Could it be that the first person who made this claim about there being an extra muscle in the leg of black people acually meant extra muscles, on average more muscle mass, and it just go bastardized? I can believe that.
<Rant>
Really you can’t deny that people from different parts of the world are built differently. It may just happen to be that some of these differences also follow skin color. I am not saying that everybody of that group will follow the dominant look but in all cultures there are dominant traits. Can these trait help a group of people run faster, jump higher, react quicker? Yes they can. Does culture effect whether a group of people run faster, jump higher, react quicker? Yes it does. …
<Rant>
Sorry about that I know this is GQ but I got started on it and it felt like a shame to let is go to waste.
In conclusion black people don’t have and extra muscle they just might have more muscle mass.
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
I don’t buy it John. Do you think there is some white boy accountant out there who could take Shaq but instead decided to go into accounting. Please. I also think its a racist stereotype to assume that all blacks who excel in sports do so because of their socioeconomic status. There are alot of amazing black athletes from stable middle class backgrounds (grant hill, michael jordan). I myself am white and grew up in a fairly integrated neighboorhood with friends of all backgrounds. I was always fairly athletic but by the time I reached junior high, the black kids dominated the sprinting and jumping athletics like track and field. Please don’t think I’m bitter or trying to find excuses for my own athletic performance cuz I’m not. I’m a good athlete, better than plenty of my black friends. But the fact remains to me that black people (those of West AFrican decent yada yada) are faster and can jump higher which results in certain kind of dominance in in CERTAIN sports. Maybe not swimming…or soccer…I don’t know. But there is no way you can convince me that the speed and jumping ability (and not just that, I mean just watch the majority of black players vs. the majority of white players on the court, the whole way they move is different, more fluid) of the contemporary black athletes is due solely to socioeconomic factors. Bull!!! Biology has plenty to do with it and I think 99% of the average sports fans would have to agree, it is blatently obvious and you don’t need a degree in physics to to figure it out, just common sense and observation. While Jimmy the Greek might have been insensitive in his delivery, I think he was probably on the money. P.S. the only reason blacks didn’t dominate previously mentioned sports at the turn of the century is cuz they weren’t allowed to play man!!!
Where to start? I suppose I could simply direct one to the past discussions, but what the hell.
Really? Actually, the issue is rather different, there is not any biological difference which one can describe on racial levels. Insofar as sports simply involves one aspect of human activity, its nothing special.
So, we really should look to the relevent science, and above all the most rigorous.
Afraid I can’t do that. Ignorance is bad, we fight that here.
Well that is a start.
However, the genetic evidence is rather clear. It’s not a question of “may not be accurate” it is a question of is not accurate whatever little hand-waving exercises one may desire to engage in.
Black… I see a wide variety of skin colors under that rubric. Identify what black means in this context for me, biologically speaking.
On the other hand sociologically, well that will be a much easier task now won’t it?
No, but do see above.
As well as European and Native American. Your point?
Like saying they’re of European descent, not terribly meaningful. Nor even very accurate from a non-socialogical viewpoint. You willy nilly ignore (a) non-West African African contributions – black populations down around Angola and even over to Mozambique conributed to American populations in varying amounts (b) non-African ancestry which is highly diverse, such as European (of a wide variety itself) and American Indian and even, in the case of the Carribbean, Asia (Indian as well as China).
What meaningful statement about biological heredity would you like to make about that “blackness”. I once more remind you the r
No, what I see is that people of mixed descent labelled as African descent dominant a single sport. That same sport, as I have witnessed when living in east coast urban centers is the center of obsessive practice by urban kids.
Practice, practice, practice.
“A white player”?
Well, in fact that is the traditional argument. It’s not in fact “extreme” (reductio ad absurdem) insofar as the underlying question is:
Do africans have biological advantages – i.e. do the specific and time constrained dominance of “black athletes” depend on some advantages dependent on African genetic inputs? That must mean there are a basket of alleles in African sources which are either rare or non-present in “white” populations. Problems arise here, such strict segregation is not really observed, as Edwino noted. Now, if we’re talking about something under strong selection pressure (like sickle cell as Edwino nicely explained above) we might find some degree of segregation – but note this breaks down by environment not race. In terms of the complex and no doubt multigene traits which would define physical capacity/athleticism, its hard to see any reason for “West African” (read Black American since actual West Africans don’t excel in any sports in particular that I know of, so in fact we’re talking about a false group to start with) to harbor a bundle of traits specific to them.
In re running of course, we can find something to think about, body type. Of course this is hardly racial but defined by environment. Hot, dry climate folks tend to be lankier than others. Hardly an African specific trait, but certainly one which might be advantageous in running I might guess. Here we have a genuine emperical question.
Yes, indeed. And based on this and casual observation you run willy nilly to the biological explanation, without the very much regard for the data. May I congratulate you on your good sense and superior analytical skills?
Bother, I have absolutely no illusions, racism depends on in group/out group thinking. Take away pseudo-biological explanations and something else will be used.
I am concerned with the science in this case the biological science, which ultimately means in terms of these descent based arguments one thing. Genetics. Yes kids, genetics. Anything which is descent based – i.e. which we believe to be derived not from interactions at whatever level from the environment-- is genetic.
Pure athletic ability? I rather have observed that like anything running requires training, conditioning etc. like anything else. Indeed oldscratch’s link rather suggests the same, and as explained by Edwino in the past and helpfully here by jet jaguar, muscle composition is responsive to environmental conditions (in the form of specific training regimes). As have the body of materials we have in the past consdiered in re say Kenya runners.
Racist? No, just locked into some logically deficient thinking and unwilling or unable to consider the body of data outside of the pre-concieved categories and conclusions.
I believe that in past discussions we have adequately provided a range of hard, well critiqued scientific data as to why race based conclusions. I hope that the stubborn will at some point begin to engage the science and stop harping on simplistic observations. Were casual observation, fraught as it is with ‘selection bias’ in re cognitive dissonance — i.e. the human tendency in most observation to select for confirmatory data and to massage that into confirmatory shapes. If this were the way to expand knowledge then perhaps we might have depended on those astute confirmatory observations by medievals that of course maggot spontaneously generated in food, it was after all “clear” to the casual observer.
And to add to your follow up:
Further one does not need to explain the presence of every black athlete via “blackness” whether that be in terms of socio-economic conditions or supposed (counter-factually) genetic influences. As such it is more than a bit of a straw man to presume that an explanation in the aggregate is somehow a negative stereotype. Rather, the explanation in re the aggregate is simply in regards to a specific and transitory “over-representation” in terms of social investment, given the non- coherence of biological explanations.
Fine, three.
Wonderful.
See my comments prior re the relevance and foundedness of the “West African” descent over- generalization.
Ahhhhh, more fluid? Hooha. Couldn’t be style now could it? I mean come on now, you call this evidence. Bloody hell, if I lived in the USA all my life and only saw white Americans dance I might reach the conclusion that “white people can’t dance” must be something in the biology, after all they bob around like some horrible knock off cheap ass spring driven dolls without the least regard to either rhythm or beat. But thank god, in fact I’ve seen white folks from other cultures who can hold a mean-ass rhythm and move to the beat. See, the defect is culture. Yes, kiddies, culture.
Common sense and observation, those two key factors in the advancement of science. Thanks, I hadn’t realized that we should disregard careful scientific method to control for bias and to ferret out causation, and that genetics (not physics which is rather irrelevant to most of these questions) would not really be necessary.
If you detect a note of sarcasm, please do not be offended, I am an impatient man little given to putting up with foolishness and perhaps a bit too mean to boot.
No, he was fundamentally wrong, wrong on so many levels it’s hard to describe. Historically of course his fantasy about breeding programs and the like is nonsense of the rankest kind, barely worthy of contempt for its ignorance let alone its foolishness, and of course utterly ignores the fact of interracial sex and miscegenation. As for actual biological inputs, thanks to population genetics, and genetics in general, we are indeed beginning to understand how human populations are in fact structured and the degree (small, nay tiny, but present) which they differ by group. Although those groups do not break down on racial levels, as well as the complexity of environmental-genetic interaction in the expression of genetically inherited traits. All this **science ** (as opposed to unfounded speculation based on sloppy, casual observation and sketchy logic) leads us away from Jimmy the Greek sorts of idiocy to an utterly different picture. Humans certainly are not all made the same, but those differences are far more diverse and complex and dependent on interactions more profound than something a vulgar semi-literate racist hypothesizes. If one cares to learn more, the link above in Tomndeb’s message leads to citations to original and secondary literature on the subject.
Or if one prefers, one can ignore that, mumble on about agendas and what’s “obvious” to the eyes and old wives tales. Just the sort of things that have so much contributed to the eradication of ignorance and the advancement of science.
Oh yes, my dear etgaw, upon what precisely do you base your rant?
If you could thoroughly investigate the geneology of “black” people in the US you’d probably find that most have greater than 50% non-African ancestry. So how could there be something special about west african genes that makes people better athletes? Wouldn’t we find that American blacks would be midway in ability between europeans and west africans if that were the case?
Lets look at it another way. In my city, just about every independent convenience store is owned by a Korean family. But does that mean that there is some biological factor that makes Koreans superior at running convenience stores? No, of course not. The explanation is clearly cultural and historic. The kind of people who immigrate are also the kind of people who prefer to own their own business. And it is much easier to become established in a particular industry if you have friends and relatives who already work in that industry.
So why do American blacks like basketball? Well, it is simply a contingency of history. They could have grown up playing volleyball or soccer, or cricket, but it just so happens that they didn’t. They could spend all their time indoors playing computer games, but it just so happens that they don’t.
It is entirely possible that a white guy would could have been Michael Jordan is now an accountant. Sure, this hypothetical white Michael Jordan doesn’t look very athletic. That’s because he hasn’t worked out since high school. And he never really concentrated on basketball, he went out for lacrosse at his school and never developed the skills. And his stiff, rigid, unimaginative parents and peers never inspired him physically. And then he pulled his knee at the big game, then gained 35 pounds in college where he studied instead of practiced.
(How much server time did you gobble up with that thing you just posted, anyway?)
My opinion? I’d defer hunting dangerous game in Africa if my gun bearer/beater is from Italy; I’d avoid the advice of an Egyptian that was bent on selling me mountain climbing gear; I’d probably ignore the advice of an Eskimo that proclaimed he could tech me to surf.
God made a whole lot of varieties of man; they all have their individual strengths and weaknesses.
Criticism of others is a strength they all seem to possess.
All cultural. If I met a fellow who lived his whole life in Egypt, then sure, I wouldn’t expect him to know anything about climbing. On the other hand, if an some Himalayan couple adopted that same Egyptian fellow when he was two weeks old and brought him home to Nepal, then I would expect that he would learn an awful lot about mountaineering. On the other hand, if a Nepalese kid were adopted and raised by Egyptians, then he probably wouldn’t be much of a climber. There are some genetic differences between different groups of people, but those differences tend to be rather minor, and they don’t follow the same lines as any of the traditional “racial” categories. A native of Nepal, for instance, might have an above-average mitochondria count, as an adaption to lower oxygen levels. A native of Peru would likely have the same adaptation. Are they the same race?
I live in the South so this isn’t the first time that I’ve heard this myth. It’s really amusing and sad when you think about it. African Americans do not have an extra leg muscle. Anyone who’s taken a high school biology class should know this. Years of “breeding” (gosh, I hate to use that word) could have made the race heartier than whites, but really who cares?
Can anyone explain to me why no athlete from the countries of China, India, Germany or Japan has ever won the 100m dash in recent years?
Surely amongst those 2 billion peoples there have been some atheletes who have had the same socio-enconomic or cultural circumstances of the last American winners. Some of them might even have been good enough to come train at US colleges or clubs.
Why? I dunno. Why hasn’t a raftload of West Africans proper won? Why the particular selection? To what extent do we have a reason to presume the countries have devoted relatively equal resources (per capita and relative to resources) to 100m dash?
Maybe, but did they?
The reverse question is why you shy away from grappling with actual biology (genetics) rather than vague and hard to define examples?
Does the cognitive dissonance cause that much discomfort even now?
Oh yes, AWC, your continued inability to address the data and the science is duly noted. Do you intend to parrot the same, amply refuted, old crap endlessly to appeal to those who desperately wish to ignore the science?
Sad, well my pit thread said it all.
Oh yes 'Uigi, if the Egyptian happened to be mountain climbing friend of mine from the spoiled elite, I’d surely take his advice over an otherwise uninformed Coloradan.
I play basketball virtually everday. Black people, on average, are better. Do you want to know why? Because they play more often.
A lot of the time, I am the only white person there. There are a lot of black people better than me. Not because they are black, but because they have played longer, and play more intensely. I’ve seen no correlation between race and skill, except in a superficial manner. It’s easy to assume that black people are better, because in many situations they are. But, again, it’s because they practice. The white people that play are usually just as good, if not better than any black person on the court.
I’m not sure if rumors like this are started by the black community, or by the white community(in order to explain their ‘deficiency’), but I find it disturbingly similar to the ‘blacks have larger penises’ myth.
In chess, citizens of the former Soviet Union dominate the rating lists.
Kasparov (1), Kramnik (2), Morozevich (6), Ivanchuk (7), Shirov (9), Kamsky (10), Gelfand (11) Bareev (12), Svidler (14), Karpov (15).
And now a hypothetical conversation…
Mr Commonsense “There must be a race of ‘Soviets’ because they excel at something.”
A Scientist “Well I have several objections to that statement.”
Mr Commonsense “Don’t be silly - anyone can see it with their own eyes!”
A Scientist “The Soviet Union was a vast conglomeration of countries. It runs from Europe, through Asia, to just off the coast of Alaska. What racial characteristics do these people share?”
Mr Commonsense “Stop using mumbo-jumbo! The evidence is right in front of you.”
A Scientist “Well, the Soviet Government pumped huge amounts of money into chess. Special schools were set up for talented juniors. Top players were given incomes by the State, and offered cars, houses and pensions for chess achievements.
This suggests there is a cultural reason for the success.”
Mr Commonsense “I know I’m right.”
A Scientist “Recently the Chinese have put money into chess, and their players are rapidly improving, especially at the junior level.”
Mr Commonsense “So a lot of West Africans, I mean Soviets, left Russia and emigrated to China. That just proves I’m right.”
A Scientist “But look at the genetic evidence…”
Mr Commonsense (interrupting confidently) “I can’t see these jean things with my own eyes, so they don’t count.”
(leans forward confidentially) “Is there any way we can stop these Soviets breeding with our women?”
I brought this up in another post, and people said it was bullshit. -Or rather, they didn’t say it was bullshit, they just said that those common observations don’t matter.
Another example I gave of this was to casually compare blacks’ and whites’ leg muscles, particularly the calves. Assuming both are about the same general build, whites tend to have longer thinner muscles and blacks tend to have shorter broader muscles. That may not be significant all the time, but it has to translate into a difference somewhere. You don’t need a measuring tape, if everybody is wearing shorts all you gotta do is use your eyes.
A couple more generalizations based on my own casual observations:
Blacks tend to be more tolerant of hotter temperatures, where whites are more tolerant of cold temperatures.
Blacks tend to be drawn to speed sports, where whites tend to be drawn to strength sports.
And um, glee, um, , uh, -a disproportionate number of Nobel Prize winners have come out of the eastern Europe/Russian region, particularly in hard sciences/mathematics.
To insist that there is no such thing as racial differences in physiology is sheer ignorance: skin colors is itself one such difference. One could just as well argue that all dogs are the same because they are all the same species but if a greyhound and a dachsund race, which would you put your money on? - MC
It’s not bullshit – it’s an artifact of the last 40 years. It is also not supported by any scientific data.
Neither are the rest of your “casual observations.” Studies are done. Comparisons are made. No differences have been found. Most of all, no consistent differences have been found between those who we call “black” and those that we call “white.” This of course does not include the specific traits that we use to define “black” and “white.”
Beyond these defining traits, there has been no consistent differences in physiology found that cannot be explained away by environment. I challenge you to find a scientific study that reveals one.
Just like the supposed athletic superiority of Africans, this cannot be scientifically separated from environmental/educational factors. To imply so is to invite delusion.
Dog breeds are a totally distinct phenomenon. They have been subject to invariant selective breeding in small populations for the past 5000 years. The physical attributes are due to changes in a handful of genes. With 4 or 5 generations of cross breeding between dog breeds, you can regenerate something very wolf-like. There is nothing which is similar in humanity.
Actually the observation (and variations on the theme) has been utterly dissected multiple times in prior threads (kindly linked by Tom above) for the worthless crap that it is. With full reference to original scientific literature as well as lay explanations of the same.
One thing I do ask, don’t pretend the issue has not been dealt with. You wanna believe whack ass shit contra all evidence, go right the fuck ahead. But don’t pretend you’ve not been lead to the water.
This sort of reasoning is what leads me to want to bash my own head in. Full frontal lobotomy perhaps, it will reduce my pain.
How does one go about explaining the importance of scientific method?
Of rigorous testing to weed out bias?
What’s white? Come on over to Egypt, plenty of pale people who I suppose would --if you place most Italians in the white category and I see no reason not to-- tolerate heat just fine. Better than the black Americans working here that I know who are just whores for AC.
Acclimatization.
(Of course at gross ranges there are differences between hot climate adapted body types and non, but as patiently explained many, many times to the point I often wish to vomit, this doesn’t break out by race – insofar as plenty of folks you would ordinarily call caucasians are tropical adapted in re body type.)
Primo illustration of the fallacious nature of limited casual observation.
Hmm, football (soccer). Speed or strength. Compared to basketball? Swimming, same thing.
Again the joys of limited, uninformed, logically impaired casual observation.
And therefore you conclude what??? That there is a race of Eastern Europeans with genetically determined superiority?
Good lord. This really is hopeless. You utterly missed glee’s critique.
Is it now? Sheer ignorance, eh? Now this is rich. Oh let us inquire after MC what sort of race based physiological differences we wish to define. Now do pay attention, I am a strict constructionist. I like me races well defined according to coherent biological populations based on objective measures. Yes indeedy, and I don’t very much like vague phenotypical measures with large overlaps and which include (relatively) distant groups without a unified genetic heritage (other than human of course). Call me finicky or call me rigorous.
How many times do we have to play this game? Really now, how many times? Skin color. Bzzt, doesn’t map unto race. What else? Nose shape, nope. etc. etc. etc. Been there, done that.
Ahhh, the old dog red herring. My that’s original: I believe Tom, Edwino and myself have filleted and served up this thoroughly baked red herring no less than five different times in past threads. I lack the ambition to recreate the entire explanation, so forgive me if I just refer you to the past threads where these issues where beaten to death.
Thanks! (especially since you post thoughtful stuff)
MC,
I have the terrifying feeling that you’re actually serious.
Well that should make research much quicker, now we don’t have to do those boring scientific measurements.
I guess that makes you a believer in magic, since you can see it on stage with your own eyes.
Using your magnificent logic, umbrellas and raincoats cause rain. I have seen, with my own eyes, that whenever people carry an open umbrella, it rains. (Hey, this science stuff is soooo easy!)
Yes, everyone can see the black guys doing the sprint starts required for the toboggan in the Winter Olympics, while the white guys dominate boxing.
I have noticed a correlation between bigoted people and irrational postings, though…
Super! Perhaps you could expand slightly on your first attempt at hard scientific analysis of data:
what ‘race’ inhabits the Eastern Europe/Russian region?*
what is the disproportionate number of Nobel Prize winners?
what is the difference between hard science, soft science and mathematics?
are there any other possible reasons, apart from race, for this?
*please pay particular attention in your answer to the ‘racial differences’ between East and West Germany.
Could you also let me know what you think of my previous chain of reasoning (inspired by the OP):
The ex-Soviet Union has most of the world’s best chess players
chess is a highly competitive activity, and can be counted as a sport of the mind
therefore there must be a racial difference between the Soviet Union and the rest of the world
Finally;
I’ve got blue eyes; which race do I belong to?
I’m left-handed; which race do I belong to?
I’m short-sighted; which race do I belong to?
My ancestors came from the UK; which race do I belong to?
I would have posted to this thread much earlier, but I was too busy polishing my great big Jewish antlers. “Black people have extra muscles in their legs.” Say it aloud a few times and you will realize just how ridiculous this really sounds.
A fantastic book on this topic is Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man. Granted, it actually has more to do with genetics and how they relate to intelligence…but I guarantee it will change the way you think about “race”.
