I simply fail to see why it cannot be explained by cultural factors. Lack of alternative opportunity outside sort, coupled with lack of facilities for alternative sports in black nations/communities coupled with institutionalised racism on the part of school and univeristy coaches and selectors.
How does that fail to stand up to scrutiny?
The challenge was to find cites for folks claiming that black success was NOT the result of hard work. None of the quotes you offer meets the challenge.
See, success is the result of hard work AND talent. It’s not an either-or proposition.
So if somebody claims that blacks dominate sprinting because of some genetic advantage, it does not necessarily follow that the individual blacks who succeed did not work hard.
Indeed, one of the quotes you offered actually undermines your position:
i.e. hard work is necessary for success.
It seems to me it’s a lot easier to defend the position that succesful black athletes work very hard than to defend the position that genetics plays absolutely no role in black dominance of certain sports.
For what it’s worth, I’m happy to concede the former - and happy to debate the latter.
For a lot of reasons.
For one thing, if your explanation were correct, one would expect poor, non-black nations to produce some top sprinters. Like Bangladesh or India. You don’t see that.
For another thing, it requires almost all “selectors” to act contrary to their self-interest which is to recruit the best athletes possible. It is conceivable that some American selectors would be biased against blacks, but it’s preposterous to posit that all American selectors would be biased against good white sprinters (but not good white javelin throwers).
For another thing, your explanation fails to explain the failure of communist countries such as China and the former Soviet Union to produce top sprinters.
From Scientific American:
Damn I hit submit too soon. The article continues on page two and offers some caveats to Entine’s article.
Why would we expect that? I am unaware of institutionalised racism that promotes Bangladeshis as being worth keeping an eye on as potential sprinters. Can you provide a reference to support that, because if you can’t you are constructing a straw man.
No it doesn’t. It requires the selectors not to know who the best athletes are. It requires them to slot black kids into the track team because they ‘know’ that with a bit of training they can become really good.
Who ever said they were?
Does it? Then you must have a reference for the relative availability of all types sporting facilities in those nations. you must also have references showing that Chinese and Russian children had very limited opportunities for advancement outside sport that paid as well as sport. Because if you can’t produce such references tjis is just assertion.
I await your references, but if you can’t how them then your argument that cultural explanations don’t stand up to scrutiny is obviously untrue because you have clearly not scrutinised them in the light of the facts.
What you mean is that you want a quote to disprove your strawman position that someone has said that Black success is due solely to genetics and that blacks never have to work to win gold medals. That’s just silly, and a blatnt starwman. No one ever claimed such a thing. What was claimed is that people invoke a superior genetics to explain black superiority rather than invoking superior work ethic or harder training.
You cited “lack of facilities for alternative sports in black nations/communities” as a reason for black success in sprinting. This implies that other nations which lack facilities should produce successful sprinters. I’m assuming that poor nations would have a tendency to lack such facilities.
Or are you claiming that black nations UNIQUELY lack such alternative facilities?
Or maybe you can make your argument a little sharper. Please tell me WHICH nations/communities lack facilities for alternative sports?
**
It’s just not that hard to spot a good sprinter.
**
Well, what did you mean when you cited “institutionalised racism on the part of school and univeristy coaches and selectors”?
**
I’ll try to dig up some references, but let’s make sure you understand my point: IMHO, nations like the former USSR and China put incredible amounts of resources into recruiting and training people for all sports, including sprinting. Do you disagree?
Oh really?
Then perhaps you missed the following quote, from this very thread:
(emphasis mine)
Exactly lucwarm. The dominance of blacks is due to superior genetics instead of superior work ethic and training.
Even if you could manage to miunderstand that, your poistion that this meant the poster believed that Blacks can get to the Olympics without any hard work at all is preoposterous and a blatant starwman. No one could make that interpretation in good faith.
Now can you provide those references that you used to scrutinise the cultural basis for Black superiority? Can you please anser either yes or no in your next post.
My interpretation was reasonable based upon his use of the word “instead.” Of course I agree that nobody could possibly be a top athlete without lots of hard work. Perhaps you should ask David Simmons why he suggested that anyone would think otherwise.
**
I’ll try to, but first why not make sure that you actually disagree with my position? There’s no need for me to dig up references if you don’t disagree with my assertions.
So:
Agree or disagree:
(1) Many non-black nations and communities lack “alternative facilities” to a comparable extent as black nations and communities.
(2) Nations like the former USSR and China put incredible amounts of resources into recruiting and training people for all sports, including sprinting.
**
As I said, I’ll try to come up with references if you disagree with my assertions.
And would you mind taking a crack at the question I asked you:
Please tell me WHICH nations/communities lack facilities for alternative sports?
As a side note, “black superiority” isn’t quite the same thing as a racial disparity in track and field. Interestingly, I understand that throwing events such as javelin and discus are dominated by caucasians.
As difficult as it is to explain black dominance in sprinting with social/cultural explanations, it is more difficult still to reconcile white dominance in throwing events with such explanations.
How dramatic. One can almost hear the Green Acres fife and drum music from one of Oliver Douglas’s stirring speeches about the farmer being the backbone of America.
The cited source says the gemellus superior muscle is absent in 8% of whites and 6% of blacks. In other words, the muscle is present in 92% and 94% of the respective “races” (a term of dubious biological usefulness). Is this supposed to be a statistically significant difference? Does this count as “racial dimorphism”? How statistically significant is this 2%, specifically?
Not very. After dissecting dozens of human cadavers in gross anatomy lab, poring over Gray’s Anatomy, Clinically Oriented Anatomy, Rohen & Yokochi’s Atlas of Anatomy, Clemente’s Atlas of Anatomy,…there just was not any mention of anything to save the OP. Believe me, they would have mentioned it–they mentioned every OTHER anatomical variant imaginable, and many that weren’t.
Now, no one needs to be particularly astute to observe that young black men’s bodies often exhibit thicker bones and better muscle size and definition with less subcutaneous adipose (fat) tissue than other bodies do. So they may be in general somewhat genetically predisposed, or prepared, to be more athletically effective. But that’s only half the story. The individual still must possess the desire and determination to make the commitment to constant practice in order to manifest that edge in potential. Strong cultural influences play their role on this side of the story, but it’s up to the individual to live the dream. While black athletes dominate many sports, history records the single most overwhelmingly dominant athlete of any sport as some scrawny little unassuming white guy from Ontario. Either Wayne Gretzky has an extra set of leg muscles (or of eyes)–or he has a single-minded, obsessional focus that would put an anteater to shame.
On the other hand, the first man to live the dream of breaking the four-minute mile, Roger Bannister, happened to be “white”…but I’d still rather have Michael Johnson on my track team. He’s faster. And he has trained himself, mentally and cardiovascularly, to win both the short and the long races. Amazing.
And he does it with the same number of leg muscles that we all have.
<No clue about those italics>
Lucwarm I am beginning to think you are not posting in good faith. I am certainly not getting dragged along with that red herring. You stated that invoking differential access to facilities and non sporting opportunities for advancement “fails to explain the failure of communist countries such as China and the former Soviet Union to produce top sprinters.”
In order for you to be able to make such a bold statement you must know the levels of access to facilities and non sporting opportunities for advancement in Russia. If you did not know those things then you could not say what they do or do not explain. Now do you know what the levels of access to facilities and non sporting opportunities for advancement were in Russia, and can you provide a refernce?
The statements you made above are not your position. Your position is that “that lack of alternative opportunity outside sport, coupled with lack of facilities for alternative sports in black nations/communities coupled with institutionalised racism on the part of school and Univeristy coaches and selectors” “fails to explain the failure of communist countries such as China and the former Soviet Union to produce top sprinters” . That is yourposition, using direct quotes. Everyone can check them is they wish. I does not matter at this point if Black communities lack facilities comparable to non-Black, It only matters if Russia lacks facilities coupled with a lack of non sporting opportunities for advancement comparable to Black communities.
Similarly it doesn’t matter how much money Russia put into training sportsmen. For your assertion to have any credibility it only matters what level of access Russians had to sporting facilities and non sporting opportunities for advancement.
So lucwarm, you claimed that you had scrutinised my position ‘that lack of alternative opportunity outside sport, coupled with lack of facilities for alternative sports in black nations/communities coupled with institutionalised racism on the part of school and Univeristy coaches and selectors’ can explain the discrepancy between back and non-Black champions. Under that scrutiny you claimed that my ‘explanation fails to explain the failure of communist countries such as China and the former Soviet Union to produce top sprinters.’
Well lucwarm, I’m calling you out.
CITE!!!.
Do you have a reference for the degree of access to facilities coupled with access to non sporting opportunities for advancement in Russia and China?
Because if you don’t you are making ignorant assertions of the highest order. If you don’t have those figures there is no way you can tell whether those figures explain why Russia’s failure to produce champion sprinters.
No I didn’t. I stated that “Lack of alternative opportunity outside sort, coupled with lack of facilities for alternative sports in black nations/communities coupled with institutionalised racism on the part of school and univeristy coaches and selectors” was a plausible reason for black success in sprinting.
The logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof. It is not up to me to define such things. You made the claim that you had scrutinised all cultural arguments and that they didn’t stand up. Te burden of proof is on you to provide the results of this scrutiny. You must provide figures for nations and communities that show a equitable access across racial lines.
No one ever said it was.
Just that. There is a tendency to believe that Blacks can run, and that Blacks should be encouraged to train in certain fields because they have a natural inclination, even if they are only so-so now. A white kid who performs at average will be assumed to be at his level. A black kid will be assumed to be working on natural talent and able to do better with training. There is an implicit and racist belief that a trained black will be faster than a trained white.
Yeah, darts, croquet, shooting and even the latest x-box or games computer are in no way less common amongst the inner city poor, nor could any of those pursuits enhance hand-eye co-ordination. Sports like javelin are also very common and gain faculty and parental approval at inner city high schools, while at private schools they are largely replaced with basketball and football. Everyone knows that.
Did anyone say it was supposed to be?
Does it?
Are you going to tell us or keep us in suspense?
Well I have never noticed that. Conversely many people noticed a white van during the Washington sniper incident. People tend to notice what they want to see, and it seems you are not a very astute observer after all.
I can say that fairly conclusively because the CDC says that 10.7% of black boys between 12 and 19 are overweight, while 11.6% of whites boys are overweight. More amusingly the CDC also says that 41.7% of white men aged 20-29 are overweight, while 50.1% of black men in the same age bracket are overweight.
You are right, though ** hyjyljyj**. One need not be particularly astute to observe that young black men’s bodies often exhibit ….less subcutaneous adipose (fat) tissue than other bodies do. One need be either completely blind or else selecting filtering one’s observations through low level racism. I can’t see how else you could conclude that young black men have less fat when there are around 10% more ovrweight black men than white men.
Not exactly, I said that your explanation “fails to explain the failure of communist countries such as China and the former Soviet Union to produce top sprinters.”
**
Not necessarily, if I can make a reasonable estimate of the degree of incentive there was for a Russian or Chinese person to pursue sprinting and the barriers in the way.
**
My position is that a typical Russian or Chinese had as great as or greater access to facilities/training/incentives etc. than a typical citizen of an African or Carribean nation.
If you disagree with this, I’ll try to find a cite. Frankly, I think we both know why you refuse to disagree with this.
**
Disagree. For example, I can state with confidence that the average Norwegian has greater access to skiing facilities than the average Tongan. This statement is based upon my general knowledge and common sense.
But again, I’m happy to try to dig up a reference for you – just tell me you disagree.
**
Yes you did – it was a reason. Of course, you are free to claim that your explanation cannot be split up and tested; that any part alone is insufficient to produce measurable effects. But of course that makes your explanation much more complex and difficult to falsify. Too much so, IMHO.
**
I needn’t go so far – I need only show that there exist non-black nations/communities with roughly comparable access. And I’ll try to find a reference for that, if you disagree with my position:
Agree or disagree:
Many non-black nations and communities lack “alternative facilities” to a comparable extent as black nations and communities.
Oh really? Perhaps you forgot stating the following:
**
So is what you are saying much different from the position that all American selectors would be biased against good white sprinters?
(I suppose I should have said “most” instead of “all”)
**
I have no idea what your point is here, but let me mention this: Every high school track team I’ve ever seen has guys who do the throwing events. In inner-city high schools, the throwers tend to be big black guys; in suburban high schools, the throwers tend to be big white guys.
In neither case is throwing a very high-status sport, such as football or basketball.
So lucwarm are you able to provide the necessary cites, or ecan we just consider your position based on so much nothing? You claimed that you had scrutinised my position ‘that lack of alternative opportunity outside sport, coupled with lack of facilities for alternative sports in black nations/communities coupled with institutionalised racism on the part of school and Univeristy coaches and selectors’ can explain the discrepancy between back and non-Black champions. Under that scrutiny you claimed that my ‘explanation fails to explain the failure of communist countries such as China and the former Soviet Union to produce top sprinters.’
Well lucwarm, I’m calling you out.
CITE!!!.
Do you have a reference for the degree of access to facilities coupled with access to non sporting opportunities for advancement in Russia and China?
Because if you don’t you are making ignorant assertions of the highest order. If you don’t have those figures there is no way you can tell whether those figures explain why Russia’s failure to produce champion sprinters.
Huh? Can someone please explain this to me
This is what I am asking for. Give us the references you used to make these estimates of what the incentive was for a Siberian peasant boy to take up sprinting and hat barriers were in his way. 100 miles of tundra and only reindeer for transport might be a good starting point.
Come on lucwarm, Give us your references.
If you fail to do so this time I will simply take it on face value that you made up your assertions out of whole cloth.
Ahh, we get the picture now. Any cultural solution has to be simplistic to be valid. We cannot invoke a coupling of lack of facilities and lack of alternatives because that is too complex. On the other hand any genetic solution can be as complex as necessary. A positive knowledge of no genes or suites of genes exclusive to or universal within the Black population doesn’t matter because we can then invoke ‘advantages’, which are just the coupling of this putative genetic advantages with hard work etc.
Lucwarm are you familiar with the logical fallacy of ‘special case pleading’? If not I suggest oyu get acquainted because that is what you are doing.
Yes.
SPECIAL PLEADING
Description: Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. Special pleading typically happens when one insists upon less strict treatment for the argument he/she is making than he or she would make when evaluating someone else’s
Gah. I made statements based upon my general knowledge and common sense. Like I said before, I’ll try to find cites if you disagree.
You refuse to disagree.
Why do you refuse to disagree?
Why do you ignore my requests to agree or disagree?
Anyway, this game is getting a little old. Kindly put up or shut up.
**
Ummm, you coupled more than that. Here are your words, since your memory seems to be failing:
And there’s no logical reason why each factor alone should not have a measurable impact.
**
How?
Not really. For one thing, I’m not advancing a theory that is increasingly difficult to falsify.
Ask yourself, what evidence would it take to cast serious doubt on your explanation?