Do you think black singers sometimes sound better and more unique than white singers?

First topic message reminder :

Now, let's not bet into a rammy on this one!  ...


And I know there are fantastic singers either end, take Bryan Adams, truly amazing...

But then take the like of a couple of my other faves....

Sydney Youngblood, Haddaway and Martha Wash...truly outstanding...not to mention Bunny Wailer, Bob Marley etc...

Of course much comes down to personal taste, but I've always thought that black singers have talent in abundance , even without putting in too much effort!

Whad' ya think guys?

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:



Then you do not know him that well, because before he was very racist and homophobic on sky and ADO.
I am all for people changing but this does not bode well to then ask people to make a view on who is either superior or inferior as a group racially.
As I said I will stand against any argument that is used to promote such a poor racial view, we are all one human race and fail to see what difference the colour of a skin makes to people collectively as a group be better than another at singing. Hence all my points that would anyone ask the same on many other areas to claim one group was racially superior to another. I deplore such poor claims. He has noteven backed down from this concept either, so you think I should just acccept such a poor racist concept?

Absolute rubbish, this is just something you and you friends claim to try to score points...and you know it.

I never intended this thread as racist or to imply one skin colour is more superior than another.

You turned this into something else Didge, that was really unfair.

Eh?

Nobody is going on about this but me, more paranoia on your part it seems.
I am not abusing you, where in fact you are the one doing so, I am pointing out such questions are racist when you define them racially to groups of people.
So would you find it acceptable to have someone claim whites have "better" manners than blacks?

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Thanks LD, he's absolutely miles off, I only wanted the opinion of others and because in my own opinion I prefer black singers and that I think they have better voices...

I was interested in others opinions of this and that quite often I can tell a black singers voice from a white singers voice ...I believe their is a uniqueness in a black singers voice.

Collective racial claims to a group.
Imagine if someone said whites have better manners than blacks, would people feel the same on such a question?

Didge I never meant that at all, that would be a totally different question altogether..and a ridiculous one.

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:



Collective racial claims to a group.
Imagine if someone said whites have better manners than blacks, would people feel the same on such a question?

Didge I never meant that at all, that would be a totally different question altogether..and a ridiculous one.

It is the same illogical view point, one racial group being better than another, it matters little the point being asked, you are claiming one group is racially superior to another.

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Didge I never meant that at all, that would be a totally different question altogether..and a ridiculous one.

It is the same illogical view point, one racial group being better than another, it matters little the point being asked, you are claiming one group is racially superior to another.

What your saying is NOT what I mean Didge, where did I say blacks were superior to whites or vice versa?..

Your mixing this up Didge.

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:



It is the same illogical view point, one racial group being better than another, it matters little the point being asked, you are claiming one group is racially superior to another.

What your saying is NOT what I mean Didge, where did I say blacks were superior to whites or vice versa?..

Your mixing this up Didge.

Read back, you said blacks were better singers than whites.
So no mixing up, just change the aspect of the question each time as follows

Whites are better drivers than blacks

Blacks are better painters than whites.

Whites are better teachers that blacks.


You see the same illogical racial view point being claimed.

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:



It is the same illogical view point, one racial group being better than another, it matters little the point being asked, you are claiming one group is racially superior to another.

What your saying is NOT what I mean Didge, where did I say blacks were superior to whites or vice versa?..

Your mixing this up Didge.

When you said that black people were better singers?

Is that not being superior?

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


What your saying is NOT what I mean Didge, where did I say blacks were superior to whites or vice versa?..

Your mixing this up Didge.

Read back, you said blacks were better singers than whites.
So no mixing up, just change the aspect of the question each time as follows

Whites are better drivers than blacks

Blacks are better painters than whites.

Whites are better teachers that blacks.


You see the same illogical racial view point being claimed.

When you put it like that, then yes you are right.

Christie wrote:

Didge wrote:



Read back, you said blacks were better singers than whites.
So no mixing up, just change the aspect of the question each time as follows

Whites are better drivers than blacks

Blacks are better painters than whites.

Whites are better teachers that blacks.


You see the same illogical racial view point being claimed.

When you put it like that, then yes you are right.

Which is my point, I think it is wrong to make a generalization off a group being better than another, of course individuals will be better than others, but to claim a whole ethnic group is better is a very poor racial illogical claim

Joy Division wrote:Now, let's not bet into a rammy on this one!  ...


And I know there are fantastic singers either end, take Bryan Adams, truly amazing...

But then take the like of a couple of my other faves....

Sydney Youngblood, Haddaway and Martha Wash...truly outstanding...not to mention Bunny Wailer, Bob Marley etc...

Of course much comes down to personal taste, but I've always thought that black singers have talent in abundance , even without putting in too much effort!

Whad' ya think guys?

How is this^ the same as saying black people are better singers than white people Didge?

lovedust wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Now, let's not bet into a rammy on this one!  ...


And I know there are fantastic singers either end, take Bryan Adams, truly amazing...

But then take the like of a couple of my other faves....

Sydney Youngblood, Haddaway and Martha Wash...truly outstanding...not to mention Bunny Wailer, Bob Marley etc...

Of course much comes down to personal taste, but I've always thought that black singers have talent in abundance , even without putting in too much effort!

Whad' ya think guys?

How is this^ the same as saying black people are better singers than white people Didge?

Talking about individuals being better is personal preference, which will differ based on peoples views and there is nothing wrong with that, no racial view point view being made. The title of the thread had changed from asking who was better blacks or whites, so is not your fault he did not realise this.
Read right through  

Sorry did you miss all the posts where he said blacks were better singers than whites lovedust?

Joy Division wrote:

eddie wrote:

Bump

I should rephrase that Eddie...

It's sometimes what you don't say that is the problem, you often turn the other way when the less desirable bunch post stuff about blacks and Muslims...then your selective and pull someone up when it's something you pretend to be offended by.

Well,let me explain that for the hundredth time JD:

Firstly I don't see every post ever made on any given thread, oftentimes thee are hundreds of posts.
Secondly, why do I need to pull everyone up on their opinion? Aren't they entitled to it?

Not read this thread yet, but I notice that the thread title has been changed from what it was originally...!



Why was this changed?




But as we are constantly told by some that the only difference between blacks and whites is the colour of skin, then this skin colour difference must some how effect the vocal sounds too...!!!







Also I notice from the last few posts that some think it is ok to say blacks have better singing vocals than whites, and have no problem with acknowledging this and saying it, but will have a big problem with someone saying that whites are better than blacks at some other things as it would be 'wacist'...!!!




Whites are better swimmers than blacks, and again it must be down to the only difference between us being skin colour..... maybe white colour is more buoyant or has less water resistance or something.....!!!???



As the colour of skin is the difference.....




Why is it ok to highlight things that blacks might be better at, but then showing others in a negative light, but not ok to say things that whites are better at because it is somehow racist as it shows others in the same negative light...???




And it is obvious that the differences go way beyond skin colour, so why do some always try to ignore the obvious and persist in saying the only difference is colour of skin...???

Tommy Monk wrote:Not read this thread yet, but I notice that the thread title has been changed from what it was originally...!
Why was this changed?
But as we are constantly told by some that the only difference between blacks and whites is the colour of skin, then this skin colour difference must some how effect the vocal sounds too...!!!



Also I notice from the last few posts that some think it is ok to say blacks have better singing vocals than whites, and have no problem with acknowledging this and saying it, but will have a big problem with someone saying that whites are better than blacks at some other things as it would be 'wacist'...!!!
Whites are better swimmers than blacks, and again it must be down to the only difference between us being skin colour..... maybe white colour is more buoyant or has less water resistance or something.....!!!???
As the colour of skin is the difference.....
Why is it ok to highlight things that blacks might be better at, but then showing others in a negative light, but not ok to say things that whites are better at because it is somehow racist as it shows others in the same negative light...???
And it is obvious that the differences go way beyond skin colour, so why do some always try to ignore the obvious and persist in saying the only difference is colour of skin...???

And at last my point is readily proven, the point I was trying to make to Joy, a racist joins the debate and proves why racism is alive and well, because biologically we are all one race, and of course they always expose themselves


"Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," Templeton said. "Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There's nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity."
Templeton analyzed genetic data from mitochondrial DNA, a form inherited only from the maternal side; Y chromosome DNA, paternally inherited DNA; and nuclear DNA, inherited from both sexes. His results showed that 85 percent of genetic variation in the human DNA was due to individual variation. A mere 15 percent could be traced to what could be interpreted as "racial" differences.
"The 15 percent is well below the threshold that is used to recognize race in other species," Templeton said. "In many other large mammalian species, we see rates of differentiation two or three times that of humans before the lineages are even recognized as races. Humans are one of the most genetically homogenous species we know of. There's lots of genetic variation in humanity, but it's basically at the individual level. The between-population variation is very, very minor."
Among Templeton's conclusions: There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. Yet, sub-Saharan Africans and Melanesians share dark skin, hair texture and cranial-facial features, traits commonly used to classify people into races. According to Templeton, this example shows that "racial traits" are grossly incompatible with overall genetic differences between human populations.
"The pattern of overall genetic differences instead tells us that genetic lineages rapidly spread out to all of humanity, indicating that human populations have always had a degree of genetic contact with one another, and thus historically don't show any distinct evolutionary lineages within humanity," Templeton said. "Rather, all of humanity is a single long-term evolutionary lineage."

http://wupa.wustl.edu/record_archive/1998/10-15-98/articles/races.html

As seen the racists will claim pseudo science o differences and always get it wrong.

Proving how badly racists always get it wrong;


Even worse when it comes to swimming:

Cullen Andrew Jones (born February 29, 1984) is an American competition swimmer and Olympic gold medalist who specializes in freestyle sprint events. As part of the American team, he holds the world record in the 4×100-meter freestyle relay (long course). At the 2012 Summer Olympics, he won silver medals in the 4x100-meter freestyle relay and the 50-meter freestyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cullen_Jones

Some people are adapted to sports well, others have not really specialized in such fields, we have seen nations dominate a certain sport to only cede this to another champion from another nation, showing it is individuals that win through skill and training

Matt I've already stated that blacks aren't that great at swimming.
It's to do with bone density?

I have no problem with saying what I think, I'm so comfortable within my skin that I don't care what other skins look like nor is there any point in denying differences.
Of course there are differences! But that's not a bad thing, just a naturals thing.

eddie wrote:Matt I've already stated that blacks aren't that great at swimming.
It's to do with bone density?

I have no problem with saying what I think, I'm so comfortable within my skin that I don't care what other skins look like nor is there any point in denying differences.
Of course  there are differences! But that's not a bad thing, just a naturals thing.

Nothing to do with anything other than many have never really taken up the sport:


Cullen Andrew Jones (born February 29, 1984) is an American competition swimmer and Olympic gold medalist who specializes in freestyle sprint events. As part of the American team, he holds the world record in the 4×100-meter freestyle relay (long course). At the 2012 Summer Olympics, he won silver medals in the 4x100-meter freestyle relay and the 50-meter freestyle.


Anthony Conrad Nesty (born November 25, 1967) is a former competition swimmer from Suriname who was an Olympic gold medalist in the 100-metre butterfly event in 1988.

Yes yes there are exceptions to the rule, can we take that as read please?

Matt wonders, Is it true that black men are not ‘made to swim’ physiologically?
Matt Bridge, Senior Lecturer in Coaching & Sports Science, University of Birmingham
Expert on human movement and human physiology.
In terms of buoyancy there are some differences and there is evidence to suggest that black men and women are less buoyant than white men and women.
Differences in bone mineral density (weight of bones)
Take average black man and average white man and you’re looking at 300grams difference in terms of skeletal mass.
But there are people in both groups that break the rule, you can get very buoyant black men and very heavy white men.
But generally black people are less buoyant than white people.

eddie wrote:Yes yes there are exceptions to the rule, can we take that as read please?

Matt wonders, Is it true that black men are not ‘made to swim’ physiologically?
Matt Bridge, Senior Lecturer in Coaching & Sports Science, University of Birmingham
Expert on human movement and human physiology.
In terms of buoyancy there are some differences and there is evidence to suggest that black men and women are less buoyant than white men and women.
Differences in bone mineral density (weight of bones)
Take average black man and average white man and you’re looking at 300grams difference in terms of skeletal mass.
But there are people in both groups that break the rule, you can get very buoyant black men and very heavy white men.
But generally black people are less buoyant than white people.

Which again is a not the bases for stating a whole ethnic groups is different biologically, evidence to suggest some are is not evidence to suggest all are, as I am sure the same will be found with some whites.

Again this will be a very minute difference, which is as already explain too little to show a true difference between humans biologically,








In July, the Science Museum hosted an event called “Black Men Can’t Swim?”—a question that was answered by Cullen Jones, the African-American world and Olympic champion and 100m freestyle record-holder. The debate arises partly from the low participation rates among African-Americans; as few as 30 per cent of black children have learned to swim well, according to the governing body USA Swimming. As well as its reputation as a whites-only, “country club” sport, swimming has a long history of segregation and exclusion in the US, dating from the days when west African slaves—who were usually good swimmers—were banned from teaching their children, for fear of them escaping. Ignoring this history, past academic studies made great play of the lower buoyancy of black Americans. While some black populations do have a higher average bone density and mass than whites—about 300gm—buoyancy varies for every swimmer, and differences within races are far greater than those between them. As Matt Bridge, senior lecturer in coaching and sports science at Birmingham University, points out: “Thousands of black Americans have taken the US Marines’ compulsory swimming test and none have failed.”

Before the sequencing of the genome, debates like the Science Museum’s might not have been held publicly. Any suggestion of a racial or genetic component in sporting success was seen as demeaning to the athletes, and either avoided by newspapers and scientific journals or self-censored by sports presenters. But now new genetic evidence is decoupling race and genetics and reframing the debate.

Since 2004, Cambridge University epidemiologist Robert Scott has studied the DNA of Kenyan distance runners, who dominate events like the 3,000m steeplechase and have recorded 22 of the 25 best times. Scott has focused on highland provinces such as Nandi, which has supplied all but one of Kenya’s national record holders. Clearly, there are environmental factors at work: the physiological effects of high altitude, a local enthusiasm for running, coaches who scour the region for talent, and the economic factors that keep highland Kenyans driving cattle while highland Swiss drive Mercedes. That aside, there are inherited advantages too. Long legs and a short torso can certainly help with distance running—though Scott cautions against ignoring other successful body shapes. (The women’s marathon world-record holder Paula Radcliffe, rarely mistaken for a highland Kenyan, has run the distance three minutes faster than Catherine N’dereba, the only east African in the top ten.)

More tellingly, Scott’s latest studies reveal huge genetic variations within a small sample of east African runners—far greater than in the white European population, whose remote ancestors left the Rift Valley 150,000 years ago. From this perspective, the racial “black vs white” division makes less sense than the genetic “set vs subset.” If, as Bridge argues, favourable genes can “raise the ceiling” that individual athletes reach through hard work, then a population with a greater genetic variety will tend to over-perform—even if the average measurable differences between overall black and white populations are very small. The result? Track athletes with African genes hold every men’s world record from the 100m to the marathon.

Scott is at pains to stress the complexity of the genome and how far we are from predicting sporting success. A good example is height—obviously a key determinant in sports like basketball—where “all the genes known to be associated explain just 5 per cent of the observed variation.” This leaves 95 per cent down to environment, unrecognised genes or heredity—the interaction between the two.

Few concepts are as emotionally charged as that of race. The word conjures up a mixture of associations—culture, ethnicity, genetics, subjugation, exclusion and persecution. But is the tragic history of efforts to define groups of people by race really a matter of the misuse of science, the abuse of a valid biological concept? Is race nevertheless a fundamental reality of human nature? Or is the notion of human “races” in fact a folkloric myth? Although biologists and cultural anthropologists long supposed that human races—genetically distinct populations within the same species—have a true existence in nature, many social scientists and geneticists maintain today that there simply is no valid biological basis for the concept.

The consensus among Western researchers today is that human races are sociocultural constructs. Still, the concept of human race as an objective biological reality persists in science and in society. It is high time that policy makers, educators and those in the medical-industrial complex rid themselves of the misconception of race as type or as genetic population. This is the message of two recent books: Race?: Debunking a Scientific Myth, by Ian Tattersall and Rob DeSalle, and Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture, edited by Sheldon Krimsky and Kathleen Sloan. Both volumes are important and timely. Both put race in the context of the history of science and society, relating how the ill-defined word has been given different meanings by different people to refer to groups they deem to be inferior or superior in some way.

Before we turn to the books themselves, a little background is necessary. A turning point in debates on race was marked in 1972 when, in a paper titled “The Apportionment of Human Diversity,” Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin showed that human populations, then held to be races, were far more genetically diverse than anyone had imagined. Lewontin’s study was based on molecular-genetic techniques and provided statistical analysis of 17 polymorphic sites, including the major blood groups in the races as they were conventionally defined: Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians and Australian Aborigines. What he found was unambiguous—and the inverse of what one would expect if such races had any biological reality: The great majority of genetic variation (85.4 percent) was within so-called races, not between them. Differences between local populations accounted for 8.5 percent of total variation; differences between regions accounted for 6.3 percent. The genetic divergence between geographical populations in the course of human evolution does not compare to the variation among individuals. “Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance,” Lewontin concluded.

Further research has supported that conclusion. In 2000, at a White House event celebrating their completion of the first draft of the human genome, Craig Venter of the Institute of Genetic Research and Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Health declared that the concept of race had no genetic basis. Genetics offered no support for those wishing to place precise racial boundaries around groups. Despite rebuttals and objections, no matter how one cuts it, the data have come out much the same: Between 5 and 7 percent of human genetic diversity is between subgroups within the classically defined races; 6 to 10 percent of the total human variation is between those groups that we think of as races in an everyday sense based on skin color. The remainder of the variation occurs at the individual level and cannot be categorized by group or subgroup.

Certainly some traits are more clustered in specific populations than in others, such as skin color, hair form, nose shape and blood type. But race is little more than skin deep in biological terms, and individuals are frequently more genetically similar to members of other so-called races than they are to their own said race.

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/race-finished


Sorry Eddie, that is how poor racist perceptions started, where people look at others who look different thus assume wrongly they must be a different race, when biologically they are not

Differences go way beyond skin colour is my point.
Although some bend over backwards to deny it.
Swimming was just an example.

Still didge. I know so many black people, and this isn't to score points lol but I do have many many black mates and they all agree that swimming and black people are not a good mix.
Nearly all,of them (as I've had this discussion with them) can't swim much at all and say they struggled in school.
Also my school,was heavily racially mixed (grew up,in London) and the black girls were all in the bottom shallow end of the pool throughout school! They never progressed lol

Why was thread title changed...???

Tommy Monk wrote:Differences go way beyond skin colour is my point.
Although some bend over backwards to deny it.
Swimming was just an example.

It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.   

Anyway it is a digression from the topic

eddie wrote:Still didge. I know so many black people, and this isn't to score points lol but I do have many many black mates and they all agree that swimming and black people are not a good mix.
Nearly all,of them (as I've had this discussion with them) can't swim much at all and say they struggled in school.
Also my school,was heavily racially mixed (grew up,in London) and the black girls were all in the bottom shallow end of the pool throughout school! They never progressed lol

What they think is irrelevant as seen Eddie, they do not know until they really try as seen all those who went for the Marines, not one of them failed, that is very telling. Sadly poor racial perceptions can also sadly allow black people to wrong believe something also that they may not be good at something.
So again all the evidence points to there is little difference at all, just poor perceptions which need to change and be taught more than anything that we are all one biological race.
My mate was a great swimmer and swam for our school team, the reality of those blacks who are good at sports just as you find with whites, they will go for sports that have more interest to them, if you encouraged more, than more would do so, that is all it boils down to.

Tommy Monk wrote:Differences go way beyond skin colour is my point.
Although some bend over backwards to deny it.
Swimming was just an example.

That is pseudo science babble, biological evidence proves that is nothing but gobbldygook

More to the point why do people even try to argue against the evidence and want there to be a biological  difference between ethnic groups of humans?
What does such views set out to achieve, if not to divide people?

Tommy Monk wrote:Why was thread title changed...???

Ask Joy, I guess he did not like being placed into your category!

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Why was thread title changed...???

Ask Joy, I guess he did not like being placed into your category!

Liar...I changed it back to what it was because you were whinging AGAIN claiming it was racist.

Honestly Didge all you have done here is lie, accuse, whinge and insult.

eddie wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


I should rephrase that Eddie...

It's sometimes what you don't say that is the problem, you often turn the other way when the less desirable bunch post stuff about blacks and Muslims...then your selective and pull someone up when it's something you pretend to be offended by.

Well,let me explain that for the hundredth time JD:

Firstly I don't see every post ever made on any given thread, oftentimes thee are hundreds of posts.
Secondly, why do I need to pull everyone up on their opinion? Aren't they entitled to it?

Eddie I'm surprised that you never claimed this was a racist thread as Didge did tbh...you normally do that with me.

And yes folk are of course entitled to opinions , but Didge is making ridiculous and unfounded claims.

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:

Ask Joy, I guess he did not like being placed into your category!

Liar...I changed it back to what it was because you were whinging AGAIN claiming it was racist.

Honestly Didge  all you have done here is lie, accuse, whinge and insult.

No you have changed the title two times, which still does not escape from the fact you made a racist thread, stop blaming me for your poor understanding of what racism is, if you are clearly ignorant of the illogical views of racism, I can except that, but please but do not keep making poor excuses Joy, that is just woeful.
Even without the title you still hold a racist view on racial groups being better singers, of which you would never claim whites are better civilized than blacks would you?
Neither would I because I understand poor racist illogical views and not once have I ithrown abuse at you here, but you have, which further proves my pint

Joy Division wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well,let me explain that for the hundredth time JD:

Firstly I don't see every post ever made on any given thread, oftentimes thee are hundreds of posts.
Secondly, why do I need to pull everyone up on their opinion? Aren't they entitled to it?

Eddie I'm surprised that you never claimed this was a racist thread as Didge did tbh...you normally do that with me.

And yes folk are of course entitled to opinions , but Didge is making ridiculous and unfounded claims.

So when you back me on arguments stating something is racist I am right there but wrong here, how odd is that? I am not wrong on racist arguments, as proven by this fact.

These arguments are racist and illogical based exactly on your illogical claims.

Whites are better parents than blacks

Blacks are better lawyers than whites

Whites are better dancers than blacks

Anyway, all I doing is showing not only what is wrong with such claims but how they also lead unto even worse racial claims, as seen countless times before, something you clearly fail to understand

Anyway, have to go, so goodnight

Didge wrote:More to the point why do people even try to argue against the evidence and want there to be a biological  difference between ethnic groups of humans?
What does such views set out to achieve, if not to divide people?

Yes, why do some try to argue against the evidence of biological differences between ethnic groups...???



When the differences are so obvious in so many ways.




To pretend otherwise is just bizarre.

Didge wrote:More to the point why do people even try to argue against the evidence and want there to be a biological  difference between ethnic groups of humans?
What does such views set out to achieve, if not to divide people?

Yes, why do some try to argue against the evidence of biological differences between ethnic groups...???
When the differences are so obvious in so many ways.
To pretend otherwise is just bizarre.

@Eds. I think we just have to disagree on JLS. They came second on X Factor to Alexandra (another black person) then year after Leona Lewis (another black person) won. Leona and JLS became megastars, Leona on a global scale; so your view doesn't sit easily with the way things unfolded tbh or the history of black singers.

And yes I did rather to suit that chair lol

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:More to the point why do people even try to argue against the evidence and want there to be a biological  difference between ethnic groups of humans?
What does such views set out to achieve, if not to divide people?

Yes, why do some try to argue against the evidence of biological differences between ethnic groups...???
When the differences are so obvious in so many ways.
To pretend otherwise is just bizarre.

Really?
So what are the biological differences between ethnic groups other than skin tone and physical appearance?
Do tell the forum your obvious answers

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:More to the point why do people even try to argue against the evidence and want there to be a biological  difference between ethnic groups of humans?
What does such views set out to achieve, if not to divide people?

Yes, why do some try to argue against the evidence of biological differences between ethnic groups...???
When the differences are so obvious in so many ways.
To pretend otherwise is just bizarre.

There are more biological difference between you and some members of your own "ethnicity" than there are between you and some members of different "ethnicities," TM.

I think when it comes to things like singing, comedy, etc. the differences are more cultural and even socio-economic.

I remember a black comedian, I don't remember which one, who said that he thinks more black people in the U.S. become comics because they tend to come from poorer families where the kids often find themselves entertaining the rest of the family. Thought that was pretty insightful.

Eilzel wrote:@Eds. I think we just have to disagree on JLS. They came second on X Factor to Alexandra (another black person) then year after Leona Lewis (another black person) won. Leona and JLS became megastars, Leona on a global scale; so your view doesn't sit easily with the way things unfolded tbh or the history of black singers.

And yes I did rather to suit that chair lol

I neve said Alexandra Burke or Leona Lewis went flat.
Notice I have been saying young black MEN.

JLS - not always the little,lead singer but some of the others - went flat on a few occasions, as soloists and when they performed harmonies.

I'm not going to trawl YouTube but if you care to, it won't take you long to find a flat note.

Although. And I'm not being horrid here, if you yourself can't sing at all (ie are tone deaf) you may not even notice it.

Do me a favour and go listen to Liam Galagher sing; he sings just above "flat" on all the early Oasis stuff.
Morcheeba is another band who down tune their guitars and the woman sings flat - albeit on purpose but because the instruments are flat she doesn't sound flat.

Whenever you watch Xfactor - us as the audience - focus with our eyes in what we are watching and our ears come second, I close my eyes when someone sings and sometimes walk out the room to se if I'm right and when you listen from another room it becomes much more apparent and stands out like a sore thumb.

Eddie, many people can also tell if people are in tune, seriously playing in orchestras, anyone slightly out of key or had not tuned their instruments was noticeable from the off. I certainly listen to the sound not how they look and when I get goose bumps all over, you know very well the performance is excellent. Sometimes it is not even about having perfect pitch, but how the emotions are carried through in a performance. It is a combination of many factors that make for a great singer, where being in perfect key does not always sell records or gain the interest of the audience.

So it is more than just being able to sing in key., to what makes for a great performer and if you look at the greats like Elvis, Bob Marley etc, they never had perfect singing voices, what they had was unique and powerful emotional, passionate voices.


P.S they could deliver a performance to any song, thus its not just about perfect pitch, because if it was ask so many who can sing in perfect pitch that get nowhere, they lack other abilities to perform!

And when it comes to a singer of mixed colour with a black and white parent then I guess it's a lottery as to wether they will sound more black or white when singing.

That is my opinion.

Joy Division wrote:And when it comes to a singer of mixed colour with a black and white parent then I guess it's a lottery as to wether they will sound more black or white when singing.

That is my opinion.

Or they sound individually different like many humans, where it is irrelevant what tone of skin colour they have but what social,cultural and musical influences they have grown up with .

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:And when it comes to a singer of mixed colour with a black and white parent then I guess it's a lottery as to wether they will sound more black or white when singing.

That is my opinion.

Or they sound individually different like many humans, where it is irrelevant what tone of skin colour they have but what social,cultural and musical influences they have grown up with .

I'm talking biology Didge, there must be something that makes many black singers sound different from white singers...


Your the only one who disagrees with this so far.

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:


Or they sound individually different like many humans, where it is irrelevant what tone of skin colour they have but what social,cultural and musical influences they have grown up with .

I'm talking biology Didge, there must be something that makes many black singers sound different from white singers...


Your the only one who disagrees with this so far.

Really then show me this biology Joy you speak of, because biologically there is little that makes humans different, again you make a racial argument to claim there is a racial difference between humans.

Wow, the two racists on this forum, will make you their poster boy!

Vocal sounds come from influences obtained whilst growing up, the same with musical influences, based on perceptive music categories, where people tend to form a style based off that.

Please go and get an education, its pointless debating this with you when scientifically you have not the first clue.

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

I'm talking biology Didge, there must be something that makes many black singers sound different from white singers...


Your the only one who disagrees with this so far.

Really then show me this biology Joy you speak of, because biologically there is little that makes humans different, again you make a racial argument to claim there is a racial difference between humans.

Wow, the two racists on their forum, will make you their poster boy!

Vocal sounds come from influences obtained whilst growing up, the same with musical influences, based on perceptive music categories, where people tend to form a style based off that.

Please go and get an education, its pointless debating this with you when scientifically you have not the first clue.

Influences etc may well do play a part in this Didge, I'm no linguist expert or biology expert, but there has to be a reason...

Well why do people all have a different voice then?...there is a difference..and yes , I'll say it again, IMO most black singers are better singers.

Nothing to do with preference, the black voice is unique.

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really then show me this biology Joy you speak of, because biologically there is little that makes humans different, again you make a racial argument to claim there is a racial difference between humans.

Wow, the two racists on their forum, will make you their poster boy!

Vocal sounds come from influences obtained whilst growing up, the same with musical influences, based on perceptive music categories, where people tend to form a style based off that.

Please go and get an education, its pointless debating this with you when scientifically you have not the first clue.

Influences etc may well do play a part in this Didge, I'm no linguist expert or biology expert, but there  has to be a reason...

Well why do people all have a different voice then?...there is a difference..and yes , I'll say it again, IMO most black singers are better singers.

Nothing to do with preference, the black voice is unique.

So you are no expert yet make a claim it must be biological even though biologically there is no such thing as different races in humans, as proven we are all one human race.
Thus it proves your lack of understanding and intelligence, because yet again you make a racist point based on preference, which is based on a fallacy association to a ethnic group being better than another vocally singing, not any scientific understanding.
So your claim is nothing but hot air and complete balderdash.
All people have unique voices, some may sound similar, but they are very much unique, no matter he skin colour, and it is influences that create our accents, our levels of tone will depend on the vocal chords. Thus again singing is a talent, where no matter white or black or levels of tone, people may have good singing voices, the brain will influence understanding what is in key, which not matter the race is again different individually.
What is influencing your poor perception is based off types of music, where that person themselves who sings this, are influenced themselves.

Anything else to add, or do you wish me to continue to make you look utterly clueless on this?

 

I agree more with Didge on this one...

Starting off with a group of equally talented singing youngsters as infants, I also reckon that "nurture beats nature" in this regard ~ as to how those singers turn out re: genres, style, beat, tone and timbre..

Elvis and Eminem sang/sing in styles that were largely considered "black" back in their neighbourhoods 'in the day'; while many opera class singers can carry the same toons that Satchmo was renown for.

 ::rockout:: 

Lone Wolf wrote: 

I agree more with Didge on this one...

Starting off with a group of equally talented singing youngsters as infants, I also reckon that "nurture beats nature" in this regard ~ as to how those singers turn out re: genres, style, beat, tone and timbre..

Elvis and Eminem sang/sing in styles that were largely considered "black" back in their neighbourhoods 'in the day'; while many opera class singers can carry the same toons that Satchmo was renown for.

 ::rockout:: 

Thank you and I know you know more biologically than me Bee, but I do have a basic understanding!

Didge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

Influences etc may well do play a part in this Didge, I'm no linguist expert or biology expert, but there  has to be a reason...

Well why do people all have a different voice then?...there is a difference..and yes , I'll say it again, IMO most black singers are better singers.

Nothing to do with preference, the black voice is unique.

So you are no expert yet make a claim it must be biological even though biologically there is no such thing as different races in humans, as proven we are all one human race.
Thus it proves your lack of understanding and intelligence, because yet again you make a racist point based on preference, which is based on a fallacy association to a ethnic group being better than another vocally singing, not any scientific understanding.
So your claim is nothing but hot air and complete balderdash.
All people have unique voices, some may sound similar, but they are very much unique, no matter he skin colour, and it is influences that create our accents, our levels of tone will depend on the vocal chords. Thus again singing is a talent, where no matter white or black or levels of tone, people may have good singing voices, the brain will influence understanding what is in key, which not matter the race is again different individually.
What is influencing your poor perception is based off types of music, where that person themselves who sings this, are influenced themselves.

Anything else to add, or do you wish me to continue to make you look utterly clueless on this?

If you really can't notice that say ...even a fourth generation black Londoner doesn't have a different voice to a white Londoner , then it's most certainly you who is clueless on this matter.

And your ridiculous and constant attempts trying to portray me as a racist are completely foolish and absurd.

If this is all you have to offer then I'm not even going to bother, I'm sure I can get a more sensible conversation from a Rottweiler on this issue.

Lone Wolf wrote: 

I agree more with Didge on this one...

Starting off with a group of equally talented singing youngsters as infants, I also reckon that "nurture beats nature" in this regard ~ as to how those singers turn out re: genres, style, beat, tone and timbre..

Elvis and Eminem sang/sing in styles that were largely considered "black" back in their neighbourhoods 'in the day'; while many opera class singers can carry the same toons that Satchmo was renown for.

 ::rockout:: 

...and that's fine Bee...at lest you can debate this without screaming racist.

I still stick firmly to what I've said though.

Cheers Bee.

Joy Division wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you are no expert yet make a claim it must be biological even though biologically there is no such thing as different races in humans, as proven we are all one human race.
Thus it proves your lack of understanding and intelligence, because yet again you make a racist point based on preference, which is based on a fallacy association to a ethnic group being better than another vocally singing, not any scientific understanding.
So your claim is nothing but hot air and complete balderdash.
All people have unique voices, some may sound similar, but they are very much unique, no matter he skin colour, and it is influences that create our accents, our levels of tone will depend on the vocal chords. Thus again singing is a talent, where no matter white or black or levels of tone, people may have good singing voices, the brain will influence understanding what is in key, which not matter the race is again different individually.
What is influencing your poor perception is based off types of music, where that person themselves who sings this, are influenced themselves.

Anything else to add, or do you wish me to continue to make you look utterly clueless on this?

If you really can't notice that say ...even a fourth generation black Londoner doesn't have a different voice to a white Londoner , then it's most certainly you who is clueless on this matter.

And your ridiculous and constant attempts trying to portray me as a racist are completely foolish and absurd.

If this is all you have to offer then I'm not even going to bother, I'm sure I can get a more sensible conversation from a Rottweiler on this issue.

Unbelievable, so you never heard a black person with a posh English accent then?
Your argument is racist, you are clearly thus clueless to even understand as to why.
Vocal chords will only affect the tone of voice, it is influences that create how a person will sound and speak, seriously, why on earth do you think people have elocution lessons? 

Thus our voices are influenced by others, even with singing, some people will still have a natural talent to sing, but how they sound will be influenced, just as our accents are.
 

Do not bother, because it is very evident as per usual you are clueless, as I am sure the rottweiler would have fallen alseep by now at the bullshit you are claiming

Joy Division wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote: 

I agree more with Didge on this one...

Starting off with a group of equally talented singing youngsters as infants, I also reckon that "nurture beats nature" in this regard ~ as to how those singers turn out re: genres, style, beat, tone and timbre..

Elvis and Eminem sang/sing in styles that were largely considered "black" back in their neighbourhoods 'in the day'; while many opera class singers can carry the same toons that Satchmo was renown for.

 ::rockout:: 

...and that's fine Bee...at lest you can debate this without screaming racist.

I still stick firmly to what I've said though.

Cheers Bee.

Your argument was racist, it was trying to make a racial difference between humans, thus showing again how clueless you are Joy.