Why are people of African descent such bad swimmers? (Not as racist as you might think)

[Mozart1220]

@Telemark

@A Monkey With a Gun

Does anybody deny that people from African descent have heavier and denser bones? Does anybody deny that people from West Africa have a higher percentage of “fast twitch” red muscles? Does anybody realize that we are ALL animals, and should be looked at as such?

Can you provide the studies that show these things? I’m sure there are genetic differences in population, no one doubts that. But my guess is that those studies don’t say what you think they say, at least not to the degree you think they do.

As already shown in this thread there are black world champions in swimming, so one of your basic premises has been shown to be invalid.

Jimmy The Greek Snyder was fired from CBS sports for telling the truth. He said Blacks are better atheletes because slave owners bred them to be bigger and stronger for work in the fields. African Blacks seem much skinnier, and not because of malnutruition.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@The_Second_Stone

I would think that better fast twitch muscles would more than make up for their higher density. Swimmer need to have their head above water only long enough to breathe, more being underwater would seem to mean that less energy is wasted moving through the air. I’d be guessing that black athletes make big bucks in popular league sports and aren’t interested in water. That and I’m reminded that they are descended from people in Africa, where you definitely do not want to go swimming because of the crocodiles. It seems to me Africa would be the most dangerous place in the world to go swimming with the possible exception of Australia.

Try the Chesapeake Bay.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@TriPolar

@Damuri_Ajashi

Of course its a continuum but its not a SMOOTH continuum. Its very clumpy. It gets clumped up into what we call races (or ethnicities if you prefer that term).

The Han Chinese are very distinct and have very distinct genetic markers compared to Scandinavians or Sub-Saharan West Africans. When you get to the middle east, you might get a melting pot of all three but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t meaningful differences between them. I share your skepticism of why SOME people focus on racial genetics but to pretend that race doesn’t exist seems like an attempt to ignore the issue.

So how many ‘races’ are there according to your definition?

I don’t know if I can name them all but I can name a few.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@TriPolar

@The_Flying_Dutchman

No. I see race as an inconsistently defined construction .

That is meaningless. A thing which exists is consistently defined. That doesn’t mean definitions never change as they become more precise, or even less so. But it does mean that it is not redefined to justify different arguments.

Do you believe in jerks and trolls. I’ve never heard of a consistent definition for them. Perhaps they don’t exist ?

If you have a consistent definition of race, say what it is. Then explain how it applies to this thread.

But I just told you that I don’t have a consistent definition of race. Are you okay?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@tomndebb

@Damuri_Ajashi

I share your skepticism of why SOME people focus on racial genetics but to pretend that race doesn’t exist seems like an attempt to ignore the issue.

The claim that “race doesn’t exist” has to be put in context.

There are clearly populations of humans, i.e., groups of humans with sufficiently related DNA that they share various characterisitics that are genetically determined. Linnaeus thought that there were four such groups in the late eighteenth century. Blumenbach, (based on either more information reaching Europe than Linnaeus had available or based on some other criteria), determined that there were five races. In some way or another, you have decided that there are only three. Who did you lump together that Linnaeus and Blumnebach separated?

For a very long time, scientists acted in the belief that there really were some number of “races.” However, some of those very same scientists, Cavalli-Sforza prominent among them, who were attempting to define the races to a scientific certitude discovered that as they gathered more information, they had to keep splitting off different groups from among the four or five or three (or sixty) “races” that had already been identified. They also began to note that various traits attributed to one race or another were rarely consistent throughout the entire population or that those traits appeared in other populations, making them a less useful marker to identify a “race.” Beyond that, as they began to identify the various strains of DNA that were shared–or not shared–among various populations of humans tended to show up in “races” where they did not “belong.” From that, they drew the conclusion that the concept of “race,” meaning a very large population of humans with close biological ties, was a flawed concept that bore no useful purpose in science.

People who claim that “race does not exist” are using a shorthand expression that denies that you can tell the difference between someone from Beijing, Oslo, and Kinshasa-Brazzavile when you clearly can separate people from those extreme locations.
People who claim that race is “real” want to pretend that they can look at a person’s appearance and deduce something about the person’s biology or brain. They choose to ignore the facts that appearances deceive in many ways, that the huge numbers of various groups lumped into the small numbers of “races” frequently have less in common with people of the same “race” than they do with some other different-appearing group. For example, Ibo people from Nigeria and Greek people are both susceptible to sickle-cell disease while Zulu people from South Africa are not, yet the racialists will insist that sickle-cell is a “black” disease.

While the people saying “there is no such thing as race” create their own problems by not defining the terms well enough to be clear, they, at least, have more facts on their side than do the people who simply look at skin color and eye shape and make broad generalizations about disparate groups that are not related.

I hear what you are saying but it still sounds like you are saying that race doesn’t exist to try and ignore the arguments of the racists.

I have a lot of doctors in my family (it must be my race), several of them are public health types and they all seem to agree that race is a useful medical identifier. You can’t look at a person’s skin color and say, “they have diabetes” but you can look at a population with a certain skin color and say “there is where we will have the biggest problems with diabetes”

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@TriPolar

@tomndebb

While the people saying “there is no such thing as race” create their own problems by not defining the terms well enough to be clear, they, at least, have more facts on their side than do the people who simply look at skin color and eye shape and make broad generalizations about disparate groups that are not related.

Sorry, but ‘there is no such thing as race’, at least in my case, is based on the failure of the proponents of ‘race’ to provide a consistent and meaningful definition of ‘race’. It is the proponents who are required to provide the definition of the thing they claim exists.

So according to you, can we have such a thing as race based affirmative action?

How is race based discrimination possible? How do the racists know who to discriminate against?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Doxy

Here’s a good break-down of this entire argument by a credible source.
Dr. George W. Gill is a professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming. He also serves as the forensic anthropologist for Wyoming law-enforcement agencies and the Wyoming State Crime Laboratory.:

NOVA Online | Mystery of the First Americans | A proponent's perspective

“… I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.”

“The “reality of race” therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether “real” or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is “only skin deep” is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.”

" Although recognizing that embracing the race concept can have risks attached, we were (and are) more fearful of the form of racism likely to emerge if race is denied and dialogue about it lessened. We fear that the social taboo about the subject of race has served to suppress open discussion about a very important subject in need of dispassionate debate. One of my teammates, an affirmative-action lawyer, is afraid that a denial that races exist also serves to encourage a denial that racism exists. He asks, “How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?”

“Furthermore, the politically correct “race denial” perspective in society as a whole suppresses dialogue, allowing ignorance to replace knowledge and suspicion to replace familiarity. This encourages ethnocentrism and racism more than it discourages it.”

Shit!!! WTF are the odds of that? Citing to the same web page within ten minutes of each other three days and four pages into a thread?

[Doxy]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@Doxy

Here’s a good break-down of this entire argument by a credible source.
Dr. George W. Gill is a professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming. He also serves as the forensic anthropologist for Wyoming law-enforcement agencies and the Wyoming State Crime Laboratory.:

NOVA Online | Mystery of the First Americans | A proponent's perspective

“… I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.”

“The “reality of race” therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether “real” or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is “only skin deep” is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.”

" Although recognizing that embracing the race concept can have risks attached, we were (and are) more fearful of the form of racism likely to emerge if race is denied and dialogue about it lessened. We fear that the social taboo about the subject of race has served to suppress open discussion about a very important subject in need of dispassionate debate. One of my teammates, an affirmative-action lawyer, is afraid that a denial that races exist also serves to encourage a denial that racism exists. He asks, “How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?”

“Furthermore, the politically correct “race denial” perspective in society as a whole suppresses dialogue, allowing ignorance to replace knowledge and suspicion to replace familiarity. This encourages ethnocentrism and racism more than it discourages it.”

Shit!!! WTF are the odds of that? Citing to the same web page within ten minutes of each other three days and four pages into a thread?

Well… I only joined the forum last night…
I’m trying to make up for lost time! LOL

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Mozart1220

@Telemark

Can you provide the studies that show these things? I’m sure there are genetic differences in population, no one doubts that. But my guess is that those studies don’t say what you think they say, at least not to the degree you think they do.

As already shown in this thread there are black world champions in swimming, so one of your basic premises has been shown to be invalid.

Jimmy The Greek Snyder was fired from CBS sports for telling the truth. He said Blacks are better atheletes because slave owners bred them to be bigger and stronger for work in the fields. African Blacks seem much skinnier, and not because of malnutruition.

I remember a thread about this and there were some serious flaws with Jimmy the Greek’s rationale. The main example I remember was that running speed was important in almost every sport in which blacks dominated. Why would the slave owners breed for fast runners. Besides (no offense to anyone) how strong do you really have to be to pick cotton?

[Doxy]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@Mozart1220

Jimmy The Greek Snyder was fired from CBS sports for telling the truth. He said Blacks are better atheletes because slave owners bred them to be bigger and stronger for work in the fields. African Blacks seem much skinnier, and not because of malnutruition.

I remember a thread about this and there were some serious flaws with Jimmy the Greek’s rationale. The main example I remember was that running speed was important in almost every sport in which blacks dominated. Why would the slave owners breed for fast runners. Besides (no offense to anyone) how strong do you really have to be to pick cotton?

Pretty damn strong actually! LOL
At least, you need strong knees, a strong back, good upper body strength and strong legs.

[DSeid]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I have a lot of doctors in my family (it must be my race), several of them are public health types and they all seem to agree that race is a useful medical identifier. You can’t look at a person’s skin color and say, “they have diabetes” but you can look at a population with a certain skin color and say “there is where we will have the biggest problems with diabetes”

Yes. Race and ethnic identity can be useful identifiers for medical risk. To use your diabetes example, we know that the risk is highest for Hispanic females (lifetime risk of 52.5%) and lowest for White males (lifetime risk of 26.7%) with Blacks closer to the Hispanic numbers than to Whites. Higher yet in native American populations and South Asians have nearly 5x more diabetes than do European populations. And it is often an open question as to how much (from all to none for each) of that increased risk explained by genetic markers, or due to cultural factors, to access to care factors, to non-genetic biologic factors, or interplay between multiple combinations.

It would be much “better” to subdivide the population according to the at risk behaviors, exposures, and specific genetic markers of greater risk (that may or may not best correlate with “race” or ethnicity). Unfortunately we neither know all of them nor have access to information about the ones we do know with any consistency. So we use “race” and ethnicity just like we look for keys under the lamp post - because that’s where the light’s good.

[tomndebb]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I hear what you are saying but it still sounds like you are saying that race doesn’t exist to try and ignore the arguments of the racists.

I have a lot of doctors in my family (it must be my race), several of them are public health types and they all seem to agree that race is a useful medical identifier. You can’t look at a person’s skin color and say, “they have diabetes” but you can look at a population with a certain skin color and say “there is where we will have the biggest problems with diabetes”

However, the doctors in your family are using the word “race” to identify a particular population that is only a subset of what would generally be considered a race. It comprises people who have a certain percentage of ancestry from a specific set of West African locations–and pretty much no Eastern or Southern African locations–with an admixture of European and Pre-Columbian North Americans thrown in. They tend to live in specific locales with cultural factors that determine both the types and quantities of food they eat as well as the amount of exercise they get and even the amount and types of stress under which they live. This culturally, (not biologically), defined group of people have enough internal coherence as a group to permit predictions about their health.

Do your family’s doctors use similar assumptions about “whites” or do they make separate assumptions about “Northern Europeans” and and “Eastern Europeans” and “Mediterraneans”? If the latter is true, then they are not really using “race” but perceived ethnicity. If diabetes is prevalent among all people identified as “black” in all locales of the world, you have a case for talking about “race.” If the specific group that is most susceptible to diabetes is the North American black community, (or, particularly, the North American urban black community), then it is merely using words in a sloppy fashion.
Much has been made of the introduction of BiDil to save the lives of black patients, (and, contrary to the claims of people who constantly whine that “Political Correctness” is harming science, no one ever put a serious block to testing BiDil for blacks). I am in favor of using whatever medicines we can to help people, but BiDil may not actually be doing what is claimed for it. The first test that showed that BiDil worked better for black men with heart problems than for white men with heart problems was re-examined after the result were announced. The result of the re-examination was that BiDil appeared to work better for older men with serious weight problems and secondary health issues. Coincidentally, in the first test showing the better results for blacks than for whites, the majority of blacks tested happened to be older, overweight men with seconday health issues while the majority of the white men tested were younger and in better overall health, aside from the heart conditions. So we appear to have gone out and set up a “race” based medicine that should actually have been established for older, overweight men in poor health, regardless of the perceived “race.”

[tomndebb]

@Mozart1220

Jimmy The Greek Snyder was fired from CBS sports for telling the truth. He said Blacks are better atheletes because slave owners bred them to be bigger and stronger for work in the fields.

I’m not sure that Jimmy the Greek’s firing was justified, (except as a PR issue), but he was utterly wrong and you are displaying massive ignorance.

There is no record of slaves in North America being “bred” for any purposes, at all. (And plantation owners were quite aware of the requirements for breeding dogs and horses, so if breeding had been done, there would be records.)
Beyond that, there simply was not time for any breeding program to have had any demonstrative results on the entire black population of North America. Slaves were still being imported (legally) as late as 1807 and there were too many slaves and too few years to have actually engaged in such a practice and have it be productive.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@tomndebb

This culturally, (not biologically), defined group of people have enough internal coherence as a group to permit predictions about their health.

First, though this group is defined in part by residence in America , they are still primarily defined by the colour of their skin and that is simply biological.

And yes, cultural factors will explain the prevalence of disease such as diabetes amongst blacks in America, but sickle cell is purely genetically induced.

[Don123]

@tomndebb

@Mozart1220

Jimmy The Greek Snyder was fired from CBS sports for telling the truth. He said Blacks are better atheletes because slave owners bred them to be bigger and stronger for work in the fields.

I’m not sure that Jimmy the Greek’s firing was justified, (except as a PR issue), but he was utterly wrong and you are displaying massive ignorance.

There is no record of slaves in North America being “bred” for any purposes, at all. (And plantation owners were quite aware of the requirements for breeding dogs and horses, so if breeding had been done, there would be records.)
Beyond that, there simply was not time for any breeding program to have had any demonstrative results on the entire black population of North America. Slaves were still being imported (legally) as late as 1807 and there were too many slaves and too few years to have actually engaged in such a practice and have it be productive.

I love these boards where only the moderators get to call others massively ignorant—ha ha—or you are banned.

Uduah Mod, you are trying to solve the “nature v. nurture” argument and that shows how massively ignorant you are. Only in the far extremes can the nature v. nurture argument be solved. In other words pigs do not build space ships they simply do not have the genetic brains for it, and it makes no matter how you try to educate them in piggy schools.
“There is no record of slaves in North America being “bred” for any purposes, at all.”
The blacks were bred for being slave labor and that is a purpose, say it isn’t so, Joe.
“…there simply was not time for any breeding program”

If you knew anything about Darwin, even the slightest, you would know “survival of the fittest” only takes one generation of massive deaths and the physical attributes of a population can be enhanced (or diminished) centered around the existing genetic make up.

Blacks in the USA during the slave years were bred as any one would do with dogs and pigs. Being mentally stupid and physically strong were ideal features that white slave owners wanted out of their black slaves for hard labor. Those blacks that did not make the grade were killed or not allowed to reproduce —oh well live with it. The selection process started in Africa and was continued in the USA. The selection process is still in progress even for whites. You don’t like it then go argue with Darwin and show off your ignorance.

Is it genetics that blacks (in general) have not won more metals in swimming contest? NO one knows, and no one will ever know in this generation. You are beating a dead horse trying to answer that question. By taking selective blacks from the general black population worldwide and with massive training from birth to adult hood, blacks more than likely could start winning medals in swimming. Of course we could force affirmative action and with a handicap blacks could do very well at winning metals. Swimming is a man-made, man created, game so man gets to change the rules—uduah— no brains required here.
A better question for another thread would be, should man take control of its genetics for better (or more desirable) attributes, or just let humans breed at random and hope for the best as any animal of the forest.

Don

[TriPolar]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You talk like it is well accepted fact that there is no such thing as race…

I fat-fingered a long reply to your post into oblivion. I’ll try to pick it up later with you.

A few of quick points:

I didn’t criticize the OPs cite. Just his interpretation.

I understand that there are populations and geneticly shared traits. I don’t have a problem with that. You would be surprised at what I consider to be geneticly based characteristics of people. I just rarely get that far into these debates because people get hung up on ‘race’.

I understand that there is a concept of ‘race’. There is also a concept of the ‘tooth fairy’.

I don’t want to win a debate with Chief Pedant.

I don’t know why tomndebb won’t address me directly outside of modding. I don’t have a problem with him, moderating or not.

[Chen019]

@A Monkey With a Gun

If you look at American sports, there are more pro athletes that are African American than there are European American. I believe this is mostly due to the fact that people from West Africa (and really most of Africa) statistically have larger bones and more “fast twitch” muscle fibers. Both of those are heavy. This makes me think that the bones and the muscles are a liability in swimming - which is why you see black guys breaking records in the 100 meter dash and white guys breaking records in swimming. ?

Jon Entine has noted that blacks have greater bone density and heavier skeletons. Also, torso shapes are different.

In the pool, meanwhile, Europeans have the advantage because they have longer torsos, making their belly-buttons lower in the general scheme of body architecture.

“Swimming is the art of surfing the wave created by the swimmer,” says Bejan.

“The swimmer who makes the bigger wave is the faster swimmer, and a longer torso makes a bigger wave. Europeans have a 3% longer torso than West Africans, which gives them a 1.5% speed advantage in the pool,” he says.

Asians have the same long torsos as Europeans, giving them the same potential to be record-breakers in the pool.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/07/13/2951957.htm

[MrDibble]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Of course its a continuum but its not a SMOOTH continuum. Its very clumpy. It gets clumped up into what we call races (or ethnicities if you prefer that term).

It really, really isn’t. Some phenotype expressions are clumpy (skin colour, hair straightness, epicanthic folds), others just aren’t. But people have long ago abandoned using such obvious yet arbitrary markers as being in any way meaningful indicators of anything.

The Han Chinese are very distinct and have very distinct genetic markers compared to Scandinavians or Sub-Saharan West Africans.

Such as? And what about Ugyurs, or Bengali, or Sicilians, or West Siberians? That’s what I mean by a continuum. You’re pointing to 3 very distant points on the continuum, and ignoring the gradations in between. It’s not all yellow folded eyes until the ME, a little brown, then hey, blonde and blue eyes. Not at all. Any casually obvious phenotype expression you can name has gradations. Go on, name any one “Han Chinese” characteristic, and it will grade westward. And crop up in other, diverse populations too (like epicanthic folds in the Khoe-khoen). The phenotypes that aren’t as obvious are the ones where you might get clustering, but that’s ethnicity, not race. Or do those Lemba I linked to share any “racial” features with these guys? Because the DNA says they are ethnically related.

When you get to the middle east, you might get a melting pot of all three but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t meaningful differences between them.

The Middle East is not a “melting pot” of three distinct racial types. That’s some Victorian-level thinking right there. There’s this “Just So” story people used to tell, how people in the Middle East are brown because that’s what you get when you mix the 3 “Races”. That’s bull. They’re brown because that’s the favourable phenotypic expression for melanin levels in their historic environment.

I share your skepticism of why SOME people focus on racial genetics but to pretend that race doesn’t exist seems like an attempt to ignore the issue.

Like Pedanthas pointed out in the past, it all comes down to an aesthetic choice of being a lumper or a splitter. Maybe it’s my (very!) mixed ethnic heritage that makes me think this way, but I’m an übersplitter. I really, really, really don’t see the point, when actual genetic studies, cultural considerations and ethnography yield much better real-world results in studying human beings. IMO, the only non-racist reason for using any racial classification system, for any reason, is laziness (OK, tied into that is cheapness as well). See, lumping is easy. Superficial always is. That’s why it appeals to the bureaucrats and the plutocrats. But it leads to bullshit like pencil tests and the like. If you have to deal with people as groups, much better to deal with people based on cultural/ethnic groupings. Yes, there’s *some *overlap there with older “races”, but it’s nowhere *near *as coarse a sieve, or as pseudo-scientific as any race system I’ve ever encountered.

[MrDibble]

@Rand_Rover

Just because someone makes a list of characteristics and looks at people to determine whether they have those characteristics doesn’t mean they are doing anything bad.

They are doing something bad. It’s dehumanizing people by treating them as objects. Grouping people is both badin-and-of-itself, and leads to all sorts of worse shit, historically.

[MrDibble]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

First, though this group is defined in part by residence in America , they are still primarily defined by the colour of their skin and that is simply biological.

They’re primarily defined that way because racists are lazy. But put, say, Halle Berry up against Deepak Chopra. Suddenly it’s not that simple.

And yes, cultural factors will explain the prevalence of disease such as diabetes amongst blacks in America, but sickle cell is purely genetically induced.

…and not simply linked to race.