# Why are African-American athletes better than white american athletes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 27, 2001, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025 "2001-01-27T19:28:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2001, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/121 "2001-02-26T08:20:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > I have to admit that the sheer invective profanity and hatred directed at me has had an effect. Why do you carry so much hatred in your heart for someone who disagrees with you? Hatred in my heart? What are you talking about? I dislike denseness and people who trot out arguments which have already been addressed. And what do we find? We find that you fucking ignore what we’re telling you. Ergo, me being a bad human being, terribly impatient and intolerant, has to bring to your attention that you’re willfully ignoring what we’re telling you. > [@](#): > > Why do you feel it is neccessary to discredit me by attributing false statements such as comparing fucking dogs to humans, **What?** To my knowledge no one has attributed any “false” statements. We have pointed out a number of your hypotheses have rested on **implicit** false assumptions. You may not have understood that. I suppose re dogs you are misinterpreting something I said in the pit. I believe I said something including the phrase “fucking dogs” using fucking as an adjective, not a verb. I was referrring to past posters who have brought up dog breeds in a misplaced analogy to humans. No reference to yourself. > [@](#): > > or false motivation when I clearly stated that the anecdotal evidence for asian height was diet based. Height: It is not a matter of anectdotal evidence at all, it is a matter of good scientific evidence. In this latest discussion we haven’t bothered to provide every piece of information, but it is **well** established that height is highly dependant on diet (as well as, of course genetic heritage). > [@](#): > > Did you have to misrepresent me so that I would fit a stereotype of a racial bigot? Why do you continue to misunderstand? I do not recall ever calling or purposely infering bigotry. I simply noted your misconstruing what we have been telling you. If I thought you were a bigot I would say so up front. I just think you’re being dense. > [@](#): > > I have spent hours reading the Genome Research links, and I have certainly learned a lot, and if I could get in line with the prevailing opinion since you got involved regarding the athletic superiority of blacks in the NBA,football, and track, my life would certainly be a lot easier. But that is not the case. I find the Genome researchers basically can say that that gene correlation for phenotypes is inconsistant and that we can’t demark group genetically but no researcher has outright claimed that the genetic evidence presently exists that rules out a genetic basis for specific athletic traits exhibited by those who share west African ancestry… In fact, with only one genome mapped, (whereby the scientists have just discovered that the genome involves 30,000 genes instead of 100,000 genes) the debate centres on the morality of directly applying ethnicity into continuing genetic studies. Sigh: Okay primo, the HGP mapped the human genome (in large part) based on samples --not a single person. Celera used a different set of samples, same process more or less. The 30k genes are all of humanity. Gaspode and I have patiently explained, **ad fucking nauseum** that there are no alleles, i.e. varients on these 30k genes, which are private to any given population (i.e. not shared throughout the world – excepting rare mutations here and there in confined populations). Secundo: We have also patiently explained how variation occurs in human populations and explained how that renders the idea of “_common West African ancestry_” rather ludicrous and irrelevant to the question of sports domination because of hte issue of variation (which you seem unable to grasp or, more frustrating _unwilling_) Thus my annoyance. I don’t know any other way Edwino, Gaspode and I can explain this to you. You might consider that the research is fundamentally not concerned with the issue you’re obsessing about, because its moved on to more interesting questions. Just like it doesn’t address racial superiourity directly either, **noted that?** (nota bene, I’m raising this as an illustration, not accusing you. I’m drawing your attention to the fact you are expecting issues to be highlighted which just are not due to the nature of where we are at.) I’m going to leave dealing with the Chimp/Human issue to others for the moment since I want to get to the heart of the matter. > [@](#): > > At this stage, can genetics answer the question regarding the reason \*\*498 of the top 500 \*\*times recorded for the 100 meter sprint are held by athletes of primarily west African ancestry? How many fucking times do I have to ask **what the fuck is _primarily west African ancestry_** What meaning does this assertion have? Elsine asserts without the least sense of an understanding and now you’re parroting it back with the same lack of understanding. I already critiqued the empty nature of the assertion --you gleefully ignore it. That’s why I opened the pit thread, just this sort of crap. Fucking justify the assertion “primarly of West African heritage” and then tell me how this should imply a commonality in trait distribution in light of West African traits – **big fucking hint** not all of West Africa is savanna, not all (or even a majority to my knowledge) of West Africans have the lanky savanna body form --the sole thing I can think of one could reasonably attribute to (dry esp.) tropical populations which would lead to a real advantage in certain sports. (Long limbs) You are **assuming** the conclusion. Not only a logical error, its terrible science. > [@](#): > > Apparently not according to Professor Bengt Saltin of the University of Copenhagen, and the Copenhagen Muscle Research Institute. he says in Scientific American, Sept 2000 > > > [@](#): > > > > Identifying genes will not and can not expect to resolve the issue. The basis for the success of the black runner is in the genes. There is no question of that. > > So where does that leave us? As quoted I have trouble understanding the statement. > [@](#): > > However I still say that a phenotype for speed exists in a segment of the west African population in far greater frequency than in other populations. Again, why “West African” populations? I know you’re parroting our dear _sports_ journalist but perhaps you could just bring yourself to examine what we’ve told you, oh throghout the whole god damned thread, and you might grasp the objection. (a) insofar as speed in running may depend on lanky body form, long legs and all that, this is hardly a West African trait per se. West African is clearly too broad, we’ve explained this **ad nauseum**. (b) given the data already before us what leads you, other than the **a priori** conclusion it must be so, that such a phenotype expresses in a “far greater frequency” among WA descended pops? © Care to address head on the critiques or are you going to simply parrot Elsine? > [@](#): > > To suggest culture Environment. I keep saying fucking environment, you come back with culture. I think its been made clear. Stop fucking ignoring the points. > [@](#): > > as the answer is to claim west Africans, Carribean- Africans,poor African Americans and middle class African-Americans and African -Canadians, share a cultural common denominator. That statement can not stand on its own. (1) I asked once already, **where are the fucking West African runners?** – like Elsine you seem to be ignoring a major problem here… See my Elsine comments. (2) Insofar as New World “Black” populations are (a) heterogenous in descent as noted many times before (b) share a common cultural denominator in terms of at the very least percieved discrimination against them © share percieved ability to excell in sports, we have an excellent reason to depend on socio-economic explanations. I have yet to see a coherent refutation of this. What I see is responses such as “I just don’t think so” - “It can’t be” etc All based on the **sentiments** of the viewer. I want data. I have in front of me good hard data, genetic data which tells me there’s no logical reason to suppose a genetic coherence which will give New World black populations any real advantage. The most I can see may be an elevated occurance of a lanky “tropical savana” body type which I could imagine would be advantageous in running. That does not indicate to me that having WA heritage is a meaningful indicator of some advantage. Now tracking somone’s heritage to some specific area --to the extent there might be some remaining coherency-- that might give us something. Bloody hell. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2001, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/122 "2001-02-26T08:24:38Z")
Col: throw the poor guy a bone, wilya? It seems like there may be a “population” in East Africa that has a genetic advantage in running. Just so long as the guy knows that it would only be one “tribe” or population, and is in no way connected to skin color or frizzy hair. If some one showed me that all/most the “fast east african runners” were all members of the same tribe, or similarly thus slightly related, i could buy it. grein- if “blacks” are superiour in certain sports, like running, where are the Pygmy gold medal runners? There reasonably could be some genetic advantage which is possesed by a “tribe”- but in no way can it be connected to the exteriour characteristics we use to group folks into “races”. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2001, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/123 "2001-02-26T08:38:53Z")
I don’t throw bones. (Actually I did, if you read my conclusions carefully) Since the start Gaspode and others have been clear on the issue of New World black pops, and this is what he keeps arguing. There is no bone to be thrown for his current conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Gaspode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/aeb1de/32.png) [@Gaspode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaspode)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2001, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/124 "2001-02-26T08:43:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > Col: throw the poor guy a bone, wilya? It seems like there may be a “population” in East Africa that has a genetic advantage in running. And what would lead you to that conclusion? What makes it ‘seem’ like anything of the sort is true aside from an a-priori expectation that it must be so? Yes it is possible and that is a bone I have already offered him. But we have absolutely no evidence that any such population exists. It seems just as likely that there may be a ‘population’ in Norway that has a gentic advantage in running. So long as he keeps suggetsing there is some greater likelihood of, or evidence for, such a population occuring in West Africa conceding this point will only encourage him to ignore the facts. > [@](#): > > If some one showed me that all/most the “fast east african runners” were all members of the same tribe, or similarly thus slightly related, i could buy it. So could I but the evidence demonstrates nothing of the sort. It’s pure speculation and a highly improbable conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/125 "2001-02-27T03:11:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > grein- if “blacks” are superiour in certain sports, like running, where are the Pygmy gold medal runners? There reasonably could be some genetic advantage which is possesed by a “tribe”- but in no way can it be connected to the exteriour characteristics we use to group folks into “races”. \*\* You have got to be joking\*\* Daniel\*\* The writing is on the wall. You haven’t read this thread and are merely assuming Collounsbury’s strawmen and stereotype for my position. If you had followed carefully every posting I have made on this subject, I ascribed no trait among blacks that was consistent other than dark skin, broad noses and kinky hair. for the sake of argument I would even withdraw broad noses and kinky hair. Furthermore, I never stated that dark skin was exclusive to Africans. **Furthermore, I never ascribed superior athletic ability to any race or population** The first person to introduce race in this discussion was Collounsbury.To summerize for you. In short, the one thing I am adamant about is that science has not ruled out genetic factors to significantly help explain the stats. 498 of 500 of the fastest times recorded in the 100 meter sprint are held by those who can claim west African descent. No one but those with west African ancestry(include African-Americans) can claim having completed the 100 meter sprint in less than 10 seconds. **Collounsbury** claims these fantastic statistics have absolutely no genetic basis, in fact claims that genetic science has disproven any possibility that a population from Africa can produce more individuals now and then of superior speed than other populations black,white or what have you. Although these people of west African origin who exhibit superior sprint abilities come from **various** cultures, he has no choice but to look to culture to explain the awesome disparity. Now,\* on an evolutionary basis\* I can’t explain why some west Africans can jump and sprint better than the rest of us ,any more than why some Caucasians have blue eyes. I can’t explain oaeb why some Africans are really short and some are really tall. I can’t explain oaeb why east and north Africans dominate in long distance running. However studies have been done on the muscle physiology of athletes, leading to this conclusion and genetics forcast. > [@](#): > > _Scientific American ,cover story, September 2000_ > The dazzling feats of olympic athletes depend on top notch performance by their powerfully conditioned muscles. But conditioning can only go so far - recent research suggests that when it comes to the essential of fast to slow-twitch muscle fibres, some champions really are born, not made. Still, future genetic technologies could change even that. **Daniel** , I am only speculating, but what if a particular tribe as distinct as a pygmy tribe were characterized by a high ratio of fast-twitch muscle fibers throughout the population. But after several thousand years the tribal distinction disappeared just as much as the distinction of the Frisians have in Britain. However, we can be fairly certain their genetic contribution in Britain hasn’t been wiped out. Some time in the future, Americans will all be black based on present day criteria for grouping allocation and the question will be "Why do Americans dominate in the 100 meters? And the answer will be better answered culturally, since Americans spend so much more money on sports than Nigeria et al. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/126 "2001-02-27T04:08:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > If some one showed me that all/most the “fast east african runners” were all members of the same tribe, or similarly thus slightly related, i could buy it. What is this, a set up Daniel? Are you feeding me a pass? For the record, the Kalenjins near Lake Victoria in Kenya. These people are 500,000 strong, 1/12,000 of the world population. If they competed as a nation, they would hold 3 times as many distance medals as any other country in the world. Eldoret, one of the towns they live in claims within a 60 mile radius 90% of Kenya’s top athletes. I’ve been trying to verify the claim by the _hard culturalists_ that these guys run 30 miles back and forth to school each day. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/127 "2001-02-27T04:49:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaspode \* > > > [@](#): > > > > However I still say that a phenotype for speed exists in a segment of the west African population in far greater frequency than in other populations. > > And I have still demonstrated that all the evidence goes directly against the concept of genetics being responsible. That theory is statistically invalid, it is scientifically invalid and it is logically invalid as it pertains to the known facts. The only known facts in this thread that I have come across are well published statistics on athletic results and their relationship to particular populations. I have also brought to light the physiological parameters which might explain it genetically. I have searched for the facts that you and Collounsbury claim to have presented, and though you both have provided many irrelevant conclusions on a much broader issue of race, I have not seen one iota of data or one reference to openly published conclusions which contradict the possibility for a genetic basis. Why don’t you provide me with one study that we can discuss? That would be interesting. > [@](#): > > _Gaspode_ > The only piece of new information is an attempt at an argument form authority that simply doesn’t was with me. I’ll paraphrase Carl Sagan for you: “The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments …. Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no “authorities”). If you are going to atempt an argument from authority, you shouldn’t pick Carl Sagan. Isn’t he the guy who claimed that the world was subject to nuclear winter from nuclear war, and was forced to admit his calculations were wrong years later? 🙂 > [@](#): > > No need for a genetic common denominator, no need for a cultural common denominator. No place here for a common denominator because black people can’t be reduced to a common denominator. They are human and open to all the wonderful diversity of humanity. Humanity can’t be reduced to a common denominator, only vague generalisations that apply more or less to any given individual. Now this really pisses me off ! -black people can’t be reduced… -they(back people) are human… What the f… has that to do with what we are discussing.Trying to paint me as a bigot? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/128 "2001-02-27T04:57:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > Before I continue, I wish to have clarified this contradiction you posted in the Eugenics thread you linked at 4:57 Chicago time 11/11/2000 > > > [@](#): > > > > I thought it would be useful to add to Tomndebbs reply by noting that not only does sickle cell trait(s) not map onto “negroid” populations but it also maps onto Caucasian populations" You missed this question **Collounsbury** ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/129 "2001-02-27T05:07:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > Gaspode and I have patiently explained, **ad fucking nauseum** that there are no alleles, i.e. varients on these 30k genes, which are private to any given population (i.e. not shared throughout the world – excepting rare mutations here and there in confined populations). And I repeat **ad nauseum** that no one has said otherwise. By the way, the name is Eltine non Elsine. ---
**Author:** ![Gaspode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/aeb1de/32.png) [@Gaspode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaspode)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/130 "2001-02-27T08:52:00Z")
I’ll refrain from using the F-word again for DITWD’s sake, but this has become like a Peace rant with better grammar. The same slop is being spewed out again and again with no new facts and the same logic that has been torn to shreds time and again is flogged around the track for another lap. He has now resorted to posting lies and posting in bad faith as I’ll demonstrate below. I’m going to respond to Grienspace one last time and then I’m going to deal with him as I did with Peace. He can’t produce any fresh evidence or any new line of logical argument not based solely on authority. If he fails to do so in his next post in a way that that suggests his theory is any less a result of ignorance than my theory that the IPU is magically responsible for African-American sporting prowess then I’m out of here. I’m going to chalk this up as a personal ‘win’ but a loss in the war against ignorance. I just can’t see any point in wasting more time with the same slop. > [@](#): > > The only known facts in this thread that I have come across are well published statistics on athletic results and their relationship to particular populations. This statement is an out and out lie on Grienspace’s part. **Collounsbury** has linked to several prestigious genetics journals just chock full of facts. We know you have come across these because you have acknowledged them. > [@](#): > > I have also brought to light the physiological parameters which might explain it genetically. And I have brought to light the IPU which might explain it magically. Trouble is neither of us has any evidence. At least the IPU theory isn’t in direct contradiction to the genetic evidence, statistics and common sense. Put on a new record **Grienspace** this is getting boring. > [@](#): > > I have searched for the facts that you and Collounsbury claim to have presented, and though you both have provided many irrelevant conclusions on a much broader issue of race, I have not seen one iota of data or one reference to openly published conclusions which contradict the possibility for a genetic basis. And if you can find even one iota of data or one reference to openly published conclusions which contradict the possibility for a Unicorn basis then I’ll dignify this with a response. I think everyone can see how stupid this argument from ignorance is when it’s put in those terms. > [@](#): > > are going to atempt an argument from authority, you shouldn’t pick Carl Sagan. Isn’t he the guy who claimed that the world was subject to nuclear winter from nuclear war, and was forced to admit his calculations were wrong years later? I was not attempting an argument from authority. I was stating a truth and respectfully attributing it to its source. The authority only becomes relevant if you choose to argue the truth of the statement. To paraphrase another non-authority “I’ll quote snoopy the dog if that’s where I find the truth” > [@](#): > > -black people can’t be reduced… > -they(back people) are human… > What the f… has that to do with what we are discussing.Trying to paint me as a bigot? No trying to paint you as illogical. There’s a difference you know. The statement “African Americans and middle class African-Americans and African -Canadians, share a cultural common denominator.” sort of begs to have the piss taken out of it when such an assumption is not only not necessary, it’s not logical. You brought up common denominators in human populations, I expanded on it. If the use of human common denominators paints you as racist in your eyes so be it. It was your poor choice of words. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you provide me with one study that we can discuss? That would be interesting. Considering that Grienspace has acknowledged reading the links provided, I’m just going to quote Col here to demonstrate the level of bad faith inherent in that statement. > [@](#): > > The article in PNAS which claimed a fixed African-non African difference was > > Eugene E. Harris and Jody Hey “X chromosome evidence for ancient human histories” PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 6, 3320-3324, March 16, 1999 (damn I thought it was 98 for some reason, time flies) > > Online at: [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/6/3320](http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/6/3320) > > An article which nicely summarizes in a few pages current views on human descent (and takes Harris & Hey to task for bad sampling design, etc.): > > Mark Seielstad, Endashaw Bekele, Muntaser Ibrahim, Amadou Touré, and Mamadou Traoré "A View of Modern Human Origins from Y Chromosome Microsatellite Variation " Vol. 9, Issue 6, 558-567, June 1999 > Online at: > [http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/6/558](http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/6/558) > > Both can be downloaded in full as PDF files. I think this is free. > [@](#): > > Try checking out, for a general discussion: Goodman, Allan. “The Problematics of “Race” in Contemporary Biological Anthropology.” in _Biological Anthropology: The State of the Science_ 1995. Among some things other things to read are Cavalli-Sforza, L Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; & Piazza, Alberto. “Scientific Failure of the Concept of Human Races,” in \_The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press (Princeton, 1994): 19-20. > > In regards to the later, the authors explain how genetic information abundantly proves that there are no distinct “races” in the human species. The number of “races” identified by recent authors who cling to the “race” concept ranges from 3 to 60. “Race” classifications are arrived at without consistent criteria. C-S et al note that there is without question only one human species. All attempts to find smaller groupings within the human species are entirely arbitrary. Gene frequencies vary so greatly _within_ particular populations that they prove useless for distinguishing among geographically defined populations. Even the most isolated human groups carried with their founders diverse sets of genes; large regions of the world are all well known to have experienced many migrations and consequent exchanges of genes. > > C-S et al conclude “From a scientific point of view, the concept of race has failed to gain any consensus; none is likely, given the gradual variation in existence. It may be objected that the racial stereotypes have a consistency that allows even the layman to classify individuals. However, the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis. . . .” What I said, in other words… > > There are _two_ levels of variability to consider. Intra and inter-group (within and between group) variations in the genome. C-S’ considers an analysis of that part of our genome which can be measured by various markers (of allele > variation) of the 6% to 15% of our variability –not our entire genome note, of our \*variability, which is a vanishingly small 1% or so-- which varies by region or group. (If you want to see the technical discussion of how they measured allele variations, see [http://lotka.stanford.edu/distance.html](http://lotka.stanford.edu/distance.html)) The difference in the estimates depends on the markers used. Templeton, using the “classical” blood markers gets around 15%, others get around 6% using more refined methods. > > I.E. our variation by things which one might call racial is tiny! Say, at maximum 15% of approximately 1%. (Some refs: re much lower degree of mtDNA variability among modern humans see M. Ruvolo et al. [1993] Molecular Biology and Evolution 10: 1115-1135; re much less Heterozygosity of modern humans than in other primates see D. N. Janczewski et al., [1990] Journal of Heredity 81: 375-387; re Human races not having unique set of shared derived characters characterizing any human ‘race’ see P. A. Morin et al. [1994] Science 265: 1193-1201; re max mtDNA maximum for humans (1.1%) for other primates, around 3% see R. L. Cann et al. [1987] Nature 325: 31-36. Also Research by Maryellen Ruvolo, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 13/9/66. which examined mtDNA estimated mutation rate of 0.8% per million years. It estimated gorillas separated from chimps and humans cica 8-10 MYA; humans and chimps circa 6 MYA. Found a very large difference between mtDNA of Gorilla gorilla gorilla (W Africa lowland) and E. Africa species G. g. graueri and G. g. beringei indicating a split about 3 MYA and almost making them separate species. Most interesting was how little variation there was in human mtDNA. “Her findings support previous research showing that modern humans are remarkably less diverse genetically than are the great apes. 'The most different humans on the face of the earth are less different than two lowland gorillas from the same forest in West Africa.”) > > As Templeton says in connection with his paper, “Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective,” (American Anthropologist, Fall 1998) “The 15 percent is well below the threshold that is used to recognize race in other species. In many other large mammalian species, we see rates of differentiation two or three times that of humans before the lineages are even recognized as races. Humans are one of the most genetically homogenous species we know of. There’s lots of genetic variation in humanity, but it’s basically at the individual level. The between-population variation is very, very minor.” > > That’s the importance of understanding the population bottleneck which Homo sapiens sapiens (H.s.s) passed through. Through some event or events, the African population which gave birth to H.s.s got squeezed down to a tiny number of people, which squeezed out a lot of variation and made us disgustingly homogenous. Kinda like cheetahs, except we’re more behaviorally flexible. Indeed, as few as 500 persons may have formed the group of H.s.s. which wandered out of Africa and populated the rest of the world. > > Try checking out, for a general discussion which includes some comments on problems in Cavalli-Sforza’s approaches: Goodman, Allan. “The Problematics of “Race” in Contemporary Biological Anthropology.” in _Biological Anthropology: The State of the Science_ 1995. Among some things other things to read are Cavalli-Sforza, L Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; & Piazza, Alberto. “Scientific Failure of the Concept of Human Races,” in \_The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press (Princeton, 1994): 19-20. > > In regards to the later, the authors explain how genetic information abundantly proves that there are no distinct “races” in the human species. The number of “races” identified by recent authors who cling to the “race” concept ranges from 3 to 60. “Race” classifications are arrived at without consistent criteria. C-S et al note that there is without question only one human species. All attempts to find smaller groupings within the human species are entirely arbitrary. Gene frequencies vary so greatly _within_ particular populations that they prove useless for distinguishing among geographically defined populations. Even the most isolated human groups carried with their founders diverse sets of genes; large regions of the world are all well known to have experienced many migrations and consequent exchanges of genes. C-S et al conclude “From a scientific point of view, the concept of race has failed to gain any consensus; none is likely, given the gradual variation in existence. It may be objected that the racial stereotypes have a consistency that allows even the layman to classify individuals. However, the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis. . . .” In other words, alchemical superstitious thinking with no place in a science. Contrary to what many think, race is rejected not because of “political correctness” but because it is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad science. Hell, given the reactions I have seen over the years, on both Left and Right, the politically correct thing is to cling to race no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/131 "2001-02-27T11:30:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > > If some one showed me that all/most the “fast east african runners” were all members of the same tribe, or similarly thus slightly related, i could buy it. > > What is this, a set up Daniel? Are you feeding me a pass? > > For the record, the Kalenjins near Lake Victoria in Kenya. These people are 500,000 strong, 1/12,000 of the world population. If they competed as a nation, they would hold 3 times as many distance medals as any other country in the world. Eldoret, one of the towns they live in claims within a 60 mile radius 90% of Kenya’s top athletes. > > I’ve been trying to verify the claim by the _hard culturalists_ that these guys run 30 miles back and forth to school each day. 🙂 \*\* OK, this group _could_ be small enough & discrete enuf to be a “population”- HOWEVER, before we start assuming it is genetic, let’s look at 'cultural" first. It so often is. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/132 "2001-02-27T11:56:07Z")
I lost another long-ass reply due to the crappy connection. Okay, patience. Another try. First, Greiny, before accusing others of distorting your argument, please don’t distort yourself. It wears on my patience, little of it that there is. Second, Gaspode and I have directed our responses not to sports --Tom has already pointed out how such “data” is undata in and of itself in re group performance per problems of selection bias which are well documented. It may seem to you to be a distortion, however we are addressing the **underlying** genetic assumptions which **must** go along with your line of argumentation. So far you have not addressed these problems, preferring to restate the same old same old and accuse your interlocutors of distortion. Your argument, as I believe we understand it, is that (a) there is a dominance of “West African” descended sports figures (b) this must be generically explained \*\* at the group level\*\*. Not the following, it is utterly incorrect to describe either Gaspode or I as "hard culturalists\*\* — please do at least keep your insults accurate. I am a jerk, true and you should feel free to so note, even here, I give you permission, but hard culturalist? Fraid not. I have **clearly** indicated my position in re the dynamic nature of genetic heritage and clearly indicated I believe it to be important. What I am not is a **crude and simplistic** generalizer based on genetics. My replies have addressed both your assumptions, head on. (a) regarding West African heritage (i) that West African heritage is a meaningful category (1) see Edwino’s comments on traits (ii) that New World black populations could meaningfully be described as “predominantly” of “West African” heritage by either source heritage or recent historical population mixing (iii) that the same dominance by supposed WA heritage where I am utterly unaware of actual WA in int’l sports. North Africans, yes, East Africans, yes. WA? (b) and we have questioned your a priori assumption of genetic (_on the level of the group as defined, not on individual bases_) basis for the supposed dominance. I’ll try to expand on this once more. As far as I can see, you have failed to address these points. Rather, your replies have simply restated your initial hypothesis — which we already refuted on the basis of what is known about trait distributions in populations(_), although as Gaspode noted such refutations are never absolute, however it runs against all known patterns in the evidence. And of course accused us of distorting, which as I said, is not the case in my view. Rather, in repeatedly drawing your attention to the issue of trait distribution and the problem with the ad hoc category you are employing, we have attempted to get to the heart of the issue. In order for there to be a group advantage in X we need to have some coherence by group in the distribution of traits relevant to X. (_: thus the continued relevance of the initial citations) I recognize the difference between the gross generalization “all blacks” and the finer generalization which you are working with, which appears to be that some % of blacks express some traits which give an overriding advantage in sports, or a range of sports. I have no doubt some do, our issue with the observation is the a priori conclusion that this must mean that that % is a priori a significant larger % than in (all) other populations. All genetic evidence runs against such a conclusion, and in my mind points to the conclusion that simply the x% of superior NWB population with superior phenotype is channeled more effectively into sports endeavors vis-a-vis the x% from other populations. (I also do not view it as supportable to conclude NWB are a coherent genetic entity) I once more draw your attention to Edwino’s recent exposition on trait distribution in populations and once more indicate that given what is known now about trait distribution, populations etc., the argument fails. I believe Gaspode and Edwino have adequately explained the basis for this conclusion on our parts previously, so I’m not going to go into it again. In re my comment, I believe in the prior sports thread, regarding the Kenyans running x kilometers, I was relying on my recollection of reading articles about the Kenyan stars and their description of their childhood: having to run x kilometers to school bec there was no transport (or none which they could afford). While my memory may be fault, I do not think so. Of course, one should note that in the case of the Kenyan runners, here is an instance where I readily admitted the possibility of a coherent genetic explanation. True, I view the issue in terms of relative advantage and certainly something to be actualized through environment, but the relevant population might be repository of a real genetic advantage in running. But do note, \*\* might \*\*. Until there is real data, there is no reason to conclude one way or the other. Their current, and possibly emphemeral dominance may be simply transitory luck or in fact based on environmental factors such as elevation and life-style. (Turn em into TV watchers, see what happens.) I prefer caution before leaping on simplistic genetic explanations having a lively understanding of the degree to which environment in total can effect expression. Last notes: Elstine, Pelsine, no matter what the name, the man is still a fucking idiot who got basic facts wrong. And this is your source? In re the question I am supposed not to have addressed, could you refresh my memory as to where it is found? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/133 "2001-02-27T18:04:14Z")
> [@](#): > > A What we have said time and again is that any theory that suggests a genetic cause flies in the face of logic and evidence. This being the case, the only logical conclusion is that it is caused by environmental pressures experienced by black and white basketballers. It is this hard nosed conclusion that I have been opposed to from the very beginning that subsequent quotation _C_ appears to have softened. > [@](#): > > \*BOriginally posted by Collounsbury \* > I recognize the difference between the gross generalization “all blacks” and the finer generalization which you are working with, which appears to be that some % of blacks express some traits which give an overriding advantage in sports, or a range of sports. I have no doubt some do, our issue with the observation is the a priori conclusion that this must mean that that % is a priori a significant larger % than in (all) other populations. Not must, could. If you **might** accept that the Kalenjins have a real genetic advantage in running(long distance),then you should be able to accept the possibility that some Kenyans have real genetic advantage. Then you could also expand to east Africans, north-east Africans, and Africans,by virtue of Kalenjin representation in all the arbitrary populations until the distinction becomes irrelevant.Fortunately, for the sake of my argument the Kalenjin population has maintained a discreet identity. But what if they didn’t. History has shown many tribes swallowed up into oblivion, although their descendants are still around. It is possible, I repeat possible, that the athletic prowess of many black NBA athletes , after all, there isn’t too many of them, could relate to a long forgotten tribe that is lost in west Africa. > [@](#): > > _C Collounsbury_ Of course, one should note that in the case of the Kenyan runners, here is an instance where I readily admitted the possibility of a coherent genetic explanation. True, I view the issue in terms of relative advantage and certainly something to be actualized through environment, but the relevant population might be repository of a real genetic advantage in running. This statement I support 100% > [@](#): > > _DCollounsbury continuing previous quote_ > But do note, \*\* might \*\*. Until there is real data, there is no reason to conclude one way or the other. Their current, and possibly emphemeral dominance may be simply transitory luck or in fact based on environmental factors such as elevation and life-style. (Turn em into TV watchers, see what happens.) I prefer caution before leaping on simplistic genetic explanations having a lively understanding of the degree to which environment in total can effect expression. And I prefer caution as well before telling anyone that my way is the right way pro or con, and that someone else is full of shit. In short, as you said, “Until there is real data, there is no way to conclude one way or the other.” ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/134 "2001-02-27T23:18:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by grienspace \* > Not must, could. If you **might** accept that the Kalenjins have a real genetic advantage in running(long distance),then you should be able to accept the possibility that some Kenyans have real genetic advantage. Then you could also expand to east Africans, north-east Africans, and Africans,by virtue of Kalenjin representation in all the arbitrary populations until the distinction becomes irrelevant.Fortunately, for the sake of my argument the Kalenjin population has maintained a discreet identity. But what if they didn’t. History has shown many tribes swallowed up into oblivion, although their descendants are still around. It is possible, I repeat possible, that the athletic prowess of many black NBA athletes , after all, there isn’t too many of them, could relate to a long forgotten tribe that is lost in west Africa. > > \*\* Now, see, this is where you go off into “psuedo-science-land”. Once that “gene” (and it would not be just one, it would be a particular combination of many) left its discrete population, there is as much chance of it showing up in White folks (many white americans have some negro ancestors) . "African americans’ are not descended from just one tribe, or even one area of tribes. Many have “inter-bred” also. They are no longer a “population”. Some are not even of African descent. Yes, there certainly IS a genetic advantage held by many athletes, but that genetic advantage no longer has any connection to their RACE, if it ever did. Look, we KNOW that cultural differences are stronger than genetic ones, thus the assumption should be made that those tribes-folk from that one tribe are running fast because of that culture, not genetics. However, if “culture’ was eliminated, at the small population of a 'tribe”- there possibly COULD be a genetic advantage. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/135 "2001-02-28T00:14:30Z")
Thank you very much Daniel. I’m sure we should be able to find blue eyes in the entire world in the same proportion that we find them in Denmark,Britain, and America. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/136 "2001-02-28T00:27:30Z")
Col, move over, you need another shoulder to that rock. Note in the "persecuted christains thread, your namework was mentioned at the end ---
**Author:** ![Gaspode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/aeb1de/32.png) [@Gaspode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaspode)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/137 "2001-02-28T00:37:44Z")
Scans the latest posts. Nope, not a trace of new evidence or logic there. Hell let’s be honest. Not a trace of any evidence or logic there. I’m sorry folks but I’m out of here. That ‘blue eyes’ shit really is the final straw. It has been adressed so many times on this thread alone that I can’t beleive he has the gall to bring it up again. Greinsapce you are being wilfully ignorant, stupid, obtuse, dense, offensive and obfuscatory all in the one thread. I really think that you should be added to the list of Hydras/Pod People. If there are any serious posters out there who want to continue this then I’ll be happy to respond. BTW, Collounsbury, you do know that if you compose a reply on a word processor you can save it then paste it into the reply frame. This way even if the connection crashes you won’t lose your work? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/138 "2001-02-28T03:58:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaspode \* > \*\*Scans the latest posts. > Nope, not a trace of new evidence or logic there. > Hell let’s be honest. Not a trace of any evidence or logic there. > I’m sorry folks but I’m out of here. … I really think that you should be added to the list of Hydras/Pod People. Likewise Gaspod , only I don’t feel the need to stereotype you. As long as you or anyone else continues to attack my integrity, intelligence, motivation or apply strawmen to my positions or ideas, I will respond. At this point I unilaterally declare a ceasefire. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/139 "2001-02-28T07:27:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaspode \* > I’m sorry folks but I’m out of here. That ‘blue eyes’ shit really is the final straw. It has been adressed so many times on this thread alone that I can’t beleive he has the gall to bring it up again. Greinsapce you are being wilfully ignorant, stupid, obtuse, dense, offensive and obfuscatory all in the one thread. I really think that you should be added to the list of Hydras/Pod People. > If there are any serious posters out there who want to continue this then I’ll be happy to respond. I agree. > [@](#): > > BTW, Collounsbury, you do know that if you compose a reply on a word processor you can save it then paste it into the reply frame. This way even if the connection crashes you won’t lose your work? Yeah, I know but I get all worked up and start typing in the reply window… Greinspice: Spare us the persecution line. You continue to utterly fail to address the points. I **have not** changed my position **one iota** – in re your fantastical misreading --there is a vast difference between allowing for a degree of coherence at the level of the Kenyan group and extrapolating onto ever larger populations. **We have addressed this very issue.** I frankly don’t have the stomach to take apart the problems with your **spectacular** misreading and **misunderstanding** of the materials right now. Perhaps in a day or two. Suffice it to say you can’t willy nilly make the chain of assumptions you’re making. If you could, we would in fact have races (in terms of finding coherent genetic bases) goddamnit! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025/140 "2001-02-28T15:37:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > –there is a vast difference between allowing for a degree of coherence at the level of the Kenyan group and extrapolating onto ever larger populations. There is no extrapolation on my part and no suggestion for coherence towards a larger population. just a matter of recognition of frequency of a given trait in an arbitrary population defined geographically in an historical context. Blue eyes are cetainly not coherent to caucasians or exclusive to caucasians. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-african-american-athletes-better-than-white-american-athletes/52025.md?page=8)