Fastest, even.
Beebe played alongside two guys who were quite the wide receivers, Andre Reed and James Lofton, who were black. Beebe was faster - quite noticeably faster. Reed and Lofton were better at other aspects of offense, but Beebe could outrun anyone.
[QUOTE=Blake]
What statistics would these be? Can we see them? And can we see the level of significance of these statistics.
Here is an interesting article that goes into it. I suggest reading the whole article, but here are some extracts:
• In Sydney Australia, Kenyans won their seventh straight Olympic gold medal in the 3,000-meter steeplechase, that odd track event that combines distance running, hurdling, and splashing through water. Excluding the two Olympics they boycotted, the Kenyans haven’t lost this event since 1964.
• Although two swift Moroccans have emerged to offer the first serious challenge to Kenyan domination of the steeplechase in years, runners from this East African nation still account for 91 of the 100 best times ever.
• Kenyan-born journalist John H. Manners, who has trained in the Great Rift Valley with many of top Kenyans, is writing a book called “The Running Tribe.” He calculates that from 800 through 10,000 meters, this country of only 30 million (0.5 percent of the Earth’s population) wins about half of
all the Olympic and World Championship medals for men’s distance running.
• Even more remarkably, men from a single tribe earn three-fourths of Kenya’s medals. The three million Kalenjin make up only one tenth of Kenya’s population, and just .0005 percent of the world’s. Yet these highlanders from the Great Rift Valley win about three-eighths of international men’s distance running prizes. Within this region, the half million people of the Nandi district win one fifth of the globe’s medals!
• In 1990 physiologist Bengt Saltin, currently director of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Center, took part of the Swedish national track team to St. Patrick’s Academy in Iten, Kenya to race the world’s greatest high school track team. The local kids repeatedly trounced the champions of track-mad Sweden. Dr. Saltin estimates there are at least 500 schoolboys in the region who could beat Sweden’s best man at 2,000 meters.
• Based on the results achieved by the finest Kalenjin runners, Berkeley anthropologist Vincent Sarich, the co-founder of the field of genetic anthropology, statistically estimates that the average Kalenjin could outrun 90 percent of the rest of the human race.
• In the 5,000 meters, for example, the globe’s two hotspots are the highlands of East Africa and the Atlas Mountains region of Northwest Africa. Kenyan runners hold 48 of the 100 best times ever, nearby Ethiopia holds 18, and Morocco 23. Of the ten times credited to wealthy “first world” nations, six actually belong to African immigrants.
In contrast, the hotspots for sprinting are almost anywhere people of West African descent live. In Sydney, for the fifth consecutive Olympics, the eight men who reached the finals of the Olympic 100 meter dash – the race that determines the World’s Fastest Man – were all of predominantly West African origin. Going back to 1984, the last 40 finalists have all been blacks from West Africa or its Diaspora.
But this “implication” is not rooted in logic. Just because Icelanders tend to be taller than Japanese, doesn’t mean that a aprticular Japanese person couldn’t be taller than all Icelanders. And if that was the case, that doesn’t mean that the general proposition that Icelanders are taller than Japanese is true.
No. The larger difference is that one goes the the limitations of the human body, the other goes to behavior (and socail conditions).
Even if it’s true? Exactly how many facts are you willing to quash in the name of political correctness?
How is saying that blacks are better runners claiming that blacks are superior to other races? Leg speed is a measurable physical phenomenon, just like height. If African-Americans, on average, are taller than Asian-Americans, is it racist to say so?
You are assuming causation where none is required.
That blacks are superior runners. Why can’t that be truer? Why is saying that one race is superior in one thing the same as saying that it is superior overall?
It justifies making generalizations about blacks with respect to sports where speed is a key element.
As someone already mentioned. DeBerry was talking about black athletes, not all black people. Clearly, all evidence leads us to believe he is factually correct. Damn near every speed position in football is dominated by blacks. There aren’t even any white cornerbacks in the NFL. What he said was not racist because he was talking about athletes, and not the general population. He didn’t say whites (or anyone else) couldn’t be as fast, just that they usually aren’t when it comes to football (which is true). For every Don Beebe, there are ten faster black athletes. And if I’m looking for speed, I not trying to find the next Don Beebe.
This is obviously false. We can look at the genes involved in the production of melanin and be able to pin down your skin colour to a very high degree of accuracy. Even restricting ourselves to non physical gene expressions, the notion of race, as conventionally defined is a useful and valid one. A recent Scientific American article has an excellent treatment on the matter.
The insistance that race plays no factor in a whole host of different behaviours has always seemed incredibly bizarre to me. On the one hand, we readily concede that race has a very strong correlation with certain genetic expressions related to physical appearance: skin colour, hair colour, hair curliness, hair density, height, etc. On the other hand, we dogmatically insist that race has absolutely no correlation with a whole host of other factors: intellectual aptitude, agility, propensity towards violence etc.
In order for such a situation to occur, you would have to posit a magic dividing wall which allows a certain range of arbitrary factors to remain closely cross-correlated while at the same time allowing for a similar set of equally arbitrary charecters to achieve the complete opposite and become completely uncorrelated.
Unless you can posit a specific, quantative difference in the selection of two different factors, it seems equally “racist” to me to claim that “There exists a reasonable correlation between dark skin colour and speed over 100m” as it is to claim “There exists a reasonable correlation between dark skin colour and tightly curled hair”. That is to say, none at all.
“Black athletes”, not “Blacks”. IOW, the pool that he can recruit from is “athletes” of whatever race. Presumably, these would be high school football players for the most part. If that pool tends to select Blacks over Whites (for whatever reason), then he isn’t being racist, per se. Still, it’s a stupid thing to say.
Go back to my hocky analogy. Suppose someone asked you to assemble a new professional hockey team in the next few months, but he wanted you to have an equal number of Whites and Blacks. Would you be able to put together a competitive team? No, you could not. Does that mean that Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites when it comes to palying hockey? No, it does not.
But let’s say that someone asked you to select a track team that would then compete in the olympics, with the intention of garnering as many medals in short and long distance running.
In your hockey example, the pool of black hockey players is accidentally restricted. Not only that, hockey does not reward one physical attribute like some other sports. Running and weightlifting seem to be pure in that regard, so if there are differences, it makes sense to look there, doesn’t it?
I believe you are conflating sickle-cell anemia and another disease that provides some protection against malaria, thalassemia. The former is found overwhelmingly in people of sub-Saharan African descent, while the latter is found overwhelmingly in people of Mediterranean or Indian descent.
I’ve never heard of thalassemia. I stand by my statement regarding sickle-cell being found in other groups outside of Africa.
Marc
Just for the record, the most recent gold medalist and current outdoor world champion in the 400m is a white guy, Jeremy Wariner.
Ok, I suppose I was wrong. Could you line up the people of the world from lightest to darkest and point out to me the first person who is “black?”
In the past we used to base intellectual aptitude as well as a whole host of other factors on the race of people being examined. Can you give me any good evidence that race influences intelligence or propensity towards aggressiveness? Looking back at history I’m hard pressed to pick one race over another when it comes to brutal behavior.
I think it was Jesse Jackson who said that not taking race into account was racist in and of itself. I’m not a biologist, but I’m going to have to stick with the idea that race is a social and not a biological truth.
Marc
We have a natural tendency to see patterns around us.
The problem is in making jump from observations, to belief that race is X is better/worse at Y for genetic reasons.
Yeah, blacks seem to be dominant in football. But I don’t make the jump to thinking they are dominant because of their inherent Blackness. These temporary dominations will pass.
People use to think that Black players didn’t have what it takes to be good quarterbacks. I didn’t believe that there was anything in black people preventing them from being as good as a white quarterback. Why am I now supposed to believe that something special allows them to excel over white players.
People use to wonder why Blacks were so dominant in the NBA. That doesn’t seem to be the case as more and more European (White) players are beating out home grown Black players in the Draft.
If Yao is popular enough in Mainland China, and young Chinese kids spend hours bumping uglies on courts, we might end up seeing Chinese dominated basketball. If this happens, I am sure we will see threads asking “What is it about the Chinese that make them so good at basketball?”
Your changing the argument. Or course not, virtually no human based categorisations have clearly defined edges. If I put a bunch of chair-like objects in a room, could you seperate them into clearly chair and non-chair? What would you put stools, bean bags, fold out sofas, doll chairs, electric chairs and those ergonomic ball things? If you can’t does this mean we should eradicate the notion of chairness and proclaim all things are equally chairy? Of course not, even without clear boundaries, the notion of chairyness is still useful because we can make generalised observations of correlation that turn out to be useful in the real world.
Sure, I could probably pull up a few dozen. Problem is, virtually all of them are going to be grossly methdologically flawed in one way or another. Thus, you would conclude that such studies are unreliable and should not merit inclusion. Similarly, you could probably pull up a dozen that claim no statistically significant difference. But a few hours looking at it could probably also point out gross methdological flaws. The problem is that it’s almost impossible to design a study like this without serious flaws and, it seems, to me at least, that one tactic being used to trumpet the no-racial-differences argument is to continually point out flaws in any study done showing racial difference and, thus concluding that racial differences do not exist.
However, a quick googling lead to:
a BBC article which claims
A testosterone study which found mild but measurable difference in testosterone between races.
A study on bone metabolism which claims that blacks have a higher peak bone density.
I haven’t read any of these cites carefully but I think I’m getting the right conclusions from them.
I think it’s an attractive theory because it means that we can neatly avoid a whole bunch of moral dillemas but I don’t think thats a valid reason to believe a theory. The problem with it is that it posits that there are a whole bunch of genetic based factors which are very strongly correlated with race. And then there are a whole other bunch of genetic based factors which are completely and utterly, 100%, in no way whatsoever correlated with race. It seems to deny the existance of any middle ground in which some factors have a mild correlation with race. To me, that’s an extraordinary claim and I would require some evidence of a similarly extraordinary mechanism. I have yet to see a convincing explanation of such a mechanism.
And I never said sickle-cell anemia wasn’t found in groups outside of Africa, only that it is rare among those not of African descent.
Uh, I don’t think bumping uglies is neccesarily going to improve their basketball skills.
I think the “popularity” argument just doesn’t fit the data well. This page has an interesting discussion on blacks in sport. Blacks seemed to dominate certain sports so quickly and so completely that it even if you take into account selection bias, it still is astounding. Also, you would have to account for why blacks seem to dominate in such a wide variety of circumstances. It’s not just lower-middle class urban, black americans which have taken over sports. Kenyans and other East Africans have taken over long distance running, West Africans have dominated sprinting which requires a diametrically different physiological makeup. In both cases, I don’t see popularity playing much of a factor.
You simply can’t assume that because one particular race is more represented in a certain sport that it’s “the natural order of things”. There are too many unknown social factors that go into the selection process. And I don’t think you know much about hockey if you think it it doesn’t reward certain physical attributes.
Depends on the area - it is also rare to nonexistant in some sub-Saharan African populations. Here’s an article on sickle-cell in Sicily ( where it is most prevalent in Europe ) and Italy ( where it is the most common genetic blood disorder, which doesn’t mean it is exceptionally common overall ), with distribution maps:
http://www.sicklecellsociety.org/information/resrep/res14.htm
This article ( pdf ) discussing microdrepanocytic disease ( apparently an interaction of the thallasemia and sickle cell traits ), notes that in an at least a couple of highly disjunct districts ( areas around Petromagula and Chalcidiki ), the sickle cell trait is found in as high as 15-16% of the population and in those same areas thallasemia ( more common overall in Greece ) is relatively rare:
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/reprint/12/5/454
So distribution of sickle cell ( and related diseases/traits ) are rather complex, but definitely do extend into southern Europe in various spots.
I’m curious, you obviously believe that genetics play the biggest role, so then you must believe that they will be dominant forever?
This reasoning is very disorienting for me because I use to hear it all the time to blame Black people. Now I hear the same reasoning to praise Black Athleticism, and it disturbs me. If you start to subscribe to the idea that “The only viable explanation for Black Excellence in XXXX is genetics”, how are you supposed to combat the racist who espouse the idea that “The only viable explanation for Black failure in XXXX is genetics”.
I don’t believe in race as a biological definition, so the only explanation is cultural influences.
Blacks used to completely dominate basketball. People use to explain it away, as Black people just having more “Game”. Now they are losing their domination, and people are looking for cultural explanations. How can you have achievements credited solely to genetics, while blaming shortcoming only to cultural influences?
I see ‘professional domination’ by ethnic groups everywhere. I see Internal Medicine and medicine as a whole being dominated by Indians. I see nursing being dominated by Filipinos. I see Mixed Martial Arts tournaments being dominated by Brazilians. I see Corporate Boardrooms being dominated by White Males. I see Asians dominating Table Tennis. Most people would probably agree that the reason those groups dominate is for cultural reasons, but why am I in the minority when say that Black athletic domination is cultural?
So what you’re essentially saying is, “there’s no reliable way to determine racial differences but it’s real, believe me.”
If Ethiopians and Kenyans are great long distance runners does that make them a seperate race from those on the west coast who are better sprinters? Are people living in high mountanous area of Tibet a seperate race from folks living in China proper? IF this is the case then we must have a lot more races then the 5 or 6 they used to teach us about years ago.
Marc
I am aware of the role someone’s environment and culture can play in their development. But is there a point where that results of that environment become embedded in the genes. Look at the Sherpas. Living at high altitude for so many generations has changed the way the process (?) oxygen and can thus live comfortably where others struggle. Over time, why couldn’t isolation of a large enough group result in a race that is better adapted to some things than others. It seems that natural selection would almost mandate that to be the case. Wouldn’t it?
The stastics I cited in a previous post made a compelling argument that that is exactly what happened. Not only do African runners show abilities much greater than the wider population, but the way the specialization is geographically correlated within Africa is striking.