that those who think they can't make it won't, and certainly won't bother putting in the incredible amount of time and effort required. I refuse to believe that the will to win is a factor. At that level everyone wants to win. And

azania wrote: Plus there is a history of working harder to beat "the man".

Frankly that is insulting.

Finally I think natural ability obviously plays a part (but Matt Syed for example disagrees) - is your random Jamaican more likely to have that ability than your random scandinavian? We can't know for sure, but the statistical evidence would suggest it is likely.

Teassoc
Good point. From what i understand many came from former portuguese colonies.eg mozambique in the east and angola in the south

Not really EO. Many slaves in Brazil came from all over west africa also. A main slave port sending slaves to Brazil left from Equatorial Guinea and Guinea Bissau which are west african nations.

Happytravelling wrote:Hahaha not surprised Azania is on here spurting similar drivel.

Just to clear this up.

It was yet another dangerous and misguided attempt to justify a contemporary superiority using eugenics. It appeals to peoples egos/arrogance/superiority complex to try and "prove" their superiority and that is why eugenics has been debated so much. At the same time Michael dismissed "Nazism" as evil for advocating (his) "inferior" genes, Michael went on to endorse his "superior" genes. It was remisce in a number of areas:

1. By denouncing Nazism, he failed to acknowledge the less palatable inference of his argument. If slave "genes" were superior in sprinting. Is it not possible other "genes" were superior in other areas? If he (and Azania) accept he may have genes that make him "superior" as an athelete. Then surely, you have to acknowledge you have genes that are inferior in say... intellect etc. Thus, if you accept his argument, you are possibly justifying Nazism.

2. He failed to point out the greatest slaving nation, Brazil, hasn't a distinguished record at the sprinting events.

3. And the biggest omission is he failed to investigate the nurture side of the debate.

"If you put the fittest, strongest white people in one place don't you think they will have a propensity to do better?" Lets substitute intellect for fittest, strongest and we have a KKK argument.. well done Azania!!

Just because there is a coincidental link and it vindicates your superiority complex, doesn't mean it is so.

Michael Johnson, great athelete, nice person, but seriously misguided.

Talk about reading the poster's name and not what he wrote. I disagree fundamentally with Johnson's assertions.

azania wrote:Not really EO. Many slaves in Brazil came from all over west africa also. A main slave port sending slaves to Brazil left from Equatorial Guinea and Guinea Bissau which are west african nations.

Interesting reading on this subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/20/rio-cemetery-of-the-new-blacks-brazil

Reports that slaves in Brazil came from all over Africa.

We certainly have a shameful history.

teassoc wrote:

azania wrote:Not really EO. Many slaves in Brazil came from all over west africa also. A main slave port sending slaves to Brazil left from Equatorial Guinea and Guinea Bissau which are west african nations.

Interesting reading on this subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/20/rio-cemetery-of-the-new-blacks-brazil

Reports that slaves in Brazil came from all over Africa.

We certainly have a shameful history.

Next to Nigeria, Brazil has the highest population of people of African descent. Bringing it back to athletics, Happy Traveller makes a very interesting point that Brazil should have more athletes who have broken the 10sec barrier given what people believe to be the popular theory..