Because they’re afraid of the other shoe dropping. If we acknowledge that West Africans may be genetically well-suited for sprinting, or that East Africans are natural marathon runners, we may be opening the door for racists to argue that blacks are ALSO genetically stupider than whites.
If there were no other shoe waiting to drop, nobody would care. I mean, if scientists somehow proved that Basques are genetically superior at canasta, or that the Danes are natural miniature golfers, nobody would care. And if there weren’t racist ideologues eager to proclaim that blacks are genetically inferior in intelligence, I’m guessing nobody would mind admitting that West Africans and their descendants are naturally faster than the rest of us.
I think that’s precisely the point.
See, if this thread was titled “Why do East Asians do so well on IQ tests?” there would be a lot of “cultural emphasis on education” and so forth and there would be no elephant in the room and just heads nodding in agreement. But wait, East Asian nations have the highest average IQs and Asian Americans the highest national average despite potential language difficulties for recent immigrants and the fact IQ tests measure a biased, western conception of intelligence and yaddy yaddy yada. So it has to be innate right? I wanna see this “seconded” and “fourthed” nonsense if someone suggested Asians are naturally more intelligent.
As for my WAG on the OP, as mentioned before two routes for success for Blacks in America in the for most of the 20th century (and even now to some extent) have been sports and entertainment, and by virtue of being in the US, Black American athletes have been the most visible globally and the idea of “athletically inclined Blacks” has comfortably lodged itself in the global consciousness. You should never underestimate the power of expectations and there are a number of studies that can vouch for this.
Of course culture plays a part- on the other hand, if culture and desire were what drove kids to success in football, I’ve got news for you: white kids in Texas LOVE football passionately, and want desperately to play football.
So, where are the white receivers and cornerbacks in the NFL? Heck, where are the white receivers and cornerbacks in the NCAA?
There are very few white receivers, and NO white cornerbacks. And it is NOT because white kids in Texas don’t want to play in the NFL. They do. They just learn early on that they aren’t fast enough to play those positions.
So? Are you telling us that any assumption that there might be physical differences between populations is nonsense that should be dismissed out of hand? That people of African descent don’t have a darker skin, but just a strong cultural incentive to take sunbaths? That the media created the mistaken idea that pygmies are shorter, by showing us only the shortest ones, so feeding our preconceptions?
I always thought a big reason Kenyan runners dominated distance running was the fact that the average elevation in Kenya is over 2000 meters. Not only does this give them an advantage when they compete in races at lower altitudes, I would not be at all surprised if they have evolved increased lung capacity or increased oxygen carrying capacity in their blood. I know Sherpas have evolved mechanisms that allow them to thrive at high altitudes.
A number of studies that can vouch for what? That expectations, generally speaking, can affect outcomes? Or studies that would actually support your point that black French kids (you can guess the skin colour of the current France champion, right?) have been so much influenced by the American cultural expectations that they’re all giving a shot at a sport as marginal as the 100m race?
In a country like Jamaica, I understand that this discipline is almost a national sport, and every kid gives it a try. Definitely not so here. A kid who feels he can’t expect a bright future except if he succeeds in sports will consider the following disciplines : soccer, soccer and soccer. That’s where you’ll find “role models” of sub-saharian or north African descent who are actually famous.
I’m yet to hear a single kid mentioning he wants to become an obscure 100m race champion. I’ve heard tons of them saying they want to become a famous, rich and celebrated soccer player. As a result, people belonging to minorities, blacks and north-Africans alike, are somewhat overrepresented in soccer and in a very visible way. Meanwhile, short distance race, out of the limelights, is discreetly dominated by a single minority. Excuse me if I don’t buy your “that’s because of American cultural expectations” argument.
Natural selection? Lots of wild, hungry animals in Africa, looking for a meal. Northern Africans and Europeans built cities. Millennia of avoiding becoming kitty chow might have given Sub-Saharan Africans a little more of a boost than their northern (including European) brethren.
Couldn’t it possibly be because you’d expect to find the greatest variety among people of African descent because they are by far the oldest lineage, and therefore would be expected to have the greatest genetic variation? So, you’d expect to find the fastest and slowest people (however you’d measure that) among people of African descent, constrained by whatever selection pressure was at work and normal human physiology. This is also why you see such great height disparity between various African ethnic groups (along with ethnic segregation, both voluntary and involuntary.
I mean, everyone is really “of African descent”, but aren’t most European and Asian people descended from a relatively small settler population? You’d expect less genetic diversity among a small population like that, especially if interbreeding was not feasible (due to distance) or later due to cultural issues. Then, of course, whatever traits your settling population had due to chance would be your starting point.
I’m not that up on human population genetics, so correct me if I’m wrong, of course.
So do you concede that East Asians are naturally more intelligent? Because c’mon, all the data makes it pretty plain.
So you’re saying there’s a cultural inclination for the Afro-French to pursue soccer (another athletic pursuit) as a career, making them overrepresented in professional leagues. So are you agreeing with me?
Far less people (Black or White) pursue track and France has never won a medal in the 100 meter. You would think more Blacks would give it a shot, with their natural advantage and all. But like you said, track is not a culturally celebrated or relevant sport in France so none of the approx. 1 million Afro-French go on to win anything.
As for my WAG on the OP, as mentioned before two routes for success for Blacks in America in the for most of the 20th century (and even now to some extent) have been sports and entertainment, and by virtue of being in the US, Black American athletes have been the most visible globally and the idea of “athletically inclined Blacks” has comfortably lodged itself in the global consciousness. You should never underestimate the power of expectations and there are a number of studies that can vouch for this.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but it’s certain events more than others. If it were just that “athletically inclined Blacks” are great at running, then why is the marathon so much more diverse? The winners from the women’s marathon were from Romania, Kenya and China.
My husband and I were talking about this last night, and we decided that it was due to the geographic ancestry of Africans vs. Europeans vs. Asians. (Please note - while my husband has a degree in biology, neither of us are genetic archeologists. )
Going back to the beginning of man, nature would have selected out (in men, anyway) for the best hunters. In Africa and other dark skinned cultures, the hot, hot sun would make for a particular climate in which fast targets would thrive, like a gazelle. Therefore, the best hunters would be ones who have the ability to run fast starting from a standstill.
On the other hand, as Man spread out northward, the targets they encountered were slower and more fatty, because the climate was cold. So, the best hunters became ones who could endure sitting in the cold, waiting for a big fat bear to lumber by, as opposed to having to chase down fast animals.
I understand that this does not explain everything, and that exceptions exist in the animal world, etc., but this sounded good to us.
“Being more intelligent” is a vastly more fuzzy concept that “having more switch fibres” or similar things. And similarly “being Asian” cannot be equated with “being of west-African descent”. Besides, can you point to me the specific intellectual field were “Asians” are overwhelmingly dominating in a way similar to what we see for 100m races? Are the vast majority of top-level physicists Asians in countries where there’s a significant population of Asians? Or is it chess-players? Or maybe brain surgeons?
Once again, are you arguing there’s no possible physical difference between populations? Pygmies aren’t actually shorter? There are no diseases more widespread in some human groups? There are no identifiable genetic differences between populations? Blacks actually don’t have a darker skin?
Nope, as you would have understood had you paid attention to what I wrote. I stated that culture can explain to some extent why a given social or ethnic group can be overrepresented in a given field. And my example contradicts your statements in many ways.
First, because overrepresented isn’t the same thing as dominating a sport. The French soccer team isn’t made up of 60% black people. Why is it so, if you’re right?
Second, because it’s the disfranchised minorities in general that are overrepresented : I mentioned both blacks and north-Africans. Not a specific ethnic minority, as it is the case for racing. Why aren’t north-Africans overrepresented too in the 100m races, in the same way they are in soccer, if you’re right?
And finally because it shows that your American example can’t be applied to France, where this sport lacks recognition and the runners lack celebrity. And despite this, black athletes still win the races. Why are so many black people who are according to you hoping to achieve success, attracted to an unpopular sport, if you’re right?
Whether French athletes are good or not in the 100 m on a global level is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the best French athletes in this discipline are black. They do go on and do win… the French titles (and occasionally European medals), leaving behind the non-black French athletes. Like in almost every other country with a significant population of African descent.
This absolute refusal to even consider that there might be inheritable physical differences between human populations apart from what can be seen with the naked eye like skin colour is utterly ludicrous.
Again, please note that Africa is the most genetically diverse of all the continents, as jk1245 noted. Also, hunter/gatherer cultures were everywhere, not just in Africa. The exact animals were different, but I doubt, for example, that the Savannah differed all that enormously from the Steppes in terms of hunting skills required.
But Africa is home to the tallest (on average) people in the world and the shortest, and all sorts of extremes of that nature. So you can’t just go around talking about people of African descent. A certain part of Africa, which includes, I think (but could be wrong), west immediately sub-Saharan West Africa, seems to have given rise to a clan (for want of a better word) of folks who, judging by Olympic standards, seem to be able to run very fast, apparently due to both bone structure and musculature. Culture may or may not have factored into this - probably did. But there are few places where a really good athlete is not encouraged to pursue it.
Actually, I understand that what gave an advantage to humans in hunting wasn’t being a fast runner (nobody is going to run as fast as a gazelle) but being an enduring runner (the gazelle will be exhausted before you if you track it down).
Like I already mentioned East Asian nations (China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan) have the highest average IQs, Asian Americans the highest IQs of any race in the US (unless you count Jews as a race), overrepresented in the most mentally rigorous scientific research, manufactures a disproportionate amount of today’s high technology, a has history of technological achievement etc etc… Why dance around the issue? Isn’t it obvious?
Where as the Olympics and pro sports are not scientific studies due to self-selection, training, and a number of other factors I can’t even imagine. But as flawed as they may be, the IQ studies are at least an attempt to scientifically measure intelligence with consistent results.
So why do you believe Blacks are faster or more athletic but not East Asians smarter? There’s no real scientific basis for the former (as far as I’m aware), but latter does have numbers to back it up as well as your sort of ‘nothing beyond the surface’ evidence. It seems like there’s more reason to believe Asians are smarter than Africans faster. But that doesn’t seem to sit well with you.
Straw man. Unlike high altitude and lung capacity regardless of race (where I don’t doubt there is a measurable correlation), I don’t know what the hell that’s in Africa or West Africa (where does that start and end anyway) that would make Blacks faster. To run from predators? Wouldn’t hiding from a lioness or cheetah be a better idea? Maybe Africans are actually super stealthy, you know, from natural selection. This is in addition to the genetic variety that makes it impossible to meaningfully classify “Black” beyond superficial differences.
Maybe someone will someday figure out something that actually gives weight to this belief that you are deadset on defending (despite the lack scientific evidence) but until then I remain skeptical.
)