Don't call me a racist until you read the whole OP

I have thought about posting this theory for a while now, but out of fear of being called a racist I have refrained from doing so. Maybe it's the empty bottle of Coppola that has given be the bravado to do so, but whatever it is, here I go.

It is no secret that African American men and women have dominated sports ever since they have been allowed to play along the white man and women.

African-Americans, who earlier in the century were segregated into black leagues, have in less than 50 years become the dominant racial group in basketball and football, despite the fact that they only make up 12.6% of the US population (U.S. Census Bureau, 1998). Today black players constitute 77% of the NBA, 64% of the WNBA, 65% of the NFL, and 15% of MLB

Observations of Demographics

This is huge statistical difference, and I do not beleive it is simply luck. Rather, I believe there a few main factors that contribute to this. However, I think there is one main factor that is not talked about... Slavery (don't leave yet)

200 years ago the enslavement of African American people was widely accepted. It was on the backs of these men that plantations, ranches and farms were run. These men were forced to perform to the peak of their physical ability almost every day out of the fear of reprecussions.

Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats

Wiki evolution

The African American was forced to adapt to manual labor for extensive periods of time. Thus, the large nose with wide nostrels able to intake oxygen at a higher rate to fuel the muscles.

blacks and whites, when matched for SES variables, are virtually identical in average height, however, their physique and body proportions are much different. Blacks have shorter torsos, broader shoulders, smaller ribcages, narrower hips, and longer limbs (with comparative elongation of the distal segments). Fit samples of blacks and whites appear to be about the same weight on average (or perhaps blacks are marginally heavier), but fit blacks have on average less body fat, particularly on their limbs. It follows that blacks have a greater fat free body mass (i.e., bone, muscle and viscera) than whites. The smaller ribcage and narrower pelvis would indicate less viscera weight and indeed, blacks have been found to have substantially more total body musculature and denser, heavier bones than whites. This greater musculature is also distributed differently. Blacks show considerably more musculature in their glutes and thighs than whites, which gives a substantial advantage in locomotion. Blacks have also been shown to have on average greater cross sectional thickness in their limb musculature than whites, with the difference much greater in the proximal than distal limb segments. Naturally higher average testosterone levels and a greater number of testosterone receptors probably contribute to the leaner more heavily muscled physique of blacks compared to whites.

Black v. white physical differences in sports

I personally feel this has been brought on by evolutionary factory, mainly slavery.

I want to add the disclaimer that I AM NOT A RACIST. I have many African American friends, as well as friends of all races. I am simply trying to logically deduce a statistical anomoly.

So, what do you think, has slavery actually benefited todays African American in a way?

-E-

This theory is not so new. Jimmy the Greek, the football handicapper that worked for CBS was fired for a very similar stated belief 30 years ago or so.

While it comes across as racist, it is historical fact that slave owners bread their strongest slave men with the strongest slave women.

Genetics my man.

reply to post by glevel


Thats a shame he was fired. It is a sensative subject, and I hope the ATS community doesn't mis-construe this for racism. So, do you feel there is validity to what I have posted?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I agree, it just goes to show that there are very strong feelings behind this theory

-E-

[edit on 14-9-2009 by MysterE]

The African American was forced to adapt to manual labor for extensive periods of time. Thus, the large nose with wide nostrels able to intake oxygen at a higher rate to fuel the muscles.

Well I don't think this is at all scientifically sound to say that. What about African's with african descendants still living there, who have as big nostrils?

I agree that those particular slaves with larger nostrils were probably more likely to survive and have more children, especially if their owners were to breed the best workers from each gender. Maybe that's what you meant?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by john124]

This only works if you can prove these differences didn't exist beforehand.

Have you found anything to suggest this?

reply to post by john124


I also believe that is due to evolution. For instance, why is it that marathon, and runing events are often won by someone for kenya? Because their ancestors did not have cars, or trains to ride. They ran. literally, long distances to get from one place to another.

-E-

I remember a theory from an anthropology class a number of years ago, that said black Americans aren't as smart as Africans. The theory went that the less intelligent ones were caught by the black slave traders, while the smart ones were able to escape or avoid capture.

reply to post by Clickfoot


Pleas keep in mind thisis just a theory of mine. It could very well be due to selectiveness of the slave buyers. Or I could be waaaaay wrong. I just believe that most African Americans in America are here due to slavery, andI believe it is evolutionthat has made them athletically gifted.

-E-

I wouldn't call on evolution. Breeding for particular traits isn't quite evolutionary, since there is no natural selection, but husbandry.

Also, you can't seriously make the point that blacks developed large noses and wide nostrils only in America, can you? This is a trait that is common among a large portion of African populations...though not all. (Ethiopian noses are typically more narrow, for example.)

Meh...this is all generalization. There are plenty of thickly muscled Anglo-Saxons, as well as plenty of whispy black girly men.

And what exactly is the point of all this, anyway?

Originally posted by MysterE
I also believe that is due to evolution. For instance, why is it that marathon, and runing events are often won by someone for kenya? Because their ancestors did not have cars, or trains to ride. They ran. literally, long distances to get from one place to another.

Evolution. Right. And that takes place over just a couple generations? None of our ancestors had cars.

Before people cite evolution as causative, they should learn a bit about it.

Originally posted by stevegmu
I remember a theory from an anthropology class a number of years ago, that said black Americans aren't as smart as Africans. The theory went that the less intelligent ones were caught by the black slave traders, while the smart ones were able to escape or avoid capture.

Or it could be the smart ones were the captors. It was other Africans who captured them and sold them to the Europeans.

Originally posted by stevegmu
I remember a theory from an anthropology class a number of years ago, that said black Americans aren't as smart as Africans. The theory went that the less intelligent ones were caught by the black slave traders, while the smart ones were able to escape or avoid capture.

Oh dear god ... find whomever proffered that theory (if somebody actually did which I highly doubt) and get them out of the educational system.

Might as well say POW are stupid.

Since when is being in the wrong place at the wrong time, as was the case for most captured slaves, a measure of intelligence?

I'm sorry to say that this trend of ignorant stereotypes and generalizations of African Americans is manifesting on ATS with increased and disturbing frequency.

Must be something in the air.

Originally posted by glevel
This theory is not so new. Jimmy the Greek, the football handicapper that worked for CBS was fired for a very similar stated belief 30 years ago or so.

No, he was fired for what he said in which upon reflection, admitted it was a foolish thing to say. If he would have left the first part of his comment alone it would have basically been the same view as the OP.

But he didn't and continued on and put his foot in his mouth.

reply to post by Praetorian Guard


I'm pretty sure I quoted phrases from wiki evolution in my op. Guess you didn't read that

-E-

Anyway, guess I should have never posted this thread. It was just a theory I had, but I guess I was wrong

reply to post by MysterE


I will keep this short

you are bloody spot on

star and flag for basic observation



[edit on 15-9-2009 by symmetricAvenger]



Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


It wasn't a professor who taught it as fact, he was going through theories which had been proposed. I remember someone commenting if the theory held true, then Africa would have been populated with the brightest minds for generations, and wouldn't be a 3rd world continent, as it is today.

Originally posted by Praetorian Guard

Originally posted by MysterE
I also believe that is due to evolution. For instance, why is it that marathon, and runing events are often won by someone for kenya? Because their ancestors did not have cars, or trains to ride. They ran. literally, long distances to get from one place to another.

Evolution. Right. And that takes place over just a couple generations? None of our ancestors had cars.

Before people cite evolution as causative, they should learn a bit about it.

Our ancestors had horses.

Never heard of a cowboy running into town have you?

Never heard of a knight running into battle have you?

I could name more examples but you get the point.

reply to post by MysterE


I don't view you post as racist. There are difference in all races that set them apart;for example, how many black professional swimmers do you see? Why, because our body density is greater that yours so we sink easier.

There was a book written about 6 or 7 years ago that pointed out all the pros and cons of each race and yes, the knee jerk reaction from the public was that the author was racist.

And it wasn't like that at all, look who wins the most long distance run; Ethiopia. look who wins bike races, or the weight lifting.

It's not racism, it's fact.



[edit on 15-9-2009 by Eight]