I’ve been watching the Olympics and the racial makeup of the runners has been striking.
In the marathon, there was a pretty even mix of races. Asian, white, black etc.
But in both the men’s and women’s finals of the 100 meters, every single one of the runners in the 100 meter finals were black. They came from the U.S., the Caribean, Europe and Africa, but all of them were black.
This this a coincidence? Is it cultural (for example running seems to be a huge passion in Jamaica)? Are there physical differences?
There may be physical differences, but there is certainly a cultural element to it; sprinting is a big sport in the countries you saw represented.
If you think about it, it becomes quickly apparent that even within the world’s population of black people, the distribution of sprinters is not random. Jamaica comprises less than one percent of the world’s black people but a ridiculously disproportionate percentage of its championship sprinters. Jamaicans won what, 5 out of 6 medals in the 100m this year? And they’ve won many more in the past, and at least a few sprinters who won medals for other countries had started their sprinting in Jamaica (Donovan Bailey being an obvious example.) There are many, many more black athletes in the USA than in Jamaica; clearly, there has to be some element of popularity of sprinting in Jamaica involved.
This is true of the other races, too. You saw many different countries represented, but if you look over the history of long distance Olympic running certain countries, like Ethiopia, Kenya and Tunisia are wildly overrepresented. Those countries have a passion for distance running and put a lot of emphasis into it.
Logically, the same physical traits should make you an excellent speed skater, especially in the short distances, but you don’t see a lot of championship sprint skaters from Trinidad & Tobago.
You missed that they were all entered in the Olympics, born human and wanted to do athletics. :smack:
You do know our motto is fighting ignorance? :rolleyes:
Not “racial” but cultural selection, plus some variation in body types. Sprinters have to be muscular, with no penalty for being large, while long-distance types have to be shorter and more lean. These two requirements separate out different areas of the world. Kenyans, currently the leaders in long distance, tend to be somewhat shorter and leaner than Jamaicans or Americans.
Why runners as a group are a particular ethnicity is, I think, mostly cultural. In the US, Jamaica, Kenya, and other parts of Africa, running is an honored cultural heritage that goes back many many years. Local running clubs start kids out when they’re very young. I see most of the US clubs based in African-American communities.
Of course, in the US, sports has been a way for African-Americans to “succeed” (in a very limited) sense since the early 1900s. Denied other avenues of success, they could at least attain recognition and even renumeration through sports.
We forget that this was the way for all immigrants, the “lowest of the low” throughout American history. Irish, Italian, Greek, and Jewish immigrants in particular went into professions that nobody else would stoop to. For the African-Americans, sports was a big one.
And remember, before 1936 you probably wouldn’t have seen any African-American athletes at the Olympics because of pure and simple racial prejudice. Avery Brundage, the long-time head of the US Olympic Committee was a notorious racist and anti-Semite.
I do apologize for coming in with a joke before the question had been answered.
That being said can you please show me where my answer is in any way factually incorrect? I’m pretty sure my response contributed at least as much information as yours to the thread.
I think RickJay and 633squadron are probably on the right track.
My wife and I were watching the men’s 100 the other night and after the race was over I asked “Where are all the white guys?” We both looked at each for a second and simultaneously blurted out “They’re at the pool!”
Didn’t Sports Illustrated publish a controversial article a few years back about how people of west African descent supposedly have a higher percentage of “fast-twitch” muscles (which is supposed to help them to excel in sports requiring explosive action)? What’s the status on that theory these days?
The top sprinters were all black because the best sprinters in the world are all of African descent. It may be the case that Jamaicans are disproportionally represented because of cultural issues, but you would expect that some of those cultural issues would work to result in a disproportionally large amount of “white” sprinters from some portion of the world. And, indeed, there are “caucasian” sprinters, even in the Olympics. They just don’t run as fast as the ethnically West African runners do.
Why, no one is certain. But it’s a fact, it shouldn’t be danced around as if the idea that some people from different parts of the world have certain physical characteristics that make them “better” at certain athletic activities is taboo. It’s plain stupid to look at the sprinters that make the finals and semi-finals of the top sprints in the world and assert they are almost uniformly “black” because of culture. Especially given that there are plenty of “white” runners who start out in the United States from essentially the same culture as the top American sprinters who are, yes, you guessed it, of African descent.
This goes hand in hand with the people who claim that black guys on avg don’t have significantly bigger dicks than white guys. They do. Sure there are white guys with big dicks but there are alot more black guys with big dicks and the biggest black dicks are bigger than the biggest white dicks. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional or has a faulty data-set. The “studies” or whatever that claim otherwise are a joke IMHO and are probably done by white guys.
There ARE physical differences between people of different races. That’s not something bad and doesn’t make anyone better than another as a human being but pretending like there aren’t obvious physical differences between 2 races is stupid.
Regarding penis size: to the extent that any serious study has been attempted, I seem to recall that the results tended to indicate that the sizes were pretty much the same (“average”) regardless of ethnicity, but that among the outliers of the absolute largest, they tended to be of African origin.
The problem with your second paragraph is that using the word “race” confuses the issue. If the ancestors of the world’s best marathon runners originated in Kenya and the ancestors of the world’s best sprinters originated in or near Ghana, then we have an indication that there might be a population of long distance runners in Kenya and a population of sprinters in West Africa, but there is no evidence that marathoners or sprinters exhibit a “racial” trait in that if we arbitrarily lump Kenyans and Ghanians into a single “race,” we are liable to make the mistake that we can find world-class sprinters in Kenya.
There are many populations of people with who may be identified by similar characteristics, but there are far too many differences among all the various people lumped into the overly broad categories of “race” for race to be a legitimate identifier in thses discussion.
You’re asking the same thing. Why are they black is pretty much the same question as why are they of African descent. What’s underneath the turtle that’s holding up the elephant.
When distant ancestors noticed that Joe was better at running than anyone else in the village and how it helped him in catching game to feed his family, perhaps they began to practice this skill themselves.
This made him more attractive to prospective mates, as it was an indicator of Joe’s ability to provide for a family. He could then choose a partner who either herself or a family member shared similar skills, thus passing on both the genetics and the culture.
As time went on and Joe’s kids and grandkids to the nth degree partnered with other village families, it created geo-cultural pockets where running was a prized skill and one that the inhabitants cultivated to better their chances of survival.
You shouldn’t. Glee should for over-reacting.
Anyway, perhaps there is a fast-twitch muscular advantage to being of (recent) African descent, only strikingly visible at the elite level.
Random Black Guy vs Random White Guy is still a tossup.
The problem with the cultural part of this scenario is that descendants of west-Africans living in western countries, the Caribbean, south-America, etc… have been cut long ago from their cultural roots, for the most part. This peculiar cultural trait wouldn’t have survived 150 years of slavery and 150 more years of acculturation in the mainstream society, let alone survived in all the various places and countries where slaves were deported. And if for some mysterious reasons it had survived, it would probably have been noticed : “Negroes take a particular pride in their running skill” or something similar would be mentioned in historical documents.