How race unlevelled US playing fields

Do you feel better, I know I don't have the means or ability to change decades of built-in mediocrity, but thanks for pointing that out, besides I'll be rooting for Argentina and Spain.

ultimate20 said:
Do you have a plan to accomplish any one of these ideas? Let's review: 1."Breaking the pay mentality..." Who's going to pay for coaches, field rentals, uniforms, league game fields, travel, on and on....
2. "Start building more fields"... Who's going to build these fields? How will they buy the land? Pay for the construction? manage the fields? Some benevolent soccer God is going to do all of this?
3. "Convincing young players..." Parents tell most kids what to do, and where to sign up, parents are also 99% responsible for who they play for, the basic knowledge they attain while young,. So in other words clueless parents, are going to "convince" their children of something? And who's going to pay a qualified coach without a payment plan in place?
4. There's no $ in soccer in the US for any ethnicity. High dollar contracts are going to foreign players. Every professional sport in the US pays SIGNIFICANTLY more than all US soccer leagues.
5. This is the only point that makes any sense.
Pipe dreams, rainbows and unicorn wishes wont change anything, and it's easy to point out problems. Finding solutions are the hard part of any real world endeavor.
Click to expand...
 
MWN said:
Yes and no. What I'm saying is better articulated by the team of scientists in Philadelphia and New York that argue there is no such thing as race from a biologically genetic standpoint. Read this: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed

Ultimately, the "human race" (homo sapiens) succeeded in supplanting the neanderthals as the dominate homo species. All of us sprang from the original homo sapiens in Africa about 195,000 years ago (which means technically we are all "African-Americans" assuming one lives in America). What we typically define as "race" is nothing more than subjectively picking a few diverse phenotypes and calling it good. The subjective picking is flawed and has little to no scientific relevance. Biologically, the species to too genetically diverse to categorize ourselves into meaningful racial buckets.
Click to expand...

Saying there is no "race" because we are all the "human race" is a 60's copout. I didn't say any particular racial feature is "good" or "better" than the corresponding feature from another race - it is, however, unarguably different.
 
espola said:
Saying there is no "race" because we are all the "human race" is a 60's copout. I didn't say any particular racial feature is "good" or "better" than the corresponding feature from another race - it is, however, unarguably different.
Click to expand...

That isn't exactly what I said. I said that genetic researchers (guy's with doctorate degrees) have concluded that race is merely a social construct and not genetic (i.e. biologically relevant). I agree. I also pointed you to an article that reviewed the research paper, here it is again: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed

The summary of the underlying article states (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564):

Summary
In the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the early 2000s, genome pioneers and social scientists alike called for an end to the use of race as a variable in genetic research (1, 2). Unfortunately, by some measures, the use of race as a biological category has increased in the postgenomic age (3). Although inconsistent definition and use has been a chief problem with the race concept, it has historically been used as a taxonomic categorization based on common hereditary traits (such as skin color) to elucidate the relationship between our ancestry and our genes. We believe the use of biological concepts of race in human genetic research—so disputed and so mired in confusion—is problematic at best and harmful at worst. It is time for biologists to find a better way.
​
In other words, holding onto notions of race from a biological research point of view is an 1160's (or earlier) copout. Its a social construct that has no scientific merit and once we get past this we will start to view societal problems through the proper "socioeconomic" lens, rather, than referring to people and communities by the same names that Crayola uses in their box of crayons.
 
MWN said:
That isn't exactly what I said. I said that genetic researchers (guy's with doctorate degrees) have concluded that race is merely a social construct and not genetic (i.e. biologically relevant). I agree. I also pointed you to an article that reviewed the research paper, here it is again: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed

The summary of the underlying article states (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564):

Summary
In the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the early 2000s, genome pioneers and social scientists alike called for an end to the use of race as a variable in genetic research (1, 2). Unfortunately, by some measures, the use of race as a biological category has increased in the postgenomic age (3). Although inconsistent definition and use has been a chief problem with the race concept, it has historically been used as a taxonomic categorization based on common hereditary traits (such as skin color) to elucidate the relationship between our ancestry and our genes. We believe the use of biological concepts of race in human genetic research—so disputed and so mired in confusion—is problematic at best and harmful at worst. It is time for biologists to find a better way.
​
In other words, holding onto notions of race from a biological research point of view is an 1160's (or earlier) copout. Its a social construct that has no scientific merit and once we get past this we will start to view societal problems through the proper "socioeconomic" lens, rather, than referring to people and communities by the same names that Crayola uses in their box of crayons.
Click to expand...

Race is exactly genetic. There is no other source for the obvious differences between races.
 
MWN said:
What do you mean by "obvious differences?" Can you give me a few examples.
Click to expand...


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....:rolleyes:
 
Grace T. said:
So we'll continue to have games like the Quakes-Galaxy game my son and I went to, where the keepers just engaged in a big game of boot ball knocking the ball with punts and long goalkicks into 50/50 situations and that's what the coaches and kids will imitate.
Click to expand...
Go to an LAFC game -- I expect the number of punts that goalie has performed all year could be counted on one hand. I am pleasantly surprised by the style of soccer Bob Bradley has them playing.
 
MWN said:
That isn't exactly what I said. I said that genetic researchers (guy's with doctorate degrees) have concluded that race is merely a social construct and not genetic (i.e. biologically relevant). I agree. I also pointed you to an article that reviewed the research paper, here it is again: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed

The summary of the underlying article states (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564):

Summary
In the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the early 2000s, genome pioneers and social scientists alike called for an end to the use of race as a variable in genetic research (1, 2). Unfortunately, by some measures, the use of race as a biological category has increased in the postgenomic age (3). Although inconsistent definition and use has been a chief problem with the race concept, it has historically been used as a taxonomic categorization based on common hereditary traits (such as skin color) to elucidate the relationship between our ancestry and our genes. We believe the use of biological concepts of race in human genetic research—so disputed and so mired in confusion—is problematic at best and harmful at worst. It is time for biologists to find a better way.
​
In other words, holding onto notions of race from a biological research point of view is an 1160's (or earlier) copout. Its a social construct that has no scientific merit and once we get past this we will start to view societal problems through the proper "socioeconomic" lens, rather, than referring to people and communities by the same names that Crayola uses in their box of crayons.
Click to expand...
White people can't jump.
Black people can't swim.
Asian people can't drive.
 
Grace T. said:
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....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't know how to give you half a "like", since you said about half of what I was going to write.
 
espola said:
What game are you playing?
Click to expand...
I think we have had enough interactions for you to appreciate that my discussion/debate style will be respectful and I will never engage in ad hominem attacks. I truly don't know what you mean by "obvious differences." Is it just color of skin? Is it eye shape? Just a few factors or many. In my experience, in order to have meaningful discussions, we need to make sure we are using the same definitions.

For example, @Sheriff Joe wrote:
White people can't jump.
Black people can't swim.
Asian people can't drive.​

What defines a "white person" genetically speaking, or a "black person." The "Asian people" comment is a little more confusing because we are breaking from melanin levels and going to a geographic region. As far as the "can't ..." this seems to be not a genetic difference but a stereotype.

So, what are the obvious differences.
 
MWN said:
I think we have had enough interactions for you to appreciate that my discussion/debate style will be respectful and I will never engage in ad hominem attacks. I truly don't know what you mean by "obvious differences." Is it just color of skin? Is it eye shape? Just a few factors or many. In my experience, in order to have meaningful discussions, we need to make sure we are using the same definitions.

For example, @Sheriff Joe wrote:
White people can't jump.
Black people can't swim.
Asian people can't drive.​

What defines a "white person" genetically speaking, or a "black person." The "Asian people" comment is a little more confusing because we are breaking from melanin levels and going to a geographic region. As far as the "can't ..." this seems to be not a genetic difference but a stereotype.

So, what are the obvious differences.
Click to expand...

Are you comparing me to loser joe?
 
MWN said:
I think we have had enough interactions for you to appreciate that my discussion/debate style will be respectful and I will never engage in ad hominem attacks. I truly don't know what you mean by "obvious differences." Is it just color of skin? Is it eye shape? Just a few factors or many. In my experience, in order to have meaningful discussions, we need to make sure we are using the same definitions.

For example, @Sheriff Joe wrote:
White people can't jump.
Black people can't swim.
Asian people can't drive.​

What defines a "white person" genetically speaking, or a "black person." The "Asian people" comment is a little more confusing because we are breaking from melanin levels and going to a geographic region. As far as the "can't ..." this seems to be not a genetic difference but a stereotype.

So, what are the obvious differences.
Click to expand...
I suggest ignoring E. He likes to go in circles and give you a headache. MWN always good info and feedback.
 
MWN said:
I think we have had enough interactions for you to appreciate that my discussion/debate style will be respectful and I will never engage in ad hominem attacks. I truly don't know what you mean by "obvious differences." Is it just color of skin? Is it eye shape? Just a few factors or many. In my experience, in order to have meaningful discussions, we need to make sure we are using the same definitions.

For example, @Sheriff Joe wrote:
White people can't jump.
Black people can't swim.
Asian people can't drive.​

What defines a "white person" genetically speaking, or a "black person." The "Asian people" comment is a little more confusing because we are breaking from melanin levels and going to a geographic region. As far as the "can't ..." this seems to be not a genetic difference but a stereotype.

So, what are the obvious differences.
Click to expand...
It is a joke, that is it. You people need to lighten up, no pun intended.
 
reno114 said:
The question that needs to be asked; Is there a Messi, Ronaldo, Pele, Maradona
somewhere in the U.S. that hasn't been discovered yet? or Can there ever be?
Click to expand...


A group of 2009 kids from SD went to Spain a month or so back and beat some of the best clubs there. There's no question America has the talent base to beat the Euros - getting that base excited to stick with soccer is the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top