Are athletes of African descent genetically superior?

[WriterDom]

a taboo subject

 

[Pyper]

Depends on what you mean by genetically superior (which is not how I would have phrased it in any case). It does seem that people of African descent are more athletically gifted, but there are a whole slew of other factors that could contribute to this outside of genetics.

In other words: I don't know.

 

[WriterDom]

Doesn't the lack of whites in the NBA contribute to anxiety and depression among white players and shouldn't the government step in and correct this bad public health policy?

 

[Todd]

Doesn't the lack of whites in the NBA contribute to anxiety and depression among white players and shouldn't the government step in and correct this bad public health policy?

Yes i think they should its very unfair to the white minorities who do not have the same rights and advantages of those of african heritage.

 

[bluntforcemama]

Oh, I thought this was a different thread, not the TWIT thread.

 

[crystalhunting]

Yes i think they should its very unfair to the white minorities who do not have the same rights and advantages of those of african heritage.

Last i recall..I dont see too many white boys that practice at shooting hoops,much less guys with a receeding hairline that have corncobs stuck in thier ass.




CH

 

[Guest]

No I don't. I think the high percentage of African Americans in Baseball, Football and Basketball has more to do with African Americans typically being at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The best athletes will be the ones who start out disadvantaged a high number of the time. Athletic success owes very little to genes.

Proof? If you look back at sportswriting at the turn of the 20th century the very same question was being asked about the high number of Irish Baseball players.

 

[WriterDom]

Proof? If you look back at sportswriting at the turn of the 20th century the very same question was being asked about the high number of Irish Baseball players.

I don't know much about the turn of the 20th century irish baseball history, but I know if you look at the first 100 inducted into the hall of fame, you'll only find a handful of Irish.

 

[Guest]

Which is, in part, because the HOF didn't open until 1936 and players from before the turn of the century are still poorly represented.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I think the high percentage of African Americans in Baseball, Football and Basketball has more to do with African Americans typically being at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The best athletes will be the ones who start out disadvantaged a high number of the time. Athletic success owes very little to genes.

Proof? If you look back at sportswriting at the turn of the 20th century the very same question was being asked about the high number of Irish Baseball players.

While I agree that being at the lower end of the economic spectrum lends itself more to athletic success than being wealthier, I can't see how it can be argued that genes aren't important. West Africans and African Americans (who descend from West Africans) have been studied and found to have a higher proportion of "fast-twitch"muscle fibers, muscle cells responsible for quick, explosive movements such as those required for sprinting and jumping, events which blacks have dominated since taking part on the world atheletic stage.

East Africans, on the other hand, (Kenyans, Ethiopians, Sudanese, etc.) have been found to possess a higher proportion of slow-twitch muscle fibers, muscle cells which contract slowly but are extremely difficult to fatigue, lending themselves to best performance in endurance events like long-distance running. The dominance of East African nations in long-distance running can't be disputed. There was a famous physiologic study done in the 80's in which the highly-trained Olympic distance runners from a Scandinavian country were compared physiologically to a group of high-school students from a region of Kenya which has produced a disproportionately high number of great distance runners and the relatively untrained Kenyans outperformed the Scandinavians in oxygen-carrying capacity and a number of other physiological indices (they also beat the Scandinavians on the track).

There's a good bit of data like this out there, but it's widely ignored. Why is that? This reason is because the idea of genetic differences allowing to certain populations being physically superior to other populations threatens to open a pandora's box of potential for institutionalized racism and widespread eugenics. As is implied by "Der Sports Historian"'s name, the belief in the superiority of one race over another has been used to justify incredible evil. Remeber Adolf Hitler editing Jesse Owens out of the films of the 1936 Berlin Olympics because the sight of a black man winning 4 gold medals over the supposedly-superior Aryans was an obvious refutation of Aryan superiority.

But just because Hitler used pseudo-science to justify his beliefs, does this mean that inquiry into racial differences is off-limits? The subject of fundamental genetic differences between the races allowing for differences in sports achievement is obviously still politically loaded and anyone researching in the field is apt to be shouted down rather quickly unless he produces data proving the utter equality of all peoples in all ways.

The fear is that if science does reveal significant differences between the races, all manner of injustice would result: instiutionalized political and social discrimination would blossom on a wide-scale. If the races were different in something as inconsequential as athletic aptitude, couldn't they also be very different in other more significant ways... perhaps intelligence? What would happen to society if it was scientifically proven that a certain group of people was smarter than another. Would people of the "inferior" race become discouraged or even prohibited from seeking out intellectual pursuits, and instead be directed toward pursuing lesser tasks more suitable to their genetically-determined aptitudes? What kind of society would we have?

But should we ignore potentially significant differences - blind ourselves to scientific truth - for the purposes of achieving an egalatarian society. Der Sports Historian can deny the significance of genetic differences, but where is the proof. What if he/she is wrong?

 

[WriterDom]

n marathons, Kenya, a country the size of Texas, rules the world. At Boston, the world’s premier marathon, Kenyans have not lost the men’s race since 1990. In all, as Entine writes, Kenyans have won 38 Olympic running medals since 1964. Based on population alone, the odds that Kenya could turn in such a haul are one in 1.6 billion.

now there are plenty of non-African countries much poorer than Kenya. Ireland is probably not much wealthier. Not to mention Asian countries or South American, or Central American. Why is there the Kenyan domination? Surely there is incentive for others. All you need to run is running shoes. Hell, many Kenyans run barefoot.

http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~ddiresta/bil101/Bornbetter.htm

 

[RonG]

I am always impressed on how this argument loses sight of the media influence. Sports take the notion of Citius, Altius, Fortius and contrive ways to make it entertaining. Yes, there are some pure sports like out and out running but when barflies have this argument, the main discussion centers around team sports.

Team sports have evolved to entertain a public. Right now, what people like about Pro Basketball is the occasional dunk (Vince Carter sells more t-shirts than John Stockton although you would be hard pressed to say Vinsanity is actually better at helping a team win relative to their primes). As long as the NBA is rewarding a sliver of a skill set, you might see the obvious differences in physiology lead to advantages.

Suppose our sense of entertainment was fixated on something that included archery. The success of a whole bunch of Asian and Caucasian participants would lead to some similar arguments. And let me tell you, at the Atlanta Olympics I didn't see a whole bunch of African domination at the Field Hockey or Team Handball competitions.

Should we study the differences as part of genetics? Of course, but Eugenics is the scientific name for societal ipecac. It brings everything out that we really don't want to see. If you grant a genetic superiority on a large scale it leads to discussions of intellect that are nothing but destructive.

 

[Texan]

No I don't. I think the high percentage of African Americans in Baseball, Football and Basketball has more to do with African Americans typically being at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The best athletes will be the ones who start out disadvantaged a high number of the time. Athletic success owes very little to genes.

Proof? If you look back at sportswriting at the turn of the 20th century the very same question was being asked about the high number of Irish Baseball players.

I go off to do a little research and write something... and everyone beats me to it....hahaha.... good posts...

This argument was “batted around” and “thrown out” long ago. It is just statistically not accurate.

People have tried to argue that in boxing and baseball, whichever ethnic group that was most economically disadvantaged at the time, produced the most, or the best, professional athletes. They use the argument for a good cause. They want to push the idea that there are no genetic differences between the races. And, with the obvious disparity in the numbers and percentages of black professional athletes today, they need something to explain this phenomenon.

They argue that during the Irish immigration after the turn of the last century, the prominent boxing champions were Irish. And during the Italian immigration of the 20’s and 30’s, the boxing champions were Italian. They also argue that there were a disproportionate number of Irish baseball players followed by Italian baseball players during the times that each ethnic group was economically disadvantaged.

In spite of a few big names in each sport, the statistics just do not support that conclusion. Only the New York City baseball teams during that period, (Yankees and Brooklyn Dodgers) had slightly more Irish followed by Italian players than were proportionate to the national population ethnic distribution. It should be noted that New York City was the city of embarkation for European immigrants. The population of the NYC teams could be expected to reflect the recent immigration patterns. The maximum percentage of Italian professional baseball players was in 1931, when 8% of the league was Italian. At that time, 7.6% of the general population was of Italian heritage. (Colliers Encyclopedia 1990 edition)

There are good motivations for “wanting” to find a good explanation for the disproportionate numbers of black professional athletes. With African Americans making up 11% of the general population, and 69% of professional athletes (football, baseball, basketball and boxing), it would appear that there “MAY” be a genetic reason for the disparity.

The real problem comes from the implications to be found in determining that there is a genetic favoritism given to black athletes. If African American’s can have a genetic advantage in one area (athletics) then it could be reasoned that they could have a genetic disadvantage in some other area. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray produced a 900 page research report published as “The Bell Curve”, in which they strongly suggested that African Americans are genetically predisposed to lower levels of performance in academics. They were “crucified” personally and professionally for their research.

This is a serious subject that, unfortunately, is too politically incorrect to even talk about …. Except here.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I have trained many athletes,

always stressing education first. But many black middle-class families (listen to me, setting myself up as a clansman), put athletic scholarship above academic scholarship believing truly that one is atainable and the other is not.

I do not know the truth. Just what I have experienced.

 

[WriterDom]

And let me tell you, at the Atlanta Olympics I didn't see a whole bunch of African domination at the Field Hockey or Team Handball competitions.

Not much field hockey or team handball in the hood. And very little pay off if you are successful.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

or

Bob(toad)sledding.

 

[Weevil]

I'm more on board with the Texan-Oliver theories here.

 

[Myrrdin]

I can't see anything wrong with saying that because we have originated from different parts of the world. We've evolved ways of dealing with that areas climate, altitude etc. Which gives us an advantage in certain sports, so what ?
East Africans excel at long distance running, because of the altitude they live at. Over generations , their bodies have learned to acclimatize to the thinner air and make better use of the oxygen they breath.
To excel in basketball you must be tall. So you don't see many Japanese basketball players.
But then again you see few African swimmers, gymnasts etc.

Not genetically superior , just the way mankind evolved as it spread across the earth's surface . To evolve with heat, cold, altitude, rainfall etc.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

You can't get any real bead on what people's answers are because until you define your terms you'll be getting 100 answers to 100 different ideas of how to interpet the words "athlete" (Professional sports? Or just in shape?), "African Descent" (does Eqypt count? How many generations back we going, cause, frankly, we're ALL from Africa?), "genetically superior" (By whose yardstick, and what standardized test are you using?).

The problem with a question like this is that the points of view expressed are pointless (in regards to accurate polling). What you actually end up arguing about is the interpretation of the question, not its answer.

 

[Pyper]

Yeah, blah blah blah, Mr. Smarty Pants.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

*Addendum to the above

"In place of actual arguments 'Blah, Blah, Blah' shall be regarded as the final word in all debates, and the orator declared winner of all judgements."

 

[Pyper]

Hooray! I actually won a debate!

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Next time you debate with Todd just use "Blah, Blah, Blah". It will probably have more effect on him than using truth and evidence.

 

[Pyper]

I'm afraid Todd has moved on to politics, on which his views are, impossible as it may seem, even more insane than his views on evolution.

But I'll keep that retort in mind the next time he says that the left wing liberal fascist commies are bringing about the downfall of society by taking away our guns and butter knives.

 

[Mensa]

Don't get him wet!

There is one thing I've noticed over the years that has intrigued me. Black athletes dominate in track, they're something to behold in their prowess, but put them in the pool and they damn near drown!! Why is that?