.
Correction: NFL, NBA and maybe even track portion of track-n-field.
.
I asked a question. If there is no difference, then pick a third option.
But statistics say those are Black Dominated sports. Both sports used to be "White" which makes them different from hockey and tennis because they were never "Black" per se, nor do Blacks seem to be interested to excel in hockey or tennis in a way Whites dream about being shooting guards/running backs........ Norway never spoke Spanish. Nobel laureates - never bestowed upon 5th grade rejects. Gymnastics and ballet -- always rooted out fatties mercelessly first during childhood rounds, then in post-pubertal ones. Etc, etc, etc.....And your analogies had very little to do with "race", which this thread is ALL about.
.
Incorrect. Chess clubs were available, sure- as they are here. Schools for especially chess gifted? Yes. But normal schools never (at least not recently) had a "chess" class as part of carriculum, certainly not for elementary-age kids.
Beats me. Wanna start a new thread?
.
Very true. Toilet paper, not so much.
Well, for such a poor country.....an average "soviet" IS more educated/read than an average American. Calculus was studied in a 8-9th grades. Collections of poetry having to be memorized for a 7th grade lit test.....100s of 15-16yo competing for a single spot in regional universities....That kind of stuff.....
I don't think so either. But this topic is not about Blacks' superiority in chess, is it? Non-whites may learn to play chess quicker, but the sport is still dominated by Whites, although not nearly as much.
Because analogies are not born equal. Verbally/logically, you can make a parallel with anything and call it a day. But it doesn't mean that you can point to "red-heads and gymnastics or Norwegians and Spanish language and use it to prove or discredit a hypothesis made about, say, race and sports. And vice versa.
.
My wildlife comment was admittedly out-there. Other than that, I asked more questions than made statements. Why? Because I myself do NOT know the answer.
Irrelvant is an ugly word. I prefer "slightly less relevant"....especially when you use them as spring board to dismiss everyone's opinion here as crap.
Um....yes!
To be fair, my quesiton was more about Blacks than Whites cuz with the former it could be either a natural advantage OR centuries-long lack of opportunity compounded by the mentality-altering oppression. The slave-breeding theory is something I heard many times....ditto for fast-twitch fibers and plasma testosterone one. However, basketball being dirt cheap to play, unlike tennis or golf, and its identity-defining, cultural popularity aspect-- they too could provide the answer. As could better work ethic.
I thought your post was facetious. I stand corrected. And yes, I did ask for your opinion because as someone who is brighter and more experienced than myself, you could provide a different angle for looking at the issue at hand.
Many people gave their honest, NOT-so-simplistic theories here. I am just looking for an aswer if there is one. If it's simple, than so be it. If it's NOT-- accordingly.
I thought it was a good thread. That it started out as bait for Israel4ever and Apu....should not diminish its on-topic merit; you yourself commended it having "seome of the best on-line writing" you've ever seen, no? It was one of the few "interesting" threads I've ever read on SoxTalk off topic board. I have NO regrets......And as long as this thread doesn't desintegrate into n*gger/cr*cker insult-fest, I see nothing wrong with it.
Let's get back to the Blacks in NBA/NFL/track
