Can We Talk About Race?

[FD_23]

American blacks are prone to health issues.

Norwegian isn't a race, neither is Arian, the average height would have many things as an aggregate which affect it. Like French men being shorter after Napoleon's reign because all the tall ones were in the front of the battle lines. That issue has now past into history, but pre WWII was a basic thing. In general the French were shorter than the rest of Europe.

As humans we have norms, and we have outliers.

Please stop picking on my words. What I meant was there can be large differences in people specific to certain places. We have already confirmed there is no basis to the BBC trope, but what I am getting at is that not everyone is automatically racist.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Wait... wow, really? This is not something I've heard before.

My father told me he'd learned in a world history class way back in 1974 in college. If my father say's it is gospel. At least to me. I haven't actually researched that one, but it does make perfect sense. If only short people are left to make babies, most of those babies will grow up short. I guess that's what happened to me. By birth relations, present and past, are short.

My father (adopted) is neither short or tall, he is just shy of average, or was. edit, not that he is dead, but he seems to shrink a little every year. My brother is tall, a bit over six feet, my sister is taller than me, but only 5 feet 2. But then again, bro and sis are half-siblings, and I'm not actually blood related to them.

 

[FD_23]

American blacks are prone to health issues.

Norwegian isn't a race, neither is Arian, the average height would have many things as an aggregate which affect it. Like French men being shorter after Napoleon's reign because all the tall ones were in the front of the battle lines. That issue has now past into history, but pre WWII was a basic thing. In general the French were shorter than the rest of Europe.

As humans we have norms, and we have outliers.

I'm not sure about french men in general, but Napoleon was a normal height for his period. It was the media that made him out to be small.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Please stop picking on my words. What I meant was there can be large differences in people specific to certain places. We have already confirmed there is no basis to the BBC trope, but what I am getting at is that not everyone is automatically racist.

Didn't think you were saying that. I didn't see your remark about checking out the study before I posted.

 

[CyranoJ]

My father told me he'd learned in a world history class way back in 1974 in college. If my father say's it is gospel. At least to me. I haven't actually researched that one, but it does make perfect sense.

Huh. I'll have to check that out, thanks. Interesting little tidbit if true.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I'm not sure about french men in general, but Napoleon was a normal height for his period. It was the media that made him out to be small.

There is no actually record, that I can find, about his height. I think he was made small to reflect how the world viewed him. That his conquest were small minded attempts to rule the world.

 

[SimonDoom]

Size and race
The belief that penis size varies according to race is not supported by scientific evidence.[6][30] A 2005 study reported that "there is no scientific background to support the alleged 'oversized' penis in black people".[31]

Penis size is a fascinating subject. From what I've read, the evidence is all over the map, and it's difficult to know what to believe because of the questionable nature of the methodology with which the information has been gathered. Many studies are based on self-reporting, and that's obviously dubious. It's easy to imagine why it would be difficult for a researcher to do a valid study of the subject that involved a) a large enough sample size, b) reliably random and objective methods of gathering subjects, and c) reliable methods of measurement. I've seen some studies that suggest that there IS a difference based on race, and I've seen some that contradict that idea. I don't know what to believe.

Here's some food for thought, though: why does it matter so much? What if someone were to establish, once and for all, that on average men of Race A had slightly longer penises than men of Race B? What would that mean? Supposedly it would nevertheless be true that variance WITHIN racial groups would be more significant than variance BETWEEN racial groups, meaning, therefore, that the data would not support making assumptions about individuals (and their penises) based on their race. If we keep trying to move toward a world where we don't judge people by their skin color, then averages of this kind, even if true, may not matter. We're not there yet, of course.

 

[FD_23]

There is no actually record, that I can find, about his height. I think he was made small to reflect how the world viewed him. That his conquest were small minded attempts to rule the world.

I don't want to be argumentative, but I have found lot's regarding his height and have heard this from many sources over the years,

 

[CyranoJ]

There is no actually record, that I can find, about his height. I think he was made small to reflect how the world viewed him. That his conquest were small minded attempts to rule the world.

IIRC it was a popular trope for British propaganda of the time. Literally belittling Napoleon made him a less terrifying prospect for the troops (otherwise, going into the field against an acknowledged military genius might seem rather daunting).

 

[Bramblethorn]

American blacks are prone to health issues.

Norwegian isn't a race, neither is Arian, the average height would have many things as an aggregate which affect it. Like French men being shorter after Napoleon's reign because all the tall ones were in the front of the battle lines. That issue has now past into history, but pre WWII was a basic thing. In general the French were shorter than the rest of Europe.

I'm sceptical on this one. France did lose a significant proportion of its male population during the Napoleonic Wars, but many of those were due to factors such as disease, starvation, and cold, rather than direct battlefield casualties.

Meanwhile, war is hell on agricultural production, and adult height has a lot to do with childhood nutrition. If there was a height difference between the French and the rest of Europe, my first guess would be nutritional differences rather than genetic effects. Especially if it disappeared after WWII, which I wouldn't expect a genetic difference to do.

 

[Bramblethorn]

There is no actually record, that I can find, about his height. I think he was made small to reflect how the world viewed him. That his conquest were small minded attempts to rule the world.

https://www.history.com/news/napoleon-complex-short

Napoleon was 5'2" in French inches, but that's about 5'5" in Imperial inches, which would have been just slightly shorter than usual for his time. The perception of Napoleon as a very short man does indeed seem to have come from political cartoons of the time.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I don't want to be argumentative, but I have found lot's regarding his height and have heard this from many sources over the years,

I don't think your being argumentative. I didn't say he was short or tall, I said I haven't found a specific height for him. You are probably right.

IIRC it was a popular trope for British propaganda of the time. Literally belittling Napoleon made him a less terrifying prospect for the troops (otherwise, going into the field against an acknowledged military genius might seem rather daunting).

You are also probably dead right.

I'm sceptical on this one. France did lose a significant proportion of its male population during the Napoleonic Wars, but many of those were due to factors such as disease, starvation, and cold, rather than direct battlefield casualties.

Meanwhile, war is hell on agricultural production, and adult height has a lot to do with childhood nutrition. If there was a height difference between the French and the rest of Europe, my first guess would be nutritional differences rather than genetic effects. Especially if it disappeared after WWII, which I wouldn't expect a genetic difference to do.

And this to may be correct. The history field, like any other, has mistaken scholars or information give in a class over 40 years ago may no longer be right.

 

[FD_23]

I don't think your being argumentative. I didn't say he was short or tall, I said I haven't found a specific height for him. You are probably right.



You are also probably dead right.



And this to may be correct. The history field, like any other, has mistaken scholars or information give in a class over 40 years ago may no longer be right.

Sorry, it can be tricky articulating exactly what you mean on a message board

 

[MillieDynamite]

https://www.history.com/news/napoleon-complex-short

Napoleon was 5'2" in French inches, but that's about 5'5" in Imperial inches, which would have been just slightly shorter than usual for his time. The perception of Napoleon as a very short man does indeed seem to have come from political cartoons of the time.

There were similar cartoons in WWII about Hitler and Emperor Hirohito. They did the same to all the Axis Powers military men in the cartoons. Drew them like beasts. In times of war, we villainize our enemies to lessen our similarities and increase our differences. This makes it easier to kill them if they are animals and we are not.

 

[Rustyoznail]

Penis size is a fascinating subject. From what I've read, the evidence is all over the map, and it's difficult to know what to believe because of the questionable nature of the methodology with which the information has been gathered. Many studies are based on self-reporting, and that's obviously dubious. It's easy to imagine why it would be difficult for a researcher to do a valid study of the subject that involved a) a large enough sample size, b) reliably random and objective methods of gathering subjects, and c) reliable methods of measurement. I've seen some studies that suggest that there IS a difference based on race, and I've seen some that contradict that idea. I don't know what to believe.

I had an idea for a story Geek pride that would try and resolve these issues. Maybe next year.

Anyway, I Greek guy I used to work with years ago had some sage advice when we asked him about his holiday to the Mediterranean. "Fucked a lot of women. Didn't care where they came from. They're all pink on the inside."

 

[MillieDynamite]

I had an idea for a story Geek pride that would try and resolve these issues. Maybe next year.

Anyway, I Greek guy I used to work with years ago had some sage advice when we asked him about his holiday to the Mediterranean. "Fucked a lot of women. Didn't care where they came from. They're all pink on the inside."

I've heard that one before, and "All cats are grey in the dark."

 

[SimonDoom]

When it comes to race, my rule is "How is what I'm saying different than what a white supremacist would say?" If you write a BBC story, I think you have to ask yourself, "How would someone who hates black people write this story differently?" If you can't think of any changes, then you shouldn't publish the story (and spend some time in front of a mirror).

This is an interesting formulation of the test for story acceptability. I'm going to apply it to the story idea I'm working on.

An educated, sophisticated woman who works in an office and self-identifies as a liberal-minded and non-racist person nevertheless fantasizes about sex with black men. Her fantasies indulge, to some degree, in cliches and stereotypes about black men -- extra masculine, big penises, etc. She fantasizes about her co-worker. By the end of the story, they have sex. The challenge for the story is to simultaneously indulge in the fantasy and deconstruct it. I want to turn readers on. I also don't want readers to think, Jeez, this author's a racist.

Why would I want to write such a story? I'm not a white woman with such fantasies. I'm not black. I am not, and never have been, an aspiring white male cuckold.

I'm interested in exploring the fantasy because I think it's psychologically true. My view of human psychology is that weirdness and erotica are intertwined. Our minds and desires go to forbidden places, places we don't understand, places we don't want them to go when we think rationally about them. And I think that's very interesting, and also erotic. I think people who deny this fact about human psychology and sexuality are kidding themselves.

I also think many people out there would find the story concept erotic, even if they might have a hard time explaining why, and even if they might be extremely uncomfortable trying to explain why if forced to do so. I like the idea of writing stories that take readers to places that are both arousing and uncomfortable. It's an interesting artistic challenge.

Back to your test: the difference between my story and the White Supremacist's version of the story is that in my story the white woman will feel guilt about her fantasies and the black man will not conform to the White Supremacist's view of what a black man is. But in the end, there will be a twist, and sex will happen, and it may be unsettling for some people.

 

[MelissaBaby]

It's called pseudo science and isn't true research. It is the same type of study that concluded that Afro Americans excelled in sports because more elastic muscles back in the 1950s. these mutations enabled black men to run faster and jump higher than white men. Bullshit is bullshit and that study was bullshit, just as one attributing any constant deviations in the norm to any specific group is bullshit. Always in the studies the whites make up for their physical inadequacies with superior mental abilities. It just isn't real.

If some blacks are better at sports than some whites, it is because they worked on the sport harder and longer than whites. It is a way out of where they are.

Consider Tom Brady, why is he so successful so long. Simple, his life is football first, he spends more time and energy on football than his relationship with his wife or children.

My husband pointed out to me how often sportscasters will attribute athletic success by white players to hard work and intelligence, while praising black players for their "natural talent."

I started listening when he's watching games. He's right. I hear the contrast in almost every game.

 

[LAHomedog]

For the record, we never don't see color, we can chose to not judge a person based on color.

And that is exactly my point at the beginning of the thread.

 

[LAHomedog]

Nobody is writing stories where people are irrevocably corrupted by the power of ginger pubes.

Well, I might be. But then again my wife is a redhead

 

[MelissaBaby]

American blacks are prone to health issues.

Norwegian isn't a race, neither is Arian, the average height would have many things as an aggregate which affect it. Like French men being shorter after Napoleon's reign because all the tall ones were in the front of the battle lines. That issue has now past into history, but pre WWII was a basic thing. In general the French were shorter than the rest of Europe.

As humans we have norms, and we have outliers.

Conversely, since World War Two the average height of Japanese people has increased because of the changes in their diet due to westernization.

 

[MillieDynamite]

My husband pointed out to me how often sportscasters will attribute athletic success by white players to hard work and intelligence, while praising black players for their "natural talent."

I started listening when he's watching games. He's right. I hear the contrast in almost every game.

And it's another example of Bullshit. Natural talent, that is also, to a degree, bullshit. While some people are more athletic than others, no one is born with the ability to put the ball through the hoop, nothing but net. Throw a football down field with pinpoint accuracy, or hit a baseball without hard work and dedication.

It took my father thousands of hours to master taekwondo and Praying Mantis. The same goes for my wife on the same two martial art forms. Father was a catcher in baseball and played real baseball for years after school on the amateur level. It took hard work to get good at any of it.

Some may have some innate ability, but that and 4.50 can get you a cup of coffee. Without work, no one gets good. This type of racism is hard to weed out and very subtle. It's like the old announcer for the cubs, Harry Carry (not the actor) calling a game, the cubs hit a homerun, "Its out of here, way over the fence like a rocket." The opposing team, "Well the wind caught that one, it just sort of floated over the fence and died."

 

[ElectricBlue]

Not even Harry Potter fanfic?

Lol. Not on this site. You know the rules .

 

[MillieDynamite]

Lol. Not on this site. You know the rules .

I have an outline for a man-eater story where the woman is a redhead. The power of ginger will destroy him.

 

[SimonDoom]

. Natural talent, that is also, to a degree, bullshit. "

In this respect, you are wrong. Natural talent is not bullshit.

I run. I have a lot of experience running.

Some people are born with a superior potential to be great runners. They have superior natural aerobic capacity, superior endurance, superior running economy. They have bodies that are designed in a way to be superior runners -- thin frames, narrow hips, long skinny calves. Success at running is, to a great degree, a product of the genes you are born with rather than the hard work you put in. There is no question whatsoever that this is true. Anyone who spends a lot of time running and participating in races knows that this is true.

Some people are born with superior artistic talent -- the ability to look at something and reproduce it on a canvas. There is no question whatsoever that this is true.

Some people pick up the ability to learn musical instruments faster than others.

Some people are born more intelligent than others. They do math problems faster than others. Not because of hard work, or supportive parents. Because they're born that way.

Natural talent is a real thing. Whether or not mean differences in natural talent correlate with different racial groups is a different matter.