A French sports journalist has a new book out on the sprinting issue.
Entine’s article also notes (for those discussing the Kenyan running success):
I thought I told you I wasn’t answering any more stupid questions.
I assume runners from all African and Caribbean countries are Black.
I had to google images of several of the runners from other countries.
Yes.
Addressed.
See below.
The predominance of African ancestry among US Blacks not an assumption,
it is estimate based on scientifically collected data. See p6 Table 5 and p9
Table 8 of link:
Estimating African American Admixture Proportions
Also note the >90% African ancestry reported for Jamaica in Table 5.
It is reasonable to assume that African ancestry percentages for the rest
of the Caribbean countries are higher than for the US since all Caribbean
countries have a higher percentage African population.
Depends on who is doing the assuming.
People like you are likely to hurt your arguments with botched assumptions.
People like me are likely to strengthen our arguments with sound assumptions,
such as that taken collectively African-American athletes probably possess 80%
African ancestry, with a large majority being more than (viz. primarily) 50% African.
I recommend you start accepting the evidence of your own eyesight
the next time you watch Olympic runners in action. All science begins
with observation, and if you assume your observations do not reflect
reality than you need to get your eyes examined, and you need also
to examine your mental state, or better, have a professional examine it for you.
I know the stupid games they play around here—fine and dandy to say
anything you like about a member’s writing, as long as you don’t attack
the member himself. Hope I’m on the right side of the line when I say it
might hurt to hear such venom from someone who I respected, but coming
from you I could care less.
Colonial,
Why are you trying to pretend that you only claimed the sprinters were of “partial” African descent when anyone can read your initial post where you specifically claimed they were “primarily of African descent”.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15363324&postcount=748
Had you initially claimed the sprinters were of “partial African ancestry”, which no one would have disputed, instead of rather revealingly and stupidly claiming they were “of primarily African ancestry” I wouldn’t have asked you what made you say such a thing and you wouldn’t have given such evasive answers nor would you have needed to go alter and misrepresent my statements to try and cover up your statements.
Ok, so then by your logic, Thurgood Marshall, who was, according to one of his biographers “one eighth negro and seven eighths caucasian” and had two sons who were both blonde-haired and blue-eyed should be considered of “primarily African descent.”
Please explain the logic behind classifying someone who is "one eighth negro and seven eighths caucasian"as being of “primarily African descent”.
I ask because such an assertion strikes me as being extremely illogical to the point of being in denial of reality.
Please explain.
Thanks.
I have not made any comments about you personally, merely you’re arguments, which I’ve shredded. I see no reason for you to make personal insults at me.
Immediately prior to the 200m Final last night, this topic was discussed in a 10-minute segment on the main BBC channel by a few pundits in the Olympic Stadium studio, including Michael Johnson. It was introduced on the basis that it’s difficult to ignore 81 of 82 men who’ve run under 10-seconds for 100m have been slave descendents.
The short package before the studio chit-chat approached it from a Darwinian pov (itself not a controversial theory in the UK); the idea was that slavery – of at least the methods of transportation, related diseases and work regime - may have induced a kind of accelerated natural selection (of the fittest). They briefly noted the potential for mutation in very short time (even one generation) under extreme conditions, though the discussion was mainly between former athletes who don’t know any more than the average person.
Nothing much arose but the idea was obv. to overcome any remaining taboo and offer the public food for thought on a subject that’s blatantly in front of their eyes (and about to be underlined by a Jamaician 1, 2, 3 in the 200m).
Nice to see a discussion without hysteria and an unwillingness to consider (continually) emerging science because it offends - possibly patriotic based - middle-cass sensibilities.
This is an unsafe assumption of olympic athletes as a whole.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/_I_want_to_swim_like_him_one_day_-164972656.html
George Bovell for example.
Yeah but once again the documentary gave the impression that this was the consensus view and that evidence is building but it is really a very tentative hypothesis at this stage. I’ve already ran into a number of people citing it as fact thanks to the previous BBC documentary.
And if we’re going to say that we need a specific story to account for why people of W African descent have a certain kind of fast twitch muscle, do we need a similar story to account for (parts of) east africa running endurance?
We know that there are differences between populations, we don’t need a recent episode to pin it to.
colonial, don’t alter text inside the quote boxes. We allow minor edits, but here you’ve changed the word “primarily” to “partial,” which means something different.
This is the first time the BBC has touched on it asaik - the hour long doc with Michael Johnson was on C4. This was pretty straightforward stuff with John Inverdale posing the questions, and three athletes chipping in with their opinions.
I get the impression the consensus is a little firmer among academics who work in that area than it is elsewhere but, sure, it’s still early days.
They’re discrete. The issue here is the impact or not of slavery.
Ah, my bad, I thought they were both BBC.
Well before that was a 10-minute documentary that began by talking about the theory of evolution then went into eugenics and nazism (sigh), before arriving at the theory while showing drawings of slave ships / slaves being tortured.
It’s a pretty brave thing to show at such a high ratings time, and I’m not sure why when it’s just an early hypothesis. And I wouldn’t blame anyone for being offended by the programme; I thought it was in poor taste.
Firmer about what? The gene, or the hypothesis about why its frequency is higher among those of WA descent? What evidence is there to support the hypothesis of recent selection?
Sure. I’m just pointing out that populations vary in any case. The surprise would be if all populations had exactly the same sprinting ability.
In post#744 I said this:
In post #798 I amended it:
Then in post #799 Ibn Warraq continued to use the original quotation thereby mischaracterizing my argument.
It was necessary to restore accuracy to his part of the dialgue, and the means I chose was legitimate, since anyone
who had read our entire conversation would know what I did and why I did it.
Had you read our entire conversation?
I guess people are too busy arguing to actually watch what’s going on. There was a Caucasian in the final of the men’s 200 meters yesterday: Christophe Lemaitre of France.
See my reply #807 to Marley.
In your dreams.
Oh no!
I have not made any comments about you personally, merely your arguments.
Indeed. He is the one in the 81 out of 82 who have run sub 10 seconds for 100m.
Is that about 1.2% of the sub 10 sec group that are not slave descendents?
I guess some people have no sense of proportion whatever.
Who would you expect to finish 1-2-3 in the race-- Jamaica (pop. 2.889 million, GDP per capita $9029,
or France (pop. 65.350 million, GDP per capita $35613)?
BTW Lemaitre recently became the only Caucasian ever to run 100m in under 10.0sec. There have been
several hundred of African ancestry who have done so, the first over 40 years ago.
Since you’ve freely admitted that you were wrong to say they were “primarily” of African descent and that you should have said “partially” of African descent, this comment is ridiculous. You’ve admitted that I shredded your arguments and that you should have said “partially” not “primarily”.
You either have forgotten what you wrote, didn’t understand the significance of it, or are trying to pretend you said something different.
You claimed:
When you say the arguments might mean something coming from someone other than me, you’re making a comment about me, not my arguments.
Anyway, I’m sorry I humiliated and upset you. Hopefully the next time you’ll make better thought out arguments.
Correction: there have been several hundred performances under 10.0sec,
but several runners accomplished the feat several times, and the total number
of individual numbers is as PrettyVacant informs us in his last post.
I am not familar with your writing, but if our exchange is typical your strategy seems to be to focus on trivialities,
and to declare yourself the winner regardless of how effectively someone rebuts you. While at it you avoid the important issues,
which you must know you are hopelessly unequipped to engage.
Of course my comment was personal. I did not claim otherwise. The question was whether it constituted an “attack”.
Now, I have had enough of your Junior High Schoolish screeching and babbling. I come here looking for grown-up conversation,
something you obviously cannot deliver. Goodbye.
You mean Caribbean Olympic athletes as a whole?
OP and my assumptions about Caribbean athletes concern runners, not swimmers.
Er… I didn’t “declare myself the winner”. You proclaimed that the athletes in question were all “primarily of African descent”. I challenged you on that claim, you made some long rambling posts during which you argued, without any strong foundation, that my arguments were “stupid”. Eventually you wound upadmitting that you were wrong to refer to the athletes as being “primarily” of African descent and that you should have referred to then as being “partially” of African descent.
Furthermore, despite your claims, the difference between “partially” and “primarily” is hardly trivial.
Er…yes you did claim otherwise. From post #812.
So yes, when you say “I have not made any comments about you personally, merely your arguments” you are denying that your comments were “personal”.
If you’re going to accuse me of “junior high school schreechings and babblings” I’d recommend not making personal attacks because that certainly undercuts your argument.
Edit - sorry, making an observation that has already been made re BBC item about slaves/sprinters