- Sep 12, 2005
- 24,604
- 21,898
IMO it's as racist as the Scumball chant.
So not at all, then.
IMO it's as racist as the Scumball chant.
Racism is actually very black and white, but due to people misusing the term and calling everything 'racist' for political reasons (usually to gain something or play on sympathies) it has become warped and gray, when in reality the definition is very clear-cut and straightforward.
Racist: someone who believes a person of an ethnic background is superior to another inherently.
Racism: the practice of the above.
The end. But now every comment, every picture and every little nit-picking thing that someone doesn't like is 'racist'. It has become nothing but a buzz word and a get out of jail free card, which is really sad.
Do you mean like this guy?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-descendants-slaves-medals-sprint-finals.html
Olympic legend Michael Johnson says a ‘superior athletic gene’ in the descendants of West African slaves means black American and Caribbean sprinters will command the sport at the London Games.
The Olympic gold medallist and BBC commentator said: ‘Over the last few years, athletes of Afro- Caribbean and Afro-American descent have dominated athletics finals.
‘It’s a fact that hasn’t been discussed openly before. It’s a taboo subject in the States but it is what it is. Why shouldn’t we discuss it?’
Somehow I don't think you'd hear white swimmers etc bragging on how their white gene will win them more medals than a black gene. If they did they'd be one almighty witch-hunt that's for sure.
He's saying he and other black athletes have a superior gene. However he disguises it, and how other gullibles interpret it, it amounts to the same quotation "Blacks are superior to whites". Bottom line, a white Olympian saying the same thing would get run out of the sport and have their lives ruined by it..
So you agree he shouldn't have said it because it's wrong? If not would you agree with a white person bragging "I've only got good strong genes because thousands of years ago my tribe left Africa"Yes, it's almost as ridiculous as someone thinking there's a secret conspiracy by women to take over the world.
He's saying he and other black athletes have a superior gene. However he disguises it, and how other gullibles interpret it, it amounts to the same quotation "Blacks are superior to whites". Bottom line, a white Olympian saying the same thing would get run out of the sport and have their lives ruined by it..
What a load of fucking bollocks, I must be fucking gullible because I understand Science
Again read the post I wrote before and then comment because he is saying that the people in the finals were all from a slave origin and not blacks are superior to whites. The fact of the matter is the 100m sprint races have been dominated by people of a african heritage in recent years.
Yes slaves were bred to be big and strong, so breeding did take place but since when did big and strong also mean fast? If you want speed you normally look for something smaller and more nimble. Take US bred thoroughbreds as an example. Much faster in a sprint than their European counterparts.
Woah woah woah woah, what the fuck do horses have to do with this?
Well it would be, if I was in the slightest bit interested in any kind of serious debate about it. But I'm sure you realised that from the tone of each of my posts in this thread.
I don't know why the Irish aren't dominating sprint events. What's your theory on it? Fact is, you have to go back to 1972 for the last time a white man won either 100m or 200m at an Olympics that weren't either doped up or competing against a seriously weakened field. Black people are good at sprint events, get over it.
Most importantly, I want to know what Spursking thinks of it.
Would that same science by acceptable for a swimmer to brag on their superior white genes? Or in this politically correct world should that swimmer not say anything?
Interesting you say they were all slaves. You do know there were Irish slaves working in the W Indies that were shipped there on the same uncomfortable ships. When did the Irish last dominate the medal positions at anything other than drinking? (no offence Paddy)
Also interesting that this magnificent slave gene he's claiming only works at sprinting, and not anything else. I also wonder does he have any proof that the successful American or W Indian athletes were all born out of a slave family? In case you didn't know not every black person can claim slavery in their family history.
Yes slaves were bred to be big and strong, so breeding did take place but since when did big and strong also mean fast? If you want speed you normally look for something smaller and more nimble. Take US bred thoroughbreds as an example. Much faster in a sprint than their European counterparts.
I think he's talking bollocks to be honest. IMO slavery had nothing to do with some blacks being faster runners than most whites.
What a load of fucking bollocks, I must be fucking gullible because I understand Science
Again read the post I wrote before and then comment because he is saying that the people in the finals were all from a slave origin and not blacks are superior to whites. The fact of the matter is the 100m sprint races have been dominated by people of a african heritage in recent years.