They will be of mixed race, retaining characteristics of both, to varying degrees. And given the fact that we are still trying to understand the concept of race, looking at the diluted pools confuses the issue, which is preceisely why it is so often used as a tactic. In trying to understand the issue, one shold seek to control or eliminate as many variables as possible. That is why the discussion should revolve around the group that has genes that best represent the long-isolated populations of West or East Africa, and the grop that can be viewed to be most different. In this case whites, works well. One could also use Asian, again with an effort to select a group that has minimal overlap with the African groups.
The nature of your questions is indicative of those that make up the pallisade launched to block meaningful discussion. Is race a completely understood phenomenon? No. Are there physical characteristics that are passed down from one generation to the next with consistency? Yes. Do groups from one region pass down different sets of physical characteristics than groups of another reason? Yes. Are their very strong correlations between some of these characteristics, like between black skin and tightly curled hair? Yes.
Read your post. You asked if there was such a thing as ‘blackness’, I asked what you meant by that. Your second question stemmed from that and I asked for clarification. He looks “black”, but is considered caucasion, do I still win the million?
The majority of your post were statements, which I didn’t realize you wanted a response to, since you said we don’t have enough information; which we don’t.
Can traits be passed on, sure. The question is, does a person’s skin color eqate to the ability to run fast? Especially in a country that has a certain amount of admixture? If I’m “black” but have blue eyes, do I have fast twitch muscles? Which part of my ‘blackness’ is now recessive? What if I’m covered with bodyhair, like a nice Greek or Italian? Do I still have fast twitch muscles, can you tell by looking at me? Does the trait for blue eyes switch off the trait for fast twitch muscles, EVEN though I still have dark skin, a wide nose and tightly curled hair?
I was referring to the increased “interracial” pairings in which African-Americans are passing their “old” world genes into non-african peoples. Again if in the next 10-20 years, the next record breaker is “white”, with a West African ancestor, do we classify him as part of the “black” group?
Again how do judge that? Unless you count the original African genes as part of the pool, how do you judge based solely on physical attributes, what’s lurking underneath the skin? And that’s what this is about, based solely on skin color or nose width or curl of hair, I’m supposed to be relatively sure that the person I’m looking at represents a group, that runs faster than other group; because a few members of that group are champions.
Also the assumption is, that the first offspring of those West African slaves were African. I purpose a good portion of them may have already been mixed with the various Europeans that were in charge of them. How does that work? If in every two or three generations, my family tree is branched off to a non-african line, what does the color of my skin and the skin color of my ‘group’ have to do with my ‘group’s’ ability to run fast? Unless ‘you’ believe that skin color is a good indicator of speed and that seems ridiculous to me.
I think its key to this discussion. IF West Africans have something unique that allows them to run fast, if all the record breakers are of West African ancestry, then it’s important to figure how which alleles THEY have, that other blacks of West African decent don’t have. THEN you have something. That’s research, but this wooly covering of skin color equals speed on average, in groups is nothing but wagging the dog. I have no problem with a specific claim of geography, that’s something we can analyze…I have a problem with the term black as a catch all phrase for ANYONE with a little melanin and the ability to play ball as a definition of the ‘group’.
Of course African-Americans are closely related to Africans, and in many cases they’re also closely related to Europeans or Native Americans. The reason why we focus primarily on the black part, the African part, is based on flaws within our society, which is why it’s important to clarify why we’re even having this dicussion; which is based solely on race. Something that Entine denies was his point.
This as a ‘group’ thing drives me nuts. What does that mean? Sure I know what it means, but we’re talking millions of people, with different backgrounds and abilities, who’ve been culled to a relatively few with the ability to play in the majors and they represent “the group”?
Then define the populations. If the majority of slaves in the US are from Western Africa, then the majority of ‘blacks’ are related to them, then they should on average be faster than any other group. We should have black folk, zooming all over the freaking place…but we don’t. What we do have is an artifically created subset of people that are really good at sports and we use them to define the group.
African-Americans are riddled with hypertension, yet West Africans don’t suffer from it. Why? Is it diet? Is it the admixture of European genes screwing things up? Could it be that the blacks that do well in sports are the ones that retained more of the physical structure of their forefathers, while the rest are more European, or have just enough to slow them down? What does skin color have to do with that? Nothing.
That’s where this research should have gone, not race based theory but anatomy, what do these great sportsman white and black have in common and work from there. Instead we look at skin color which is meaningless for the most part and use that as proof of ability.
I don’t think that anyone is claiming causation, merely correlation, which from the information presented in this thread seems to be overwhelming.
An analogy is gravity. We know that this force exists, we know that it is tightly related to the mass of planets and other large bodies. We can even measure it. Yet, we can not explain what causes it. Do we speak of gravity as if it exists in a way that we are able to communicate? Yes. It’s the same with race. Our real-world observations show us that there are different groups of us that have different (until mixed) characteristics. I asked a question to Holmes that he avoided, I’ll ask it of you, in an even more pointed manner:
You and I are in NYC. I tell you that I will give you a thousand dollars for every person you can correctly identify as being black, a thousand dollars for every person you can correctly identify for being Asian, and a thousand dollars for every person that you can correctly identify as being white. You can use sight only, you cannot speak to anyone. But for every person you identify incorrectly, you will lose one hundred thousand dollars. So, are you game? At the end of the day do you think you’d be able to make yourself a rich man? If so, you would be using what we understand to be racial characteristics.
Then given that racial characteristics exist, are you comfortable making that assumption that they would exist only in skin color and hair. And given the statistics offered in this thread, wold you be comfortable concluding that the strong correlations between blackness and speed are NOT to be seen in the genes, even though we don’t understand them fully yet?
There is much we do not know. But if you look at the evidence that’s been presented, is it not logical to conclude that there is a surprisingly strong correlation between foot speed and West-African descent? And as mentioned earlier, in attemptiing to understand this better, it serves us to look at as pure examples as we can find. We should seek to control and eliminate as many variables as we can, not continually focus the discussion on those of mixed races, That injects variables into the equation and simply clouds the issue. Do you agree or disagree with that?
It depends on what you’re trying to prove. If you use the catch all phrase “black”, then you need to be able to define it. Note** Airman**'s classification of Tiger Woods and VJ Singh as “black”. Well what does that do knowing what a black person looks like? What makes you think you’re right and what if I don’t agree?
If you talk about “blacks” winning and a good portion of them are African-American, then you can’t ignore the admixture. That’s the way it’s got to be.
If you’re talking about West Africans, then talk about West Africans as a population and not as a ‘race’ and certainly not the catch all of ‘black’ and you got no beef with me.
West Africans may be black, but all blacks aren’t West Africans.
Listen to what you are saying. Since we don’t know much about it, we should avoid issues that confuse the issue. What is the point of possessing knowledge if it doesn’t answer or avoids the tough questions?
I really don’t understand what the benefits is of studying an isolated group then extrapolating the results to the larger group. I can readily believe that there are tribes in Africa that through intermarriage have produced exceptional runners. The problem is when people make the mental jump of “This tribe runs great distances” to “All people with African features regardless of actually heritage are great runners”. There was a report of a family in Germany that has a mutation where they lack an enzyme that stops muscle growth. So that means that they are incredibly strong. How does that apply to a 4th generation German-American who is also part Italian and Cree? The study of an isolated community only yields a lot of information about that particular community.
If you freely admit that the biological concept of race is not understood, how do you speak so definitively in regards to the athletic potential of a person with African features. You can’t simultaneously claim that we don’t know much about the biology but be sure that black=fast.
I freely admit that it’s possible that dark skin might have something to do with speed. Just as it’s possible that it is linked not with dark skin but with curly hair. Just as it’s possible that speed has nothing to do with any of it.
But you guys have not come up with any proof to support your claims. The fact that at this moment in time, blacks happen to be dominant in the 100m is not proof that black people are faster. Just as the fact that at that moment in time, it was an Englishman who broke the 4 minute mile is not proof that white people are faster. Records and interesting stats are just that.
During the Elections, they put up a whole bunch of interesting factoids. “No one who has lost a primary in Iowa has gone on to win the Presidency”. Or sport factoids like “No team that was ever down three games in a series has ever come back to win” No one seriously uses those useless facts to predict the future, but you guys are doing exactly that.
The casual observation that blacks are disproportionally represented in atheletics does not mean they genetically predisposed. Just as the casual observation that blacks are disproportionally represented in prison does not mean that they are genetically predisposed to poor impulse control.
You are perpetuating the myth as well. If normally sane Americans tell a white kid that he doesn’t have a chance of becoming a cornerback, why will he invest the time? When I was growing up people said all that stuff about basketball as well. A white basketball player? Forget it kid. How many kids decided that hours of busting their butt afterschool and constantly carrying around a basketball was worth it. So then you started seeing more and more black players. Meanwhile kids in other countries were seeing the NBA, and having not been fed that bullshit that blacks are just better at basketball, they busted their butts. I believe last year we had more European players in the draft than black players. But the same arguments were trotted out then also.
When I was watching the Olympics in Sydney, there were a lot more whites in the running finals than in previous Olympics. This so called domination will not last, and many of you will wonder how it was possible that you bought into such nonsense, just like those people who thought that blacks were just better boxers and basketball players
With all due respect, you continue to insist at looking at the most complicated case, rather than the simplest. In trying to look at the issue rationally and objectively, a scientist would seek to simplify we he is studying, not cloud the issue.
Let me ask you this: Would you agree that there is a group of people—the Masia, perhaps—that we could both agree that are black? Let’s stop there for now. Please simply answer that one question: are the Masai living in Africa, whose ancestors have never intermarried, Black?
First of all, we need to clear up the concept of black. Insofar as it concerns American sports, we are talking about people who are easily identifiable with regard to their origin of several hundred years ago. Black people in America can generally be expected to have an origin from West Africa at a minimum. (I would appreciate monstro finding a cite which would indicate that some blacks were taken from east Africa to America in the slave trade. I have read that Brazil did receive some blacks from that area.)
The only relevance for using the term black therefore with regard to sports in the United States is to identify people with west African heritage. It has nothing to do with how dark your skin is or how curly it is. In the manner that Jon Entine has put forth his conclusions, black athlete superiority in football, basketball and sprinting has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with a heritable connection to west Africa. West Africa does not comprise the black race as popularly perceived.
That is not to say that environment doesn’t count. Black Americans only started to predominate in the above mentioned sports once the social barriers were torn down. West Africa, which doesn’t play American football yet, has more recently gotten into soccer and now provide a significant contribution to the top leagues of soccer. In fact, both Nigeria and Cameroon have olympic gold medals in soccer in two of the last three competitions. With African soccer as popular as it is throughout , it is quite significant that there are no east African players in the top leagues of European soccer.
So here we have an easily identifiable population coming out of several different cultures, in America, the Caribbean, and the countries of West Africa that predominate in sports demanding explosive speed. They are not connected by culture. They are connected by West African heritage.
Once again it does not mean that if you are black in America that you will be fast. It does mean that if you’ve reached the elite levels of performance in explosive speed you’re likely to exhibit a skin colour identifying you with some level of a West African heritage.
It does not mean that admixture of non West African genes will neccessarily modify the capability of an athlete who has a west African genetic heritage. Whatever gene or genes responsible for West African athletic superiority can easily survive miscegenation without modification, although the frequency of the responsible genes (alleles) within the total population might well be affected. After all, there aren’t that many black American who have cracked the 10 second barrier in sprinting.
Wrong. People are claiming causation when they try to make future predictions based on a correlation: Most good running backs are black, therefore in order to have a team with good running backs one needs to recruit mostly blacks. Unless there is a causal relationship, the correlation tself isn’t a reason to project the “data” into the future.
An analogy is gravity. We know that this force exists, we know that it is tightly related to the mass of planets and other large bodies. We can even measure it. Yet, we can not explain what causes it. Do we speak of gravity as if it exists in a way that we are able to communicate? Yes. It’s the same with race. Our real-world observations show us that there are different groups of us that have different (until mixed) characteristics. I asked a question to Holmes that he avoided, I’ll ask it of you, in an even more pointed manner:
No one denies that race exists, just that it’s a social construct with very little biological value. To the extent that people are indiginous to a given geographic area, they will share a common genetic heritage. But that goes well beyond the concept of race, and is being broken down as people mix more and more-- especially in a country like the US where the overwhelming majority of people trace their ancestry to other continents.
I’m not saying that Blacks (or African-Americans) don’t produce faster runners, I’m just saying that no one has demonstrated that scientifically yet. It might well be true. But, the only honest answer right now is: We simply don’t know.
If it turns out that African-Americans produce a disproporationate number of the fastest runners, btw, it might turn out to be because of their mixed ancestry (as a group) rather than strictly because of their African ancestry. African-Amercans, on average, derive somewhere around 25-30% of their genetic material from European ancestors.
It only makes sense to talk about this in terms of groups, not individuals. And African-Americans are a group with a high degree of genetic mixing. I would be very suspicious of generalizations made about Blacks (meaning people of African ancestry) based on data from African-Americans.
Can’t do it. I can’t ignore the complications of reality, culture and society for you. If the Masai are black, then what’s Mariah Carey? It doesn’t work for me. Black is a short cut… by your own terms the Masai are unique, why would I call them the generic ‘black’?
The Masai are African, East African to be a bit more exact and isn’t THAT the purpose of science to be PRECISE when able, why would I call them the generic black, when a. I know where they come from and b. black is mostly used at least in the states for African-Americans?
Are you telling me, If you didn’t know what the Masai were and I told you to expect an African you would be confused when you met one?
Are you kidding? Because that’s how you gain knowledge. You try to understand the most basic principles at work first, then try to build on and expand that knowledge. Do you not accept that as a basic recipe for human inquiry and learning?
Who knows where it will lead. It is knowledge. The first attempts to understand molecules were crude, but they led to some amazing developments unforseen and unforseeable by the early inquirers. Right now, in medicine, we are learning that acknowleding the genetic differences between the races will probably help more people, particularly those not in the majority.
This is a good point. Maybe it’s somethig in the water, right? But we will only kow that if we compare the success (speed) of the smaller populations with that of all Blacks (not of mixed race). The fact remains, that there is a correlation between runniing ability and Blacks. Please review back to the first page of this thread for specifics.
This has nothing to do with the discussion. A mutation may or may not become an inheritable trait. And if it is, it may or may not develop on it’s own. Evolution would say that only if the mutation offers a benefit will it become part of the gene pool in the long term.
Again, look at the data. It all shows a VERY strong correlation. As I’ve said, that is not causation. It might be due to something in the water, the air, or the soil? But even if that’s true, there is a point that those environemental factors working over the eons change the genetic make-up of those who live in their midsts.
If you’re talkiing causation, I agree, as I indicated above. But you cannot deny and should not ignore the correlation.
You have to look at the weight of evidence and consider contributing factors. Roger Bannister was one man. So to project the ability of one individual onto a whole race is illogical. With the overwhelming succes that Black athletes have in the running, the weigh of evidence is orders of magnitude greater. And just to be clear, no one is saying that all Blacks are faster than all Whites, only that the fastest people tend to be Black. The evidence presented thus far supports that. And I’ve seen nothing to counter it.
Wrong. We are simply reacting to overwhelming evidence. I say again that you might want to review the data that has been supplied earlier in this thread.
Now your allowing the discussion to drift into the make-believe. No one has posited, and I would guess that they would reject the claim completely, that race, and not socioeconomics and other societal factors account for the over-representation of blacks in our prisons.
What myth? The myth that that more blacks are in prison because they have poor impulse control? I am not perpetuating that myth. You are. I didn’t even bring it up. I reject it completely. You seem to be seeking to deny or ban information for fear that some people will draw illogical conclusions. You can’t think that it healthy. Can you?
But thousands of kids do think they can be cornerbacks. In fact, they play cornerback in high school, as I did. Do you think that the fact that all cornerbacks in the NFL are black can be attributed to white kids not “investing the time”? Is that what you’re saying?
May I have a cite for the draft information, please? I don’t thiink it is correct.
To a great degree, the success of one particular group can usually be attributed to exposure, desire to participate, and opportunity. Throngs of those from the lower economic rungs gravitate toward boxing, so you see that group over-represented eventually in the champion ranks. Hockey, largely for economic reasons, sees an almost al white influx every year, and thus almost all white superstars. But as I and others have pointed out, running is a pure test. Kids from all cultures and areas of the globe do it. It requires no expensive equipment, or training, although it will help. It is also a pure activity, asking one thing of the participate: run as fast as you can, with no ice skates or lacrosse sticks or soccer balls to contend with. And in that pure exercise, from the evidence presented, blacks tend to and are capable of running faster than non-blacks.
No. They are simply accepting a certain level of certainty, one that you may or may not feel comfortable with. We don’t know the cause of gravity, but you’ll take the elevator instead of the window to your car because your experience gives you a certain level of certainty. Do you not think the numbers in the article I included on page one or some of the other date supplied in this thread is convincing? Or accurate? If you and I were to bet on the 100 next world class sprints, what odds would I have to give you to take any non-black runner and I take all black runners?
Yes. But it does not mean that the concept of race has NO value. And I repeat, looking at the mixed individuals prevents any real information from coming out. Which, I think, is the very reason it is continually brought up. (I do not mean to lay this all at your feet.)
How would you then judge the data in this thread. Can you think of a better test than to look back at Olympians, where effort and dedication are maximed for all?
If this was all the info we have, you would have a good point. But when the success of the West African countriess in world competition is taken account, your theory becomes less likely to be true.
By the same token that you might call a mare a horse, or a calico a cat, or en elm a tree, or a Corvette a car. But never mind. Since you refuse to grant the smallest concessions in order to further meaningful debate, I’ll move on. Thank you for your time.
I’m not going to grant you a concession that’s a lie. My MIL’s from the UK, tell her a black person’s coming by and she’ll expect a Pakistani. I should ignore that for you? Should I ignore the reality of race as a social construct for you? Don’t think so.
Please note The Flying Dutchman’s definition of “black” in the States, hint, it has nothing to do with how wide your nose is or how tightly your hair curls.
And why are you referring to an East African as black, when this discussion is about blacks who are West African? One would think you believe all blacks look alike…
But there is no good reason to believe that the status quo will be repeated in the future. Sure, there aren’t going to suddenly be 20 new White running backs coming out of nowhere tomorrow, but what about 5, 10, 20 years from now?
I think it has very little value indeed if we’re talking about the 5 traditional races. You’d need to break populations down much more finely than that to get useful information. It also depends on the particular characteristics one picks, but the general rule is that the larger the area you encompass with a given “race”, the less meaningful it’s going to be. I can’t see that “Africa” is a meaningful designator for race. Even sub-Sahara Africa encompasses many ethnic groups.
What data? All the samples are biased in one way or another. If you wanted to do a scientific study, you’d need to start with random samples. There is no such data that I’m aware of.
Which West African countries are you talking about? The famous African runners are mostly from Kenya, which is an East African country.
In the broadest sense, you are correct. But on what do you base you statement. What reason is there to beleive that it will change? It’s not as if there’s a continent of whites that have been excluded from running competition.
I would agree that the more defined the group, the more meaningful the observations. But again, that doesn’t mean it is of no value to speak of the larger pools: canines vs felines, for example.
I would say that the Olympic track competitons make for a great scientific study. Every country on earth is simply looking for the fastest people in their country. They train them as best they can, then send them to compete. And the fact that those of West African Descent are so successful in the sprint, and that those of East African Descent are so successful in long distances—regardless of which country the person is currently living— seem so indicate —but not prove—that their is a genetic component to running that is found in black athletes.
Supplied by me in Post #22
Posted by The Flying Dutchman in Post #48
There are links in each of those posts that did not transfer over. But they work if you’re interested.
The best marathoners are from east Africa, the best sprinters are from West Africa. I do not how they break down per country.
I’ll deny them. Even among Africans there are differences in nose structure, lips, etc. Some Ethiopians, for example, have skull structures pretty darn close to causcoid. I’ve also seen some Indians who might well qualify as “black” in this country and they’ve got a face structure that is thin and they also have wavy hair. Some folks from Papua New Guinea are have very dark skin that would cause many to refer to them as “black” but they don’t necessarilly share other traits with Africans, though some of them do. Blonde people tend to have fair skin and light eyes, are they a different race?
No, but I do expect you to pay up for dark Indians.
Blacks (however you want to define that) don’t dominate baseball by any stretch of the imagination. Look at my post on the previous page; they now comprise less than 10% of the rosters, and their numbers have been steadily dropping since the 70s which is when they probably had the most influence on the major leagues.
Even looking at statistics, home runs is just one stat. For career stats, my cursory browsing says that 1 of the top 20 in batting average are black, 5 of the top 20 in runs, 6 of the top 20 in hits, 8 of the top 20 in home runs (not counting Sammy Sosa), 7 of 20 in RBIs, 6 of 20 in total bases, 0 of 20 in ERA, 0 of 20 in wins, 2 of 20 in strikeouts, and 1 of 20 in saves. Forget white men not being able to jump, seems like black men can’t pitch.
FFS: This is like debating with creationist. You seem to be getting deliberately bogged down in definitions, denying even the most obvious causal connections and deliberately not wanting to concede a single fact because that would cause your whole religion to tumble down.
Yes, we’ve conceded that race is a social construct and that, in general, based on genetic assay results, it’s a rather shitty classification. But race is useful precisely because it IS a social construct. Race provides an easy way to seperate people into categories, right or wrong. Would it have been more accurate for Deberry to say he needed more people of east african descent? sure. Would it be as useful? Not really, we can’t really tell a west african and east african apart, just on the basis of their appearance. But everyone knows what he means when he says black.
holmes: There is a very scientific definition of genetic diversity based on gene analysis. I don’t know what the exact definition is off the top of my head but I would imagine it would involve the number of genes that vary and the degree of variance.
Meanwhile, none of you have come up with anything remotely resembling a model that would account for these frankly, extraordinary facts:
44 black runners have beat 10 seconds while no white man has managed
NFL is dominated by black players, despite the abundance of white players at lower levels of the competition
91% of steeplechase winners have been from a single, rather insignificant and exceedingly poor country of Kenya.
Frankly, this extraordinary evidence demands extraordinary proof of some sort before I would be willing to concede no genetic differences. The popularity argument doesn’t work. You would need sprinting to be 64 times as popular among blacks for that to be the case. The social disadvantage argument doesn’t work. Whites are not socially disadvantaged compared to blacks and mexicans are more socially disadvantaged yet niether has managed to displace the dominance of blacks. The effort argument doesn’t work and, frankly, I think it’s rather insulting to white athletes to tell them they’re just “not trying hard enough” and if they only really put some effort into it, they could beat their black brethen.
The evidence is just so overwhelmingly in favor or genetic difference that, frankly, it seems like a wilful display of ideology over facts that is causing some of you to disagree so vehemently. Your afraid that if you agree to blacks dominating certain sports, you’ve given the KKK carte blanche to go back to cross burning or something.