Sheriff Joe
DA
So you enjoyed that they put us together?
That just made my day, I have always known you were racist, I am just happy other see it as well.
How race unlevelled US playing fields
- Thread starter Vin
- Start date
That just made my day, I have always known you were racist, I am just happy other see it as well.
And now you are admitting that you are a racist?.
Sheriff Joe
DA
No, but we all know and everyone agrees that you are, now let these people have there thread back, you old racist asshole.
We took some 17-19-year-olds to Gothia Cup in 2007, and played teams from Sweden, Germany, and Norway. They won their group without a loss, then got bumped after a 0-0 draw when they could only hit the goal frame 3 times while the Swedes scored 3 PKs.
Show me.
Well, this isn't necessarily a good thing either. As long as we are all being racist and stereotyping, I'll say that I've noticed a distinct type of play in 5 groups of youngers (8/9/10 year olds) I've seen play games. Granted, it's my very small sample and it's all stereotyping, and it's mostly boys (haven't seen enough of the younger girls to compare from different countries) but here's the jist.
-Americans: When I see them play at the club level, particularly the less experienced teams from the suburbs, there's something frantic about them as if they are willing for the ball to get into the opposite goal. It's all about scoring. You hear it on the side lines too..."shoot"...as if just willing the ball inside will upend the laws of physics and magically get it past the blocking defenders and the goalkeeper.
-Mexicans: It's all about getting through the opponent and moving up the field. Can lead to some more physical play as a result than the suburban Americans, and tactics "by the rules" people might look at and say that's not soccer.
-British: It's all about clearing the ball away from your own goal. Almost as much bootball as the Americans. For example, see:
-Spanish: It's about playing keep away. They care less about getting it to goal, more about keeping the ball away from the other side, like (for those of us that grew up in the 80s/90s) our schoolyard game of "keep away"
-Italians (my smallest sample size...seen the fewest games): Not that different from the Spanish but it's more defensive than pass oriented.
The path to the U.S. winning the World Cup--- it doesn't start with ' more talent. It starts with developing the talent that we already have, in the right way. Quote from Christian Pulisic
You both right and both wrong. Let's look at the example of our best friends, the dogs. Are dogs a distinct species? Yes, we might race to answer...hey but wait but what about the wolf? The African dog? The hyena? They are all genetically close, yet different.
Well, there are distinct breeds. Clearly a corgi is different than German shepherd and different than a lab....and those differences are rooted in genetics. But we also know there are dogs that are mixed, dogs which have no breeds, and dogs which one person might label a corgi another one won't. And what we consider to be a corgi and what not to be a corgi is a social construct...rules made by humans that label one animal one thing and another something different. For example, are the English lab and the American lab one breed or two? Yet, there's no denying there are obvious differences between the dogs, that those differences are genetic (a corgi is not a lab), and that the more different they are it's easier to distinguish them.
If dogs are this complicated, well with humans....
@Grace T., your analogy is that within the homo sapien species "races" are akin to canine "breeds." I see where you are trying to go, but the problem is one of genetic diversity resulting from "selective breeding" versus natural selection. Breeds are scientifically identifiable based on
From a pure genetic standpoint, the genetic difference between humans is small and the genetic diversity between dog breeds is on the order of 5x higher than the human population. Generally speaking we identify human population groups based on allele frequencies. Allele frequencies can help us genetically pinpoint a population group to a geographic region, but beyond that ... its inconsequential. We can have two persons from Mexico City be white (red headed) and nearly black (very dark skinned) and they will share more genetic similarities (alleles) than two individuals from East and West Africa. In sum, "races" aren't scientifically useful because we only looking at a couple of phenotypic markers and these phenotypes don't connect to underlying genetics and don't usefully model the underlying populations.
Dog breeds on the other hand were selectively breed to ensure consistent phenotypic markers and connect very well to underlying genetics. See, http://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45tee...nce/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1139728
If we were truly interested in understanding the why's and how's of various social issues ... which is the thread title:
How race unlevelled US playing fields
Then we would understand that it isn't a "race" thing (whatever the f that is), but its a socioeconomic thing that implicates a variety of issues from education, to ethnic background to income levels.
In short, the author of this article is a lazy reporter that is likely sitting in some coffee shop in Washington writing about shit he barely understands and not doing any research to confirm his implicit biases.
The title to the article would be better stated:
Wealthy teams in economically advantaged areas find it easier
to obtain fields from cash strapped municipalities.
or
to obtain fields from cash strapped municipalities.
or
Socioeconomically disadvantaged youth soccer clubs/leagues
don't get the same benefit of the doubt as the wealthy.
don't get the same benefit of the doubt as the wealthy.
That has happened before , if you go back in time on this forum there is always these U-10 or 12 and under all-stars teams that do great in European tournaments . The problem is at 15 and older where the rest of the world does a better job.
Let me explain it slightly differently:
Humans: If we were to take the raw DNA sequence of a human it would amount to roughly 3 billion base pairs (in 23 pairs of chromosomes). The string of letters (A,C,G & T) would be about 715 megabytes of data (a CD Rom’s worth of data). Take another human and do the same thing. Now do a difference compare to both 715 MB files and you would see a difference of about 3 million variants (mutations). 3,000,000 / 3,000,000,000 = .001, restated .1% or one-tenth of one percent. (See, https://medium.com/precision-medicine/how-big-is-the-human-genome-e90caa3409b0)
Modern Humans are all roughly the same shape, have the same bone density, same skull shape, hair structure, femur shape, etc. In fact, strip off the meat and lay 100 human skeletons side by side and you are going to have a very difficult time categorizing them beyond sex.
Dogs: Take the raw DNA sequence of a dog, it amounts to roughly 2.8 billion base pairs (in 39 chromosomes). The string of letters would be about a 710 MB file. Take two different dog breeds, compare the files and you will have about 14 Million variants. 14,000,000/2,800,000,000=.005 or .5% or ½ of one percent.
Dogs, unlike modern humans, because they have been selectively breed by humans have different sizes (toy poodle and standard poodle) skull shapes (Irish Wolfhound v. Bull Dog), bone density, hair structures (fur v. hair). Strip off the meat and you can easily categorize 100 skeletons based on the different shape of the skull, femur, vertebrae, etc. into breeds.
The Problem With Race Classification: Unlike dogs, humans breed with whomever they want. Thus, a population of humans will have DNA from all parts of the region and world and there is a spectrum of mutations between those populations that doesn’t create neat little boxes/breeds. If we were to think of Humans as cat breeds then we are a single breed of cat that “alley cat,” we are all roughly the same size and shape with different colored coats. The genetic differences are inconsequential and we will find similar features between individuals of one population of alley cat in Los Angeles to another population of alley cat in London or Tokyo or Mexico City, etc. There may be trends of similarities between populations, but we will find tan cats in each region, cats with large eyes, cats with small eyes, bigger and smaller cats in each city, etc.
Which brings us to the fundamental problem with the concept of “race” in human populations as discussed in the paper:
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/)
Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.” However, in a reanalysis of data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time (Bamshad et al. 2004; population definitions and data from Rosenberg et al. 2002).
The authors conclude:
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.
Restated, genetically speaking the concept of "race" has no scientific validity. Because gene mutations occur all the time, dormant or recessed genes pop up, its stupid to classify people based on skin color, eye color, hair color, etc. Just ask Ben Ihegboro and Angela Ihegboro, pictured her with their light skinned, blue eyed, blonde haired (non albino) baby daughter:
younothat
PREMIER
This might gross some people out but your brain, spinal cord, and nervous system is what you are. We're all pretty much similar; the body is just a house or vessel protecting/holding all of that. Deep down where all the same!
Sports should united us not divide and race should have no part
Sports should united us not divide and race should have no part
Fine, circle 8's then.
*GOBEARGO*
PREMIER
This might gross some people out but your brain, spinal cord, and nervous system is what you are. We're all pretty much similar; the body is just a house or vessel protecting/holding all of that. Deep down where all the same!
Sports should united us not divide and race should have no part
Just to clarify, Espola you're missing the long thing connected to the brain.
Let me explain it slightly differently:
Humans: If we were to take the raw DNA sequence of a human it would amount to roughly 3 billion base pairs (in 23 pairs of chromosomes). The string of letters (A,C,G & T) would be about 715 megabytes of data (a CD Rom’s worth of data). Take another human and do the same thing. Now do a difference compare to both 715 MB files and you would see a difference of about 3 million variants (mutations). 3,000,000 / 3,000,000,000 = .001, restated .1% or one-tenth of one percent. (See, https://medium.com/precision-medicine/how-big-is-the-human-genome-e90caa3409b0)
Modern Humans are all roughly the same shape, have the same bone density, same skull shape, hair structure, femur shape, etc. In fact, strip off the meat and lay 100 human skeletons side by side and you are going to have a very difficult time categorizing them beyond sex.
Dogs: Take the raw DNA sequence of a dog, it amounts to roughly 2.8 billion base pairs (in 39 chromosomes). The string of letters would be about a 710 MB file. Take two different dog breeds, compare the files and you will have about 14 Million variants. 14,000,000/2,800,000,000=.005 or .5% or ½ of one percent.
Dogs, unlike modern humans, because they have been selectively breed by humans have different sizes (toy poodle and standard poodle) skull shapes (Irish Wolfhound v. Bull Dog), bone density, hair structures (fur v. hair). Strip off the meat and you can easily categorize 100 skeletons based on the different shape of the skull, femur, vertebrae, etc. into breeds.
The Problem With Race Classification: Unlike dogs, humans breed with whomever they want. Thus, a population of humans will have DNA from all parts of the region and world and there is a spectrum of mutations between those populations that doesn’t create neat little boxes/breeds. If we were to think of Humans as cat breeds then we are a single breed of cat that “alley cat,” we are all roughly the same size and shape with different colored coats. The genetic differences are inconsequential and we will find similar features between individuals of one population of alley cat in Los Angeles to another population of alley cat in London or Tokyo or Mexico City, etc. There may be trends of similarities between populations, but we will find tan cats in each region, cats with large eyes, cats with small eyes, bigger and smaller cats in each city, etc.
Which brings us to the fundamental problem with the concept of “race” in human populations as discussed in the paper:
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/)
Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.” However, in a reanalysis of data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time (Bamshad et al. 2004; population definitions and data from Rosenberg et al. 2002).
The authors conclude:
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.Restated, genetically speaking the concept of "race" has no scientific validity. Because gene mutations occur all the time, dormant or recessed genes pop up, its stupid to classify people based on skin color, eye color, hair color, etc. Just ask Ben Ihegboro and Angela Ihegboro, pictured her with their light skinned, blue eyed, blonde haired (non albino) baby daughter:
Err....think you are falling down the rabbit hole a bit far (hey as long as we've brought dogs and cats into it....why not rabbits!...we don't want to be speciest by excluding them) Well, assume arguendo you are correct (and I have no reason to suppose you aren't) that dog breeds are more genetically diverse than human differences...you still get arguments over whether something is even a "breed"...such as the American lab v. British lab or the Cardigan v. Welsh Corgi. They are just human constructs...and if there is more genetic diversity in dogs, well that just goes to show humans are an even more difficult case, because we can't even agree on what's a dog breed....how can we ever hope to establish what is a race. On the other hand, the picture you show proves the exact opposite point....there is a genetic difference...we all see it....saying it doesn't matter doesn't make it go away because it still exists. Then you raise a 3 assumption which is neither about a societal construct (what we choose to label things whether species, fruit, pens, gender or people knowing there will be outliers from any category we construct that don't quite fit the definition) or genetic differences (which is a scientific question of whether the particular differences does or doesn't exist) which is a value judgement: whether there is any value (scientific or otherwise) in human being making judgments and classifying people (or other things). I won't go there, because that third question is a morals judgments.
Keepermom2
GOLD
I always love reading your posts even if at times they go over my head. I always think I am smart until I read and reread your posts. Having said that, I am not sure how the information I am about to share fits the author's conclusion in totality but it does seem to fit one part of the conclusion.....Let me explain it slightly differently:
Humans: If we were to take the raw DNA sequence of a human it would amount to roughly 3 billion base pairs (in 23 pairs of chromosomes). The string of letters (A,C,G & T) would be about 715 megabytes of data (a CD Rom’s worth of data). Take another human and do the same thing. Now do a difference compare to both 715 MB files and you would see a difference of about 3 million variants (mutations). 3,000,000 / 3,000,000,000 = .001, restated .1% or one-tenth of one percent. (See, https://medium.com/precision-medicine/how-big-is-the-human-genome-e90caa3409b0)
Modern Humans are all roughly the same shape, have the same bone density, same skull shape, hair structure, femur shape, etc. In fact, strip off the meat and lay 100 human skeletons side by side and you are going to have a very difficult time categorizing them beyond sex.
Dogs: Take the raw DNA sequence of a dog, it amounts to roughly 2.8 billion base pairs (in 39 chromosomes). The string of letters would be about a 710 MB file. Take two different dog breeds, compare the files and you will have about 14 Million variants. 14,000,000/2,800,000,000=.005 or .5% or ½ of one percent.
Dogs, unlike modern humans, because they have been selectively breed by humans have different sizes (toy poodle and standard poodle) skull shapes (Irish Wolfhound v. Bull Dog), bone density, hair structures (fur v. hair). Strip off the meat and you can easily categorize 100 skeletons based on the different shape of the skull, femur, vertebrae, etc. into breeds.
The Problem With Race Classification: Unlike dogs, humans breed with whomever they want. Thus, a population of humans will have DNA from all parts of the region and world and there is a spectrum of mutations between those populations that doesn’t create neat little boxes/breeds. If we were to think of Humans as cat breeds then we are a single breed of cat that “alley cat,” we are all roughly the same size and shape with different colored coats. The genetic differences are inconsequential and we will find similar features between individuals of one population of alley cat in Los Angeles to another population of alley cat in London or Tokyo or Mexico City, etc. There may be trends of similarities between populations, but we will find tan cats in each region, cats with large eyes, cats with small eyes, bigger and smaller cats in each city, etc.
Which brings us to the fundamental problem with the concept of “race” in human populations as discussed in the paper:
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/)
Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.” However, in a reanalysis of data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time (Bamshad et al. 2004; population definitions and data from Rosenberg et al. 2002).
The authors conclude:
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.Restated, genetically speaking the concept of "race" has no scientific validity. Because gene mutations occur all the time, dormant or recessed genes pop up, its stupid to classify people based on skin color, eye color, hair color, etc. Just ask Ben Ihegboro and Angela Ihegboro, pictured her with their light skinned, blue eyed, blonde haired (non albino) baby daughter:
I am an AML Leukemia survivor. 16 years ago my doctors had to act quick and the course of treatment at that time included 1 of 2 treatment options: A. An Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (use of my own stem cells that were free of Leukemia cells after Chemo killed them) or B. An Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant (Use of a donor's stem cells). Prior to making the decision, they went to my brother to see if he was enough of a genetic match and he was not so they went to the worldwide donor bank and found over 500 initial matches (I am White) (If this was the path taken, I would have ended up with the donor's DNA). Through my advocacy of getting people registered on the donor bank, I learned there definitely appeared to be a "race"element (biological) to finding a match because there were many from various ethnic backgrounds that did not have a match on the Donor bank (I was initially advocating for the Asian community but later found out that the African American community and the Latin American Community had the same challenges). As quoted from the Donor Bank, "When it comes to matching human leukocyte antigen (HLA) types, a patient’s ethnic background is important in predicting the likelihood of finding a match. This is because HLA markers used in matching are inherited. Some ethnic groups have more complex tissue types than others. So a person’s best chance of finding a donor may be with someone of the same ethnic background."
Therefore, it seems to me that there is distinguishing biology between various ethnic groups. Why am I wrong? Truly interested and not for argument's sake.
Last edited:
Here is the part missing, while there is more genetic diversity between breeds (5x), there is little genetic diversity within breeds. Thus, we can identify defined genetic markers as belonging to a particular breed (corgi) that are the same within all individuals within that breed and will not be present within another breed (husky). With humans within a given population we are too diverse and often share similar genes with other populations.
PaytoplayinLancaster?
SILVER
The best part about sports is that the ball doesn’t care what color you are, what language you speak, who your Dad was, who you know, or how much money you paid to kick it. Best kids win period.
Messi>CR7
GOLD
I came across this article a while back about the Barca academy in the US:
http://www.espn.com/soccer/club/bar...nd-how-barcelona-deliver-their-global-message
You can certainly argue they're here to get their share of the youth sports $, but I found it refreshing that they don't suggest/promise "pathway" to anything. When asked if there is a path for US Barca academy kids to go to Barca, they candidly answered: "We are not there to scout players,"................"It's unlikely we will find them." ............"if you saw the La Masia [real Barca academy in Spain] U-14s against ours, you would understand very quickly why they're not bringing them over."
You just answered your question. First, the match you were looking for had nothing to do with race as your condition occurs in all of the so-called races. Second, there is no dispute that a population within a limited geographic area tends to have more genetic similarities due to inherited traits. These inherited traits follow random rules and become diverse and/or similar. The closer we are to cousins, the more likely traits will be randomly similar.
HLA markers are complex, half come from each parent. Thus, a brother and sister have a 25% chance of being close enough. The HLA markers let your body know that the cells are yours v. foreign. The match simply needs to be close enough for your body to accept the cells, if not close enough your body says "Wooooaaaa, who the f' are you ... die, die, die!!!" to the new cells.
Unlike bloodtypes where there are 4 major types, and we simply fall into one of the buckets. HLA is far more complex HLA-A,HLA-B and HLA-DR. There are many different specific HLA proteins within each of these three groups. (For example, there are 59 different HLA-A proteins, 118 different HLA-B and 124 different HLA-DR). The potential combinations are great 59 x 118 x 124 = 863,288, but fortunately we don't need exact matches.
Because these combinations are inherited there is simply a greater chance of finding close enough matches within a biologically related family because we are dealing with fewer combinations from the larger pool. The farther we move out from siblings the more diverse set of proteins we have. But ... we can find HLA matches within different geographic/ethnic groups just the same.