Please help me dispel this racist myth.

Hi. My friend insists that “black people” have an extra
muscle in thier leg that lets them excel in sports.
I tried to tell him that scientificly there is no such thing as race so he must be wrong. He doesn’t believe me. Does anyone have the link to the site that summarizes Collounsbury’s arguments and provides cites??
I tried searching and can’t find it among the volumes of race threads. Thanks!!

oh man, that’s rich. I’m sorry dude

here

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0416.htm

Just wanted to point out that if you don’t believe in “race,” then your question - whether “blacks” excel at sports in comparison to other people - is meaningless.

I’ll leave it to others to post links to the many questions and debates on this subject.

P.S. Please email me if you want to make a bet on the “race” of the winner of the 100m dash at the 2004 olympics. I’ll give you very good odds.

Foistly

In order for “blacks” to have “an extra muscle” from other human beings, there would have to be fixed genetic differences between races. Meaning a clear break – indeed this seems like a speciation level differnce to be frank-- such as “Blacks” having a gene for X and no one else. This is absolutely clearly not the case. Not a shadow of a doubt. One can argue, unsuccessfully of course, about differential distributions of alleles (varients on genes) among races to try to say some aggregate of blacks leads to tendencies X, but given the lack of coherence of allelic distribution per race (it just don’t break out by race, but at smaller levels to the extent there is variation by region) Search on me user name and Cavalli-Sforza which should direct you towards cites with the relevant
Of course you can just laugh at him and tell him geneticists got over this kind of ignorant crap years ago.

Now my dear AWC, I don’t have time for you, given you can’t be bothered to address the data nor the copious refutations of your implications, but I do invite you here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=71543 so that I may express more fully my sentiments in regards your intellectual incapacity.

As for odds, I’ll give you odds when you define the race in terms of genetics. Yes my dear since if the fellow isn’t definable by some particular set of objective and specific traits, you don’t got one leg.

“Jimmy the Greek” Synder an oddsmaker/broadcaster of yore and amateur anthropological geneticist had this succinct analysis of the phenomenon of the origins of African American athletic superiority.

"During the Civil War, ‘the slave owner would breed his big black with his big mammy so that he would have a big black kid,’ Snyder said during his 1988 interview with WRC-TV in Washington. ‘That’s where it all started.’

"Later, Snyder said a black athlete was better that a white one because “he’s been bred to be that way because of his thigh size and big size”

He was relieved of his broadcasting duties shortly thereafter.

My Kapit/Elson Anatomy book doesn’t go into individual variations on extra leg muscles for any group of people. All humans have the same number of leg muscles.

While in practice it probably isn’t the kindest way dispell someone’s ideas about people of color, an air shocked disbelief and a tone that conveys you think the person is being ridiculous some times works.

Once upon a time, I had a summer job in a department store. One night several of us were facing (moving stuff on shelves forward) in the isle that sells hair care products, one of my co-works picked up a package of hair dye with a black woman on it and looked puzzled. She said “Oh, so they can dye their hair.” Who can, we asked. “Black people.” Why wouldn’t they, we asked. " Oh, well. They don’t need to wash their hair, so I’m surprised they’d bother dying it." What makes you think they ‘don’t need to wash their hair’ we asked in disbelief. " It falls out when it’s dirty," she informs us. We all acted shocked, of course. I highly doubt she believes that any longer.

I guess whether or not you can change their mind depends on how much faith they put into their odd ideas, and how stuborn they are.

I’ve heard that one also, about negros and an extra muscle in their leg. I’ve looked around, but no one seems to have an answer, probably since it’s not true. Haha my friends are so stupid, they still believe it.

I’ve never heard that they had an extra muscle. The concept sounds downright ludicrous, even to a gal who last studied human biology in high school. Where do they get this stuff?

Autumn Wind Chick, your assertion about the winner in the next olympics means what? Do you think this adds to the argument?

Now, can I expand this question? Isn’t true is that that some ethnic groups share physical characteristics that might affect things like way medicines work? Or immunity from (or susceptibility to) certain diseases? How do geneticists explain this?

I don’t think this is an inherently “racist” question (at least I hope not) What becomes racist is the importance we attach to these things, or the false conclusions we draw from them. Maybe that’s where the foolish friend came up with the “extra muscle” thing.

My bet is on the human race.

There was an interesting article in Runner’s World about a decade ago (reprinted in “The Best Sports Writing 1993,” so it’s not just racist drivel), that there is a definite pattern in the winners of races. Blacks of West African descent usually win sprints; blacks of East African descent usually with the distance races. Whites usually win middle distances. There did seem to be some physiological studies that indicated differences in how the muscles worked, depending on your ancestry.

One point of the article, though, was that no one really wanted to persue this issue because of the controversy it would raise. There are differences between the races (skin color, for one), but it’s courting trouble to mention that.

The important thing is that whatever differences that may exist are ultimately unimportant and don’t make anyone “superior” or “inferior.”

Nah. If you can actually come up with a coherent definition of a race that does not fall apart at the most casual examination, you can talk about it all you want.

In fact, the evidence you provided argues directly against race: if people from a geographic region of Africa purportedly are the world’s champion sprinters and a different group of people from a geographic region of Africa are the world’s champion marathonists, and both are alleged to be part of some specific “race,” you have just argued against sprinting or distance running as being a “racial” characteristic, since the two groups you tried to put into one “race” have contradictory abilities.

(The evidence may support the notion that some genetic populations have predispositions toward certain physical abilities, but those populations do not map onto any purported “race.” Of course, before we actually assume that the populations’ characteristics are genetic, we might want to take a good look at whether the culture from which individual racers spring puts a very high emphasis–including training, diet, etc.–on producing individuals with the characteristics that some people would like to ascribe to “race.”)

Satasha, for a compendium of arguments with links to most of the related threads, try this site:
http://www.eneubauer.com/

OK, Satasha, your friend acknowledges that it’s possible for white people and black people to interbreed, right? Ask him if a mixed-race individual would have this extra muscle. Then ask him how much “black blood” is necessary for a person to have this muscle. Then remind him that most “blacks” in the United States are over 50% European in their genetic heritage, and most “whites” have an African somewhere in the past few centuries of their family tree. We’re more mixed here than most folks think.

Autumn Wind Chick, as for your bet:

That’s easy: His race will be the 100m dash.:wink:

Another nail in the coffin of the whole race theory of human origins was published last week in Science. Basically, it showed rather conclusively that based on Y chromosome lineages, the most genetically diverse elements of humanity are all found in the continent of Africa (from East versus West versus South).

The only leg muscle that I can even think of placing in this definition is a vestigial muscle called plantaris. It runs in the back of the calf over the gastrocnemius. We have a similar muscle in the forearm called palmaris longus. These muscles are basically nonfunctional and are absent in a certain subsegment of the population (I do not have a palmaris longus).

For CrankyAsAnOldMan:
There are no fixed genetic differences between “races.”. This is because apart from a few superficial exterior traits, individuals of a certain “race” are not united by any common genetics. Note that this does not rule out certain genes from being more present in certain populations. African Americans who are descended from several West African populations have an increased carriage of HbS, or sickle cell trait. Note that this does not state that “blacks” get sickle cell – there are many African populations that do not carry sickle cell trait, and many non-African populations carry sickle cell trait. Next, sickle cell trait is an advantageous mutation – it imparts a dominant resistance to malaria. Such a trait can spread itself throughout malaria-exposed populations without changing the rest of the genetic makeup of the population. Basically, when a highly selected allele enters a population, there is no selective pressure to retain anything but that advantageous trait. So, while sickle cell trait is predominant among many African populations, this tells us nothing about the similarity of the other 30,000 genes of these populations.

Sure, you can define a “race” as a population carrying genes for nose shape, skin color, epicanthic fold, and disease predominance. But this has no other value than telling us that various populations carry these advantageous traits – the populations are not more similar to each other (outside of these genes) than other populations who don’t share these genes.

So, in a word, yes. Medicine has done wonderful pseudo-scientific clinical trials and determined that certain anti-hypertensives work better in African Americans than white Americans. G6P deficiency is more prevalent in African Americans. Sickle cell trait is more prevalent. To a certain extent, genes like these determine drug responsiveness. Some of these responses are due to such advantageous traits, some of them perhaps due to traits at a high level due to a founder effect, but perhaps an equal amount of this difference is either environmental or coincidence. For instance, the prevalence of type II diabetes mellitus in Hispanic and African American populations is concordant with the obesity rate. Similar things may be found about drug responsiveness.

See the NEJM editorials of May 3. They are quite balanced in dealing with the issue and very well written and accessible:

http://www.nejm.org/content/2001/0344/0018/1392.asp
http://www.nejm.org/content/2001/0344/0018/1393.asp

These studies may have predictive value, but are fundamentally flawed as they impart a non-scientific bias onto medicine (that of race). Remember, 800,000 people identified themselves as both “black” and as “white” on the 2000 Census. 7 million bubbled in more than one race.

Race, as a scientific concept, is dead. It is only a matter of time before it fades out of the social parlance as well.

If black people have an extra muscle in their legs, why is swimming dominated by white athletes?

I know I’m getting off the subject a bit here, but personally, I think there would be a lot more top athletes coming out of Australia if they weren’t lured by AFL (Australian Rules Football). It seems that the athletes that aren’t skilled enough to make it into AFL are turning to running, etc.

  • Every player who has ever won an NHL scoring title is white.
  • Every Olympic weightlifting record is held by a caucasian.
  • All championship speed skaters are white.
  • Every major league pitcher who has ever won 300 games is white.
  • Almost all Olympic champions rowers and kayakers are white, with a few Asians mixed in here and there.

Now, I don’t believe for one instant the whites are physically advantaged in shooting hockey pucks, lifting barbells, skating, or rowing, do you?

There are actually very good reasons why track and field events are dominated the way they are; because that’s who trains and competes in them. Africans have been ahead of the rest of the world in long distance training methods for thirty years; it’s no surprise they dominate the competitions.

It’s like people saying blacks are physically more capable of playing basketball. If that’s true, why don’t blacks dominate volleyball the same way? You have to be tall and have great jumping ability in volleyball. Why aren’t all championship high jumpers black? There is NO conceivable reason why blacks would dominate basketball due to racial advantages and yet fail to dominate volleyball and high jumping. I saw Vince Carter jump over that 7’2" French dude. He could play a mean game of volleyball, you’d think.

Why is it that Jews virtually owned basketball seventy years ago? Why did German and Irish immigrants dominate baseball in the 1890’s? Racial differences? I doubt it.

I would just add that I think this is a losing argument. For someone who truly believes something like this, no amount of evidence to the contrary, nor any lack of documented credible evidence to corroborate it is going to change their mind. At least that’s been my experience. So, you might be satisfied in your own mind that your friend believes incorrect information, but don’t expect to change his/her mind.

Peak Performance Online has this article about genetics and African runners. It doesn’t say anything about an extra muscle, but does mention differences in muscle composition. It cites a study of sedentary African and Caucasian students, and the Africans had a larger percentage of type IIa muscle cells (important for moderate-distance running) and fewer type I (used for marathon distance running), and different concentrations of muscle enzymes. Both groups had the same percentage of type IIb muscles (sprinting muscles). Since it’s believed muscle cells can change type through training, the differences could be the result of lifestyle as much as genetics.

I for one am tired of everyone trying to claim that there is no such thing as race when talking about sports. Give me an f’in break. I understand that genetically speaking racial categories as we commonly view them may not be accurate and that broadbrushstroke categories such as white and black and Asian may appear to some as arbitrary groupings of ethnic varieties. But come on people, take a step back for a second. The NBA is almost 100% black, and the All-star game was 100% black (save Vlade Divac who was a replacement). Are you trying to say that these guys aren’t Black??? Fine, they are of African decent. If you wanted to be more specific we could say they are of West African decent. The point I wanna make is this, I think most people can see that overall, people of African decent have certain superior athletic traits. If you can’t see this by watchin the NBA, you’re freakin blind!!! Look at these guys!!! Vince carter, Allen Iverson, Michael Jordan!!! These guys are amazing, their speed, leaping ability, body control, the way they move, even their physical builds. If you can’t see an overall difference between these guys and a white player, you are in denial baby. This doesn’t mean that all decendants of all Africans are superior athletes; I mean any arguement taken to its extreme will become ludicrous. And there plenty of sports that other ethnic groups excell at for many reasons other than biology (i.e., socio-economics and culture). I understand why people so vigorously want to deconstruct modern notions of race as they are often tied to racist ideas. At the same time however, when it comes to pure athletic ability (I don’t count weightlifting, sorry, and I’m sure there would be more black hockey players, speed skaters and volleyball players if the sports were more popular in those communities) I can’t help but state the obvious, running and jumping, track and field, boxing, basketball and football… you will never see a “white guy” jump like Vince or Jordan, recieve like Randy Moss, or run like Barry Saunders. Call me a racist, but damn, I’m trying to be honest, and my eyes don’t deceive me

No; we’re trying to say that being black has no effect upon whether they are good athletes or not.

Yes, blacks are over-represented in current sports. But that’s less phyiological than it is sociological. American sports have always tended to be dominated by ethnic groups, but which ethnic groups dominated has changed over time. Take boxing, for example. At the end of the 19th century, boxing was dominated by Irish-Americans (John L. Sullivan, for example); in the early 20th century, by Jews (Max Baer); by the middle of century, by Italian-American (Marciano); by the late part, by African-Americans (Ali, Foreman, Tyson); and now Hispanics are starting to take prominence.

This shift has less to do with any ‘race’ being better at sports (unless you’d like to argue that Jews are inherently better at boxing than the Irish) than it has to do with economic opportunities. Sports tend to be less discriminatory upon race or socio-economic status than other fields of employment, so for poor kids in the ghetto, sports seem to be the best way out. One discrimination against the group begins to abate and other forms of employment become available, there is less impetus to try out at sports, so someone who would have been a great center for the Lakers instead goes into accounting because it seems an easier and more stable option.