Well, I look very much like a chicken when I run and I’m a black woman. If that information is worth anything…
What do you mean by ‘naturally equipped’?
Some people are more likely to bcome involved some sports due to cultural expectations, economic motivation, social discrimination or lack of alternative facilities. All those things are anthropogenic though, not natural.
Jews once dominated basketball and Italians boxing in the US. That wasn’t genetic, it was cultural. When a group that was even more economically disadvantaged and socially differentiated than Jewish and Italian immigrnts were allowed to compete that group then took over in those fields. Nowadays the unathletic Jewish male is a stereotype. That should tell us, that cultural factors are at least as important as genetic.
With such intertwined and equally important factors separating out genetic and social factos is impossible. However we know that social factors can be the sle cause of a groups dominance of a sport. We have no evidence of a genetic component. Suggesting a genetic component is illogical under those circumstances.
Suggesting a cultural component for the disparity between Black Americans and Hispanic Americans at the extremes of the Boxing weights would surely seem illogical?
I’m not doubting that cultural and non-ethnic genetic factors, along with a lot of hard work and dedication is the most important thing, but looking at the evidence it would seem that, at the very highest levels, race/ethnicity does provide an edge.
[Resists the temptation to cite the ‘Cool Runnings’ Jamaican Bobsleigh team as Absolute Proof… ]
Jimmy the Greek strikes again.
Why would that be more illogical than suggesting such a disparity between Italian immigrants and Irish or Russian immigrants? Italians dominated boxing, the Irish and eastern Europeans didn’t. Surely you are not suggesting that there is a significant genetic difference between an Italian and a Romanian?
Of course there are large cultural disparities between blacks and hispanics. that’s why we can identifiy a generic Hispanic culture, and while a generic black culture may be harder to pin down it still exists. A few of the more immediate cultural aspects that need to be accounted for are religion, urbanisation and education, discrimination/ability integrate.
There was and to some extent still is no chance for a black man to integrate into mainstream society. Hispanics are far less noticably different and so have far more options available tahn success through sport.
Most Hispanics ar RC and if stereotypes and experience are to believed most are at least sporadically practicing RCs. I don’t have figures for Blacks, but I would assume that Catholicism would be a minority and agnosticism would be as widespread as teh general population. What efefct do you percieve that having on participation in violent activities?
What about sports? What is the most popular sport in Hispanic communities? What about in black communities?
Purely IME, but baseball is very popular in U.S. hispanic communities, at least in New Mexico, Colorado, and west Texas. American football is also popular, as are many other sports.
And boxing?
In some sports, group dominance is easily explained by “social factors.”
But in other sports, like track and field, explanations based on social factors just don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Hispanics dominate the lower weights, Black Americans dominate the heavier weights in boxing, that was the point I was making.
IMHO, To contend that it is purely down to culture is to say that small Hispanics and large Black Americans have different cultural values to large Hispanics and small Black Americans.
As I said before, there are a lot of other more important factors, but at the highest levels it does seem to make a difference.
That’s a broad statement. Care to explain why this is so?
Not saying you’re wrong, but do ou have a reference for that?
“IMHO, To contend that it is purely down to culture…”
Who ever made that contention. The point is that social factors can be clearly shown to explain these differences on their own. Invoking a genetic explanation with no probabale mechanism is just plain silly.
Or to say that a culture is built on machismo, has an acceptance of schoolyard bullying and a set solution of teaching the smaller boys to ‘stand up for themselves’ by learning martial arts, while the larger boys rarely need to do so because they never get bullied.
Or to say that a culture accepts the art of bantamweight boxing but frowns on the pummeling walyz of heavyweight bouts.
Or to say that a culture will tolerate a small man needing to take fighting lessons but that it frowns on a big man learning to fight by labelling him s dangerous or violent or frightening, which is a common enough view in ‘mainstream’ society.
Or to say that the size distribution of Hispanics is notably different to the size distribution of Blacks. Or to say that a culture can accept the skill of bantam weight boxing without embracing the pummeling of heavyweight.
There are any number of cultural explanations that woudl explain differential representaion of a given race in different size classes in a sport like boxing.
Sure. Most of the social/cultural explanations that I’ve seen for the racial disparities in track & field results do not adequately explain the evidence. They make predictions that are at odds with reality; require lots and lots of people to act contrary to human nature; etc.
Of course, it’s logically impossible to rule out an explanation that is sufficiently complex and difficult to falsify. But that’s why we have Occam’s razor.
Anyway, if you feel that the racial disparities in track & field results can be adequately explained by a purely cultural/social explanation, feel free to describe that explanation and I will be happy to discuss it with you.
I believe that this business about an “extra muscle” is an effort to discreetly say that the skill of blacks in running, jumping, and other athletic pursuits is a result of a physical difference instead of being a result of hard work, good training and overall athletic ability of an individual performer.
It is quite similar to the alleged “innate rhythm” of blacks. That way you can pass off the marvelous tap dancing of a Bill Robinson as something that “comes natural to blacks” rather than being the result of hard work, decication to a skill and ability.
Whether or not some blacks, and some whites have an “extra leg muscle” is immaterial. The ultimate goal is doubtless to “prove” that if blacks excel at something it is because they have an unfair physical advantage since it can’t possibly be that they worked hard and persevered to attain excellence.
If it wasn’t the “leg muscle” that such folks claim, they would claim something else to try to gain the same ends. Pure racism of the most pernicious ilk.
Or to say that the size distribution of Hispanics is notably different to the size distribution of Blacks. Is that a cultural or social factor?
I reckon you could represent Beelzebub if he was up before the Beak…
RIGHT ON, DAVID SIMMONDS! (and I’m a white boy)
Would you care to offer any cites of folks claiming that blacks have an “extra muscle” and that black success in athletics is not the result of hard work etc.?
That is just restating your original assertion that ‘explanations based on social factors just don’t stand up to scrutiny’. It doesn’t explain or clarify the initial statement it in any way whatsoever. I have to say again That’s a broad statement. Care to explain why this is so?
I would suggest that it’s both. Cultural in that diet and execise are largely defined by culture, social in that the society pigeonholes people, especially children, based on their disitnctive characteristics.
Mascaroni that link you posted doesn’t in any way support ypour conention that ‘Hispanics dominate the lower weights, Black Americans dominate the heavier weights in boxing’. It doesn’t even mention ethnicity, only nationality. It’ impossible to tell what ethnicity Marc-Mormeck from France is for example.
Only if it were logically supportable.
There is a reason why I invoked the culture built on machismo with an acceptance of schoolyard bullying and a set solution of teaching the smaller boys to ‘stand up for themselves’ by learning martial arts, while the larger boys rarely need to do so because they never get bullied. It is actually pulled from an interview i once saw with Billy Joel, who said that this was exactly the situation in the immigrant society that he grew up in. He himself used it to explain the dominance of Italian boxers earlier this century. This isn’t just an explanation pulled out of the hat, it’s a serious explanation that would need to be controlled for.
I notice that none of the here have yet explained why cultural factors led to an overwhelming dominance of Jews and Italians prior to the acceptance of Blacks, and yet the same cultural factors can’t explain the dominance of Blacks and that a genetic component needs to be invoked.
Bizarre.
The claim that any athletic success, or any other success for that matter, by blacks is a result of innate physical advantages or special treatment has a long history which isn’t all that well covered by the net because it long ago became unfashionable to express it. Most of the cites are in written documents and reading them is now sort of “old fashioned.”
However, the undercurrent of such claims and beliefs is still around as the existence of this thread shows. There are those, I’m convinced from long experience, who simply cannot accept the fact that a black can excel in something based on his own skill and hard work and when a black does excel they assign it to an innate physical advantage.
Such ideas, condemned now, are kept quiet by those who hold them until they carefully sound out their audience to see who is receptive to the idea. Again, I point to the existence of this thread in which the question is asked about the presence of an “extra leg muscle” in blacks. So it is clear to me that arguments about a different physiology for blacks are still lurking in the background waiting to spring out. By this I don’t mean to imply that the writer of the OP holds such views, he, or she, as far as I’m concerned is merely looking for information.
If you want cites about the use of such arguments, a good start is the copiously footnoted chapter entitled Nothing to Crow About in the book The Natural History of Nonsense by Dr. Bergen Evans of Northwestern University. It is long out of print but I’ll bet your local library has a copy or can find you one via an interlibrary loan.
Dr. Evans is my “patron saint of scepticism” because of the book cited above.
No, I explained exactly what I meant by “don’t stand up to scrutiny.” Also, I gave specific examples of the problems with social/cultural explanations for racial disparities in track and field results. You apparently chose to ignore those examples, deleting them when you quoted me.
Let me try one more time though. A theory or explanation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny if it makes predictions that are at odds with reality OR if it is excessively complicated and difficult to falsify. What is “excessive” is, of course, a matter of judgment and common sense.
All of the social/cultural explanations I have seen for the racial disparities in track and field have one of the above two flaws.
If you want anything more specific than that, I suggest you propose a specific social/cultural explanation and then we can discuss it.
I invite you to do so, and then we can discuss whether your explanation stands up to scrutiny or not.
Certainly you seem to believe that an adequate social/cultural explanation exists. Why not share it?
Hmmm, do you apply the same reasoning to claims that some subset of caucasians has an advantage in sports that emphasize upper-body strength?
And by the way, I think you’re just looking for a straw man to attack. IMHO, most people on all sides of the debate are happy to concede that virtually all top athletes succeed as a result of superior inborn skill AND hard work.
I can’t recall any mention of an extra muscle, but if you want people claiming that ‘that black success in athletics is not the result of hard work etc.’ then “The Anatomy of Scientific Racism: Racialist Responses to Black Athletic Achievement” by Patrick B. Miller, published in “The Journal of Sport History”, 25:1 is chock full of precisely such claims. About 20 pages of precisely those claims from scientific papers and conferences, popular media and governments.
It’s kind of hard to read those as other than offering reasons for black success other than hard work.