But that assumes there is a biological explanation, which there may or may not be. It is a bit silly to speculate about the cause of something that we have no convincing reason to believe exists.
We did have a past thread about this, mainly that center of gravity claim, and the reality turned out that the body build that Blacks tend to be predisposed to (in short, longer limbs) actually biases towards better swimming performance.
Presumably there are lots of black people who know how to ski, but you don’t see many of them in the Olympics, either.
Olympic swimming is dominated by a predictable set of countries, and to a large extent by people in those countries who get competitive swimming in high school and college. Perfectly reasonably cultural factors have been pointed out already. Why isn’t this a good enough explanation?
No. “I know full well” should have tipped you off that I am am assuming nothing, but rather that I am trying to limit this to the biological differences. I know many of the the social arguments, and I agree with a lot of them. In fact, I think it may be the major component, but just barely. What I want to talk about is this: People of African descent don’t win International medals in swimming. I don’t care where they are from. America, China, some European country, and South freaking Anerica will all place faster than a black guy, regardless of where he is from. You know that to be true.
There is a genetic component. It is there.
Heavier bones, higher center of gravity, denser muscle fibers, … I don’t know. Hence this thread.
I feel like I’m being had at this point.
No you are not being had. Name all the countries that send black athletes to the summer games. Then name all the black athletes that won in swimming.
Blacks have short, longer limbs? That’s as loony as the OPs claims.
And then what?
Why, and then it will be obvious that cultural and social factors cannot possibly cross national borders!
Alright, you people don’t see to understand basic logic problems. So let’s flip it.
“Why are people of European descent such bad sprinters?”
First off, let me make it clear that whites are just as smart as blacks, asians, native Americans, etc.
But mt B.S. degree was in molecular bio, so I am always wondering about humans. Genetically, race is almost meaningless. Almost, but not quite. There ARE differences, and I want to examine them a bit - specifically in regards to athletics. The easy thing would be to chalk some differences up to “culture”*, but that’s too lazy for my scientific self. Hence track.
If you look at Olympic athletes, all the medal winners in the foot races are black. Why aren’t they white?
Thoughts?
So if I show you black guys who have won gold medals in swimming does that prove something?
Then pick the first letter of the American Gold Medalist swimmer’s last name,
Think of a country that begins with that letter
Think of an animal that begins with the second letter of the country’s name.
Think of a fruit that begins with the second letter of the animal’s name.
Cullen Jones, Japan, aardvark, apple
I don’t know who you are, or why you posted this thread, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are ignorant, and not another racist.
Where is your proof that there is such a thing as ‘Blacks’, or at least some definition of what you mean?
Assuming you can answer that one coherently in some way, where is your proof that such people have an overwhelming incidence of a physical characteristic that relates to the ability to swim?
Assuming you’ve made it this far, where’s your proof that such people can’t swim as well as anybody else?
If that is not an assumption then what is it?
There may be a genetic component … or not. I do not know. But the sociocultural reasons do provide a sufficient enough explanation that a genetic component is not required to exist.
It is easier to explain the combination of genetic and sociocultural factors that play into the fact that Olympic level sprinting is dominated by those who are called “Black”. The group “Black” is a very broad umbrella of genetic diversity and includes a subgroup of West Africans that have a genetic predisposition for speed. Couple that with cultures that foster that sport, such as Jamaica, and the elite level will be dominated by that subgroup. (Three out of the top four speed records are held by Jamaicans.)
OTOH the hypothesis that the broad genetic diversity of the group “Black” does not contain any subpopulations with the genetic predisposition to speed in the water is less probable. Not impossible … could be that a founder population out of Africa was better equipped by nature for swimming quickly, and that that was passed on through the generations without significant admixture back into the “Black” population … but improbable.
Allright, you idiots. Let’s set some “givens”
All men, regardless of race, are equal. Some may be shorter. Some may be talller. Some are dark skinned. Some are pale. Most are in between. On both counts. Got that?
This is not about whatever “race” is better, it is an attempt to discuss human genetics in a rational way.
I think I’m going to give up on GD again. The forum is pathetic. This is a hard subject to talk about, granted, but if even if I broach the subject of genetic variation in humans I get the same bullshit as if I told some damn creationist that maybe, just maybe, humans and monkeys have a common ancestor.
Why is human phenotypical variation such a hard concept?
Maybe you should. You have as one of your premises that there is a genetic reason for the (relative) lack of success of swimmers with African heritage. It has been repeatedly pointed out that that premise is invalid. It is now up to you to show that your premise is valid. That’s the way it works in GD.
Here, I’ll set up the next question for you: Why is it true that there is a genetic reason for the lack of world-class swimmers of African heritage, especially considering that there have been gold medalists with African heritage and there exists an abundance of non-genetic factors that offer an adequate explanation.
Do you similarly believe that the lack of North American world-class cricketers is due to genetics?
Agreed that perhaps your giving up on GD is a good idea.
The reality is that the relationship between genetics, non-genetic biologic factors, phenotypes, and outcomes of different human sub-populations, is a very complex subject. It requires precise speech with careful definitions and a clear understanding of the difference between that which we think and that which we know. The very fuzzy means of dividing the sub-populations by certain superficial features and cultural group membership (race) automatically makes such precise speech difficult and automatically introduces many confounding factors.
If you are not willing to accept that any premise offered is subject to analysis and criticism, if you are not thick enough skinned to accept that without calling others “idiots” for not accepting your wisdom, then really, you should play elsewhere.
I am genetically incapable of understanding the damned rules of cricket. They say it’s bowling, but that doesn’t look like bowling!
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?
We are humans, damnit!
I, personally, find this board very accommodating towards ignorant people making racist biological/genetic claims. I, for one, wouldn’t be so diplomatic to say: “There may be a genetic component … or not. I do not know. But the sociocultural reasons do provide a sufficient enough explanation that a genetic component is not required to exist.”
I, and the vast majority of the scientific community, am a ‘race-skeptic’ by default (much like I’m an atheist by default). I see no reason to even humour racialists (those who make/accept such unsupported bio-genetic race claims) with the nuance shown to you by DSeid.
When you chew out these people as “creationists,” just think to people like me who would simply laugh in your face.
This.
I once met Bill Dillard, whose career was as a Big Band trumpeter but whose passion later in life was teaching swimming to young Black kids in Harlem. IIRC, Bill had discovered swimming when he became diabetic and needed to find a good form of exercise to control his sugars. Knowing both that the Black population was socialized to be afraid of water (even to the point of not using public swimming pools) and genetically AND socially vulnerable to diabetes, Bill decided swimming might be a healthy thing to teach inner-city kids, and dedicated many years to doing just that. He simply didn’t believe the nonsense about Blacks being “bad swimmers,” and went on to disprove it every way he could.