I know this has nothing to do with this topic but that is not true at all. You can not use Latino and Hispanic interchangeably. Hispanic refers to people of Spain or Spanish speaking countries. Latino refers to people of Latin American decent. Example is a Spaniard is Hispanic while not Latino. All races have some mixtures of race but to call Tiger, someone of Black and Asian descent, Latino is asinine. I guess given the mixing of Black’s and White’s, someone like Minister Farrakhan came be classified as White. Or, given all races have been mixed somewhere down their bloodline, we're all Hispanic? Secondly, the reason why there are few race problems in Latin American countries is that there are few races that live inside those countries. They are not like the melting pot that American is. Also, Latin American is not like Iraq which has its different ethic groups such. Please get your facts right.
No, few races doesn't mean few problems. It has to be other reasons. To have race problems, all it takes is 2 or more different races.
Hispanic is short for historically spanish. Since Latin America is historically spanish, they are hispanic. The word you are thinking of is Spanish. Spanish explicitlly means from Spain.
So wrong. Latin American used to have far more ethnic groups than Iraq, but Spaniards are much open to mate with Indians and other races. (or maybe they killed all the male ones and thus mated with female ones) Eventually, everybody is a mixed sort. The government has to encourage the practice. In the end, there is no race problem. By the way, if you read the Wall Street Journal, there was an article talking about the lack of race problems in Latin America and cited that reason as well. On the other hand, British liked pure blood during the colony period in the US, they pretty much killed all the indians, male or female. Therefore they dont' want to mate and can't mate.
Let me clear it all up for you guys... Black people are the best athletes. Whites are smarter. Asians are....smarter but not that good of athletes...unless you count Micheal Chang or Yao. Arabs are smart until they let God run them into buildings. Then that makes them stupid I guess. Jews are smart. Especially with money. But are the least athletic people on the planet...well, Shawn Green is pretty athletic. But can you name me any one else? Dominicans like myself...we....umm...well, we are stupid but have the best eyesight along with some physical astuteness because we see the baseball a little bigger than other human races. The word DOMINATE comes from the word DOMINICAN. So, there you are. Oakley just wanted to start a logical conversation so that we can all reply and give him the time of day since he probably ran out of money and since he lost what little athletic ability he has, he is now using his brain. You guys have it all wrong.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily call him athletic, but Sandy Koufax was a great jewish athlete. I also think Beckham is part jewish, though for the most part, you're right.
Okay stop with the "blacks are better athletes" or "blah blah blah"......generalization. Look at the facts, the Sydney 2000 Olympics medal tally: Sydney 2000 Olympics Look at the top 10 countries. We know that USA is represented by a lot of blacks, and we know that most of the black athletes are in track & field, basketball, and what else? Russia, I doubt they have any representatives of african origin. China, all Chinese. Australia, a few aborigines, but mostly whites. And the other countries? I'll bet if there's a statistic of medal winners according to race, we wouldn't see a dominance of black athletes. The stereotype that blacks are better athletes is because the most popular Olympics event - track & field 100meters - is dominated by blacks. But if you look at the whole picture, black athletes are actually much less versatile, because their strong events are more confined to a select few type of sports. Not to mention about their absence from swimming events. One point that is quite undisputable though is that blacks are better in the PHYSICAL aspects. That's why they are much better in sports where physical ability is the most important factor.
when is physical ability not important in sport? unless you count games like chess, darts, billards and tabletop soccer....
There are sports where physical ability is the MOST important factor. Like track & field 100 meters, 200 meters, marathon, boxing...... Then there are sports where skill instead of physical ability is more important. You figure it out.
[ Amen Brotha! If you white boys have gotten so PC you can't see the truth when it's staring you in the face, it's not Oakley's fault.
What physical aspects ? You should have said some physical aspects. Balance, coordination, agility, visual acuity are also physical abilities. I think its fair to say blacks, mostly American blacks, have a nice combination of size, strength and explosiveness that help them to dominate in CERTAIN sports, like track n field and American basketball. And don't forget, the rules of the game surely dictate on what physical aspects prevail in a particular sport.
