ALL of the world’s top athletes are outliers. If you want to have a serious discussion about genetics and athletic ability, you need to concentrate on the average bulk of the population, not the Olympic champions, not even the relatively tiny number of players in the top professional leagues.
But even more, “slave descendent” isn’t an identifiable population, genetically. “Slave descendants” are all over the map in terms of admixtures of African, European and Native American ancestry. It is precisely these types of populations, like Mestizos in Mexico, that are one major aspect confounding the whole process of trying categorize humans genetically.
1972 Soviet Olympic Basketball Team:
Anatoli Polivoda, Ukraine
Modestas Paulauskas, Lithuania
Zurab Sakandelidze, Georgia
Alzhan Zharmukhamedov, Kazakhstan
Aleksandr Boloshev, Russia
Ivan Edeshko, Belarus
Sergei Belov, Russia
Mikhail Korkiya, Georgia
Ivan Dvorny, Russia
Gennadi Volnov, Russia
Aleksandr Belov, Russia
Sergei Kovalenko, born in China but to Ukrainian parents
So, not exactly.
The Matthew effect: Society will take very small initial advantages and exaggerate them.
Malcolm Gladwell has a lot to say about these kinds of things. He’s been used on WNYC’s Radiolab several times. Check out race and Secrets of Success.
I’ve already made the point in this thread - well, actually, the slave descendent + Anglo-Saxon element.
Fwiw, Michael Johnson acknowledged that aspect of the mix when he got his own DNA results (10% Anglo-Saxon), though the program chose an expert who talked about the hugely diverse genetic mix of the population seized along the length and depth of the ‘slave coast’.
But sure, you’d think the Anglo-Saxon element would be at least as interesting as it brings something quite distinct.
In what way isn’t an African-American with an Anglo-Saxon last name - plus in the age of DNA ancestry mapping- not identifiable?
Let me rephrase with a better choice of wording. “Identifiable” isn’t really the operative phrase here. There isn’t any objective way to delineate “slave descendant” from “non-slave descendant” any more than is there is an objective way to delineate tall people from short people. Both consist of a continuum, and where you draw the line is entirely arbitrary. If I draw the line at the 50% point, then does that mean the guy at the 49% point is more logically grouped with the guy at the 10% point than with the guy at the 52% point? If I draw the line at the 25% point, I have the same problem.
Our ideas about race, especially in the US, are informed by social classification schemes that don’t map onto an objectively definable biological scheme. You’re black if you look black, but that doesn’t mean you’re biologically closer to black people than you are to white people.
No one disagrees with this. All you’re saying is that appearance is an imperfect method to determine genetic background. Everyone already knows this, but that doesn’t it mean it is completely useless. For example, using BMI as a standard for obesity will misidentify the occassional body builder or NFL linebacker, but there is still more than enough signal to noise ratio to make it useful. Similarly, in the U.S. “that guy looks black” is good enough as a proxy for “that guy is primarily descended from West African slaves”.
For scientific purposes, it’s completely useless. And that’s what we’re talking about here. We’re trying to distinguish between real science and folk-science.
Ridiculous. There is a vast amount of research in medicine, sociology, and other fields that separate subjects into racial categories. For example, here is one about heart disease and plaque build ups:
I’m sure Dr Schoepf would appreciate a call informing him of the complete uselessness of his studies.
Another reason is that black men tend to have diets high in fat and cholesterol and low in dietary fiber. Note that this is a cultural factor that applies to black Americans. Africans don’t suffer disproportionately from heart disease.
Good enough for whom? You seem to be saying it doesn’t matter what the truth is so long as it looks right.
Sugar and salt look a lot alike if you just glance at them, but you don’t want to put a cup of salt in your cookies.
First, let’s start with this quote from your cite:
But can you quote the part where this methodology was used: “that guy looks black” is good enough as a proxy for “that guy is primarily descended from West African slaves”
Are you saying Caribbean nationals with Anglo-Saxon last names, proven West African heritage (via DNA) (and often even a traceable slave ancestry) are not an identifiable group?
There’s whole fucking islands of them. Where do you think these people came from?
I’m saying they are not a distinct genetic group. I can “identify” everyone whose first name is John and who has DNA tracing back to Europe. That does not make that group a distinct genetic group.
Jesus Christ.
I think I’ll try another board for views on Johnson’s presentation. Thanks all.
Honestly you picked perhaps the WORST part of the world to try to demonstrate discrete races. There have been at least two waves of slaves and indentured servants(Africans and East Indians) along with smatterings of Asians, Syrians, Lebanese, the list goes on and on. Not to mention Europeans. Even now there is a wave of Chinese immigration.
Race exists in a social sense of course, but genetics are as unclear as you can get.
There are slang terms for 4th degree mixed race individuals(dougla for example).
I’d suggest StormFront if all you are looking for is a friendly reception without critical analysis.
Out of curiosity, if you’re watching a documentary on the history of the 100m dash in the Olympics with your 6-year-old kid, and he notices that for the past, say 30 years, the 100m final has consisted only of blacks, and your 6-year-old asks “Dad, why aren’t there ever any whites in this event?” what do you say? Do you explain that there is no scientifically accepted answer, and that it’s mostly cultural?
You say because running is a lot more popular in certain countries where there happen to be majorities of black people and so they have more people who start running at a young age and are encouraged and trained a lot more than young runners in other countries.
That’s also why Canadians and Russians dominate ice hockey and African-Americans dominate basketball and Latin Americans dominate baseball.
Do you object to that?