# If one race is faster, more athletic, stronger in sports - what's bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836 "2016-02-22T21:35:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/121 "2016-02-26T00:24:05Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Yes, and when it is, it should certainly be used. The moment that the doctor is able to narrow it down from asians to “hmong”, he should proceed with that new, far more precise and meaningful, information. > > But think about it this way. For the vast majority of actual meaningful “real” scientific genetic groupings, members of that group will appear to be the same “race”. So if there’s a disease that affects mostly Hmong, it will initially appear to affect mostly Asians. For a disease that affects mostly bushmen, it will appear to affect mostly black people. If it affects mostly people from a particular caste in a particular region of India, it will appear to affect mostly Indians. > > Race is a crude and immediate and rough approximation which can help suggest genetic patterns with greater-than-chance possibility. It is very very crude. So crude that it is pretty much useless in this modern age of diverse populations and plentiful information. If I’m alerting my friend to look for a special disease that I’ve only noticed in bushmen, I’m not going to say “black people”, especially if he works in a country as diverse as the United States. Just like I wouldn’t tell someone to look out for Tay Sachs showing up in white people. It just doesn’t make sense to do this. It’s a very inefficient way of screening patients to use such broad terms. This conversation reminds me of the time I spent in Miami. Prior to that experience, “black American” connoted something specific to me. An AAVE-fluent person descended from American slaves , possessing a European surname. But in Miami, that’s not the only kind of black American. You’ve got the brown-skinned folks who are immigrants from the Caribbean and their offspring. You’ve got the brown-skinned folks from Latin American countries and their offspring. Then there are the brown-skilled folks straight outta Africa and their offspring. These groups are quite distinct from one another and their members do not necessarily want to be lumped together all willy-nilly and crazy-like. A doctor working in Miami who only sees the “blackness” of his or her patient is likely to overlook a lot of useful information. It wouldn’t do a Miami doctor any good to rely on race as a patient descriptor. They need to be encouraged to see past race labels completely, since even the definition of “white” varies so much when there are a gazillion different nationalities/ethnicities crammed into one metropolitan area. Maybe a doctor working in rural Appalachia can afford to be less conscientious. But they are also a whole lot less likely to need to use race to mine their patient database. So sorry, I still don’t understand why race should be used at all in medicine. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/122 "2016-02-26T00:34:48Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > So sorry, I still don’t understand why race should be used at all in medicine. I’m not saying it should. I’m not endorsing a class at medical school teaching race-is-step-one-in-identifying-genetic-groups. I’m just objecting to an overly absolute position in the opposite direction. “Never” and “nothing” and “totally without meaning” as opposed to “rarely” and “only vaguely related to” and “only useful when no more precise information is available” so forth. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/123 "2016-02-26T01:19:35Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Can you see how asking about “Asians” is pretty pointless? > > Of course, it’s not a bad thing to notice that all the ugly rash patients are “Asian”. Being a doctor does not make you immune to social programming and there’s nothing objectively wrong with placing people into arbitrary groupings. But that doesn’t mean that “Asian” is a useful shorthand. But it is. Cite: > [@](#): > > **BMI Cut Points to Identify At-Risk Asian Americans for Type 2 Diabetes Screening** > > … > BMI cutoffs have been established to identify overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) or obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) individuals (12). However, these are based on information derived from the general population, based on risk of mortality, without consideration for racial or ethnic specificity and were not determined to specifically identify those at risk for diabetes. Recently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented initial findings from an oversampling of Asian Americans in the 2011–2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. These data, utilizing general population criteria for obesity, showed the prevalence of obesity in Asian Americans was only 10.8% compared with 34.9% in all U.S. adults (13). Paradoxically, many studies from Asia, as well as research conducted in several Asian American populations, have shown that diabetes risk has increased remarkably in populations of Asian origin, although in general these populations have a mean BMI significantly lower than defined at-risk BMI levels (14,15). Moreover, U.S. clinicians who care for Asian patients have noticed that many with diabetes do not meet the published criteria for obesity or even overweight (16). > > Epidemiologic studies have shown that there is a relationship between BMI and diabetes risk in Asians, but this risk is shifted to lower BMI values (17). At similar BMI levels, diabetes prevalence has been identified as higher in Asians compared with whites (18). This paradox may be partly explained by a difference in body fat distribution: there is a propensity for Asians to develop visceral versus peripheral adiposity, which is more closely associated with insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes than overall adiposity (19). Additionally, Asians of both sexes have been shown to have a higher percentage of body fat at any given BMI level compared with non-Hispanic whites; this suggests differences in body composition that may contribute to variations in diabetes prevalence (10). > > … > > Historically, such prospective cohort data are uncommon in Asian American populations. The majority of peer-reviewed publications on diabetes among Asian Americans are cross-sectional studies in which BMI, calculated from self-reported weight and height, and diabetes status are assessed simultaneously. In 2004, data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) showed that the odds of prevalent diabetes were 60% higher for Asian Americans than non-Hispanic whites after adjusting for BMI, age, and sex (23). The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS; 1997–2008 data) (24) found that the odds of prevalent diabetes were 40% higher in Asian Americans relative to non-Hispanic whites after adjusting for differences in age and sex. In fully adjusted logistic regression models including an adjustment for BMI as a categorical variable (underweight/normal weight: BMI \<23 kg/m2, overweight: 23 ≤ BMI \< 27.5 kg/m2, and obese: BMI ≥27.5 kg/m2), Asian Americans remained 30–50% more likely to have diabetes than their non-Hispanic white counterparts (24). > > … > Conclusions > > This comprehensive review and analysis of the association between BMI and diabetes in Asian Americans illustrates that Asian Americans have a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes at relatively lower BMI cut points than whites. Given that established BMI cut points indicating elevated diabetes risk are inappropriate for Asian Americans, establishing a specific BMI cut point to identify Asian Americans with or at risk for future diabetes would be beneficial to the potential health of millions of Asian American individuals. > … > ADA Recommendation > > Testing for diabetes should be considered for all Asian American adults who present with a BMI of ≥23 kg/m2. [http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/38/1/150.full](http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/38/1/150.full) ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/124 "2016-02-26T05:24:21Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So what? So this: > [@](#): > > “well, I’m a scientist, and I know race is meaningless, so I can learn NOTHING from looking at your face, NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING” is _actually_ fairly accurate. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/125 "2016-02-26T05:27:34Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > For a disease that affects mostly bushmen, it will appear to affect mostly black people. No, it totally fucking won’t. Khoisan aren’t “black people”. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/126 "2016-02-26T05:39:29Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > But it is. Cite: > [http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/38/1/150.full](http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/38/1/150.full) You do realize “Asian-American” is a group that includes people from more than one socially-defined race, right? It’s not a _biological_ group, is my point. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/127 "2016-02-26T06:32:38Z")
I still feel this (and similar past discussions) are missing the point somewhat. Most people know very little about genetics, so when two people are having the discussion of “Why can’t we talk about how blacks are better runners?” and the other person is saying “Best not to talk about that”, neither person is motivated by the science. Now, we might well say that the “Best not to talk about that” person is motivated by political correctness, and just sees race as a sore subject. And I think that’s largely true. Nevertheless I would tend to side with that person, as the “Why can’t we talk about how blacks are better runners?” person will usually be motivated deep down (or not so deep) by a desire to generalize and categorize. An accurate statement about runners might refer to _average_ differences between _populations_…but that kind of statement has no practical value to the “man on the street”. Instead, what such people want is justification for “Blacks are X, whites are Y”. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/128 "2016-02-26T06:39:17Z")
I’ll say they’re the best runners right now. They used to be the best boxers. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/129 "2016-02-26T08:34:27Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Most people know very little about genetics, so when two people are having the discussion of “Why can’t we talk about how blacks are better runners?” and the other person is saying “Best not to talk about that”, neither person is motivated by the science. Evidence for this claim? How deep does your knowledge of genetics need to be to spot that this question as bullshit? When I hear the question “Why can’t we talk about how Australian Aborigines, Andaman Islanders and Sri Lankan Tamils are better runners” I know the question is horeseshit without even considering genetics. Th question is patent nonsense on it’s face. No deep knowledge of genetics is required. Anybody with a basic knowledge of sports will tell you that an assumption that “Black people” as a group are better runner is a load of dingo’s kidneys. > [@](#): > > Now, we might well say that the “Best not to talk about that” person is motivated by political correctness, and just sees race as a sore subject. And I think that’s largely true. Evidence for this claim? Because when I say “better not to talk about it” I mean “You really shouldn’t talk about subjects on which you are deeply ignorant, as you clearly are on this subject”. Anybody claiming that a group that includes Andaman Islanders and Sri Lanakans are better runners than any other group doesn’t know shit from chocolate and really shouldn’t be talking about baking cookies. > [@](#): > > Nevertheless I would tend to side with that person, as the “Why can’t we talk about how blacks are better runners?” person will usually be motivated deep down (or not so deep) by a desire to generalize and categorize. I encourage anybody who wants to categorise. I’m an ecologist/botanist. Most of my job is to categorise and generalise. Being motivated by a desire to categorise and generalise is a good thing. What is not a good thing is categorising and generalising incorrectly. Categorising all men as rapists is not a good thing. Generalising that all fruits are edible is not a good thing. Categorising blacks as a monophyletic group is not a good thing. Generalising that Blacks are good a running is not a good thing. Those are all Bad Things because they are wrong and lead to bad choices. > [@](#): > > An accurate statement about runners might refer to _average_ differences between _populations_…but that kind of statement has no practical value to the “man on the street”. Absolutely wrong. It is the only statment that has value to the man in the street. And the statement would read" “On average, the group “Blacks”, which includes subgroups such as Andaman Islanders, Sri Lankans and Austrlaian Aboriginals as over 30% of its membership, is on average no faster than any other similarly diverse group”. > [@](#): > > Instead, what such people want is justification for “Blacks are X, whites are Y”. What people want doesn’t define value. A cancer patient wants to be told “You don’t have cancer any more”. That doesn’t mean that the statement " You still have cancer" has no value to that patient. Quite the opposite. The only statement that has any value to the man on the street is a true one. An ignorant and erroneous statement doesn’t become valuable simply because that is what they want to hear to justify something. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/130 "2016-02-26T08:36:47Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > I’ll say they’re the best runners right now. They used to be the best boxers. Really? Andaman Islanders and Sri Lankan’s are the best runners right now? Just because crows are black birds, that does not mean that black birds are crows. The best runners right now are black. That is not remotely similar to your claim that blacks are the best runners right now. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/131 "2016-02-26T08:41:15Z")
Your way’s better then. That’s the reason I post here, to learn. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/132 "2016-02-26T08:50:13Z")
**Blake** , I’ll give a point-by-point response if necessary but the big picture is: I think you’ve mis-parsed my post. I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said (except I think some of your statements are too absolute). Perhaps you thought I was on a different side of the debate to the one I’m on? I’m saying it’s _incorrect_ to just say “Blacks are better runners”, but that a subset of people want to make such statements because they want to discriminate. I’m also saying statements about _populations_ may be correct, but that’s not what such bigots are interested in, and not the reason why threads like this are so common. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/133 "2016-02-26T09:02:49Z")
**Blake:** Why do you call Sri Lankans black? They’re [from the sub-continent.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Sinhalese) They don’t look black either. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/134 "2016-02-26T09:57:59Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > **Blake** , I’ll give a point-by-point response if necessary but the big picture is: I think you’ve mis-parsed my post. I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said (except I think some of your statements are too absolute). Perhaps you thought I was on a different side of the debate to the one I’m on? My main disagreement was your claim that you need a deep knowledge of genetics to understand that Andaman Islanders are not the best runners in the world, and that anybody calling bullshit on that claim is just being PC because they lack the knowledge of genetics to understand why it is bullshit. That is the claim that you made, and it’s not true. People call bullshit on that claim because it is obviously bullshit to anyone who knows a anything about sports or anthropology. > [@](#): > > I’m also saying statements about _populations_ may be correct… Of course at least two statements made about populations in the entire history of the world have been correct. The statement “blacks are better runners” is not correct and anybody with \*any \*knowledge of science can see that instantly. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/135 "2016-02-26T10:12:18Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > **Blake:** Why do you call Sri Lankans black? They’re [from the sub-continent.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Sinhalese) They don’t look black either. Really? [These people are not Black](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01395/sri-lanka_1395119c.jpg)? [Or these people](https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/2/5/1233835269595/Tamil-Tigers-Sri-Lanka-wa-001.jpg)? [Or these people](https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/30/1233309559346/Sri-Lankan-army-soldiers--001.jpg)? [Or these people](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02652/kandy-vedda_2652054c.jpg)? Do please tell us about this Black Phenotype that excludes those typical Sri Lankan phenotypes but includes [Ernie Dingo](https://s.yimg.com/ea/img/-/140816/130814gendingo1_19ut77a-19ut77f.jpg?x=656&sig=y9dIse.NrdArXlWj.pXqlg--), [Nelson Mandela](https://www.limkokwing.net/graphics/community/recognized_leadership/nelson_mandela.jpeg), [Tiger Woods](http://d39ya49a1fwv14.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/tiger-woods.jpg) and Haile Salassie? I wait with bated breath. Or maybe none of those famous Black people are black either? They think they are, and everyone who has ever written about them thinks they are Black. But maybe they aren’t Black because they can’t be distinguished from typical Sri Lankans, who apparently aren’t Black. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/136 "2016-02-26T12:05:41Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > In some other thread discussions there were people who vehemently rejected the notion that black athletes had a genetic advantage in speed, agility, etc. when it came to explaining why wide receivers, defensive backs or other such speed positions in certain sports tended to be African-American. > > Now, whether black people have a genetic advantage in Olympic sprinting or NBA basketball, etc. isn’t the point of this thread - maybe they do, maybe they don’t. That’s a scientific discussion. But my question is - _suppose that they indeed did_, and the reason that black players dominate positions such as NFL wide receiver and cornerback is indeed because of this natural advantage - _what would be so bad about that?_ > > Why is it bad if one race does indeed have a genetic advantage in agility or speed? Would it somehow be racist for that to be the case? Or is it more that it’s racist to \*say \*that race is the reason for speed advantage - in other words, it’s more the \*speech \*that is the issue than it is the science that is the issue? You can’t say it, because if a race has an advantage in one area, another race might have an advantage in another area. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/137 "2016-02-26T13:04:37Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Really? > > [These people are not Black](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01395/sri-lanka_1395119c.jpg)? [Or these people](https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/2/5/1233835269595/Tamil-Tigers-Sri-Lanka-wa-001.jpg)? [Or these people](https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/30/1233309559346/Sri-Lankan-army-soldiers--001.jpg)? [Or these people](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02652/kandy-vedda_2652054c.jpg)? Some of those people are black. Some are Black. Some are neither. See, to me, some look “Black.” Some look Indian. Not the same thing to me. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/138 "2016-02-26T13:53:09Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > My main disagreement was your claim that you need a deep knowledge of genetics to understand that Andaman Islanders are not the best runners in the world, and that anybody calling bullshit on that claim is just being PC because they lack the knowledge of genetics to understand why it is bullshit. > > That is the claim that you made, and it’s not true. Funny…I don’t recall making such a claim. > [@](#): > > Of course at least two statements made about populations in the entire history of the world have been correct. The statement “blacks are better runners” is not correct and anybody with \*any \*knowledge of science can see that instantly. I dispute that. People see that many of the top sprinters have dark skin, even those representing majority white countries, and just make a sweeping statement. It’s very natural to jump to such a simplistic conclusion. Note: I’m not saying _right_, I’m saying _easy_. The fact that the labels “Black”, “Asian”, “White” etc exist is testament to the fact that humans have this habit of making overly broad groupings, and believe there are at least some non-tautological statements you can make about such groups. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/139 "2016-02-26T14:16:06Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > You do realize “Asian-American” is a group that includes people from more than one socially-defined race, right? It’s not a _biological_ group, is my point. “Socially-defined” race? Asian and Asian-Americanare also socially-defined “races.” But your rebuttal isn’t relevant. Monstro claimed that Asian isn’t useful shorthand medically speaking. She’s wrong… ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836/140 "2016-02-26T14:42:27Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > “Socially-defined” race? Asian and Asian-Americanare also socially-defined “races.” “Asian” is one of the ones i mean, “Asian-American” is some nebulous bureaucratic catch-all category made up for census-taking, which doesn’t map 1-1 onto “Asian” (as it’s understood by those people who think race is a valid biological concept) > [@](#): > > But your rebuttal isn’t relevant. Of course it is - the article you quote treats Asian-American as though it’s synonymous with the Asians of the articles it references, when that isn’t the case. it’s like people treating African-Americans as though they were a representative sample of Africans, when they are in fact a filtered and altered grouping. > [@](#): > > Monstro claimed that Asian isn’t useful shorthand medically speaking. She’s wrong… “Asian” and “Asian American”, the social groupings, are no doubt useful. That’s all that article shows. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-one-race-is-faster-more-athletic-stronger-in-sports-whats-bad/746836.md?page=8)