It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The book points out that of the 32 finalists in the last four Olympic Men's 100 meter races, all of them were of west African descent. The probability of that occurring is less than: 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 percent! Unless of course there is a very good reason for this to occur that is not tied to innate ability--but none can be found.
No less impressive is the fact that almost all medium and long distance races are dominated by east Africans, and 75% of them are members of the Kalenjin ethnic group, who were primarily cattle rustlers and warriors. Apparently, rustling cattle on foot and at night meant that swift runners would live long and happy lives, compared to the slower runners. At least this is one scenario given for this tribes very unique long distance ability. Some have claimed that they are good long-distance runners because of the high altitude, but there are numerous other groups around the world who have evolved at high altitudes and do not have this unique ability.
After explaining how this very unique ethnic group--the Kalenjin--finds running long distances so innately easy, without even training hard, Entine goes into explaining the political motivations of those scholars who try to deny any genetic differences between races. Anyone familiar with this lengthy debate will recognize the same stale Marxist advocates' Stephan J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, et al. (see my web site for excerpts from scholars on Gould's pseudoscientific distortions.) The claim is made that humans cannot and do not genetically differ significantly enough to cause average differences between races of people on other than superficial traits--like skin color and hair.
But is that true? The book goes into a well-balanced review of what is known about our evolutionary past, including explaining how there has been ample time and circumstances for population groups or races to diverge in genetic frequencies, making genetic differences real and substantial.
And the same is true of blacks when it comes to athletic ability. One very interesting aspect of black childhood is that black children are far more advanced than Asians or whites when it comes to walking, athleticism, etc. That is, blacks mature much faster than whites in physicality. This is in keeping with Rushton's r-K continuum, where the evolutionary strategy of sub-Saharan Africans relies less on parental investment and more on numerous births. The early ability of black children to be independent physically allows the mother to have more children.
The politically correct answer is that blacks dominate sports not because of a biological advantage, but because of an environmental disadvantage. Black athletic achievement is a direct result of racism: For blacks, athletics was practically the only way out of the ghetto, so they had extraordinary motivation to succeed.
There is obviously much truth in this answer. Before scoffing at the idea that environment alone could produce so many world-class black athletes, we would do well to remember that cultural and environmental factors are notoriously easy to underestimate. No one suggests that Ashkenazi Jews or Asians are genetically selected to be superior classical musicians, yet they are disproportionately represented in that field. (For that matter, no one suggests that blacks are genetically selected to be virtuoso improvising musicians -- yet they dominate jazz as much as they do football or basketball.) Why not run out looking for Japanese genes that select for flower-arranging, or Southern American Scottish-Irish genes that lead to NASCAR driving?
Sprints are races where the runner tries to go as fast as humanly possible. Biological factors that go primarily into a sprint are: exclusive use of fast twitch muscle, adrenaline, and anaerobic respiration.
Notice: in the context of these articles, a minimally trained runner can loosely be termed as a person that has trained conistently for over 10 weeks, and is running the race while in condition from this training. Results from people that have not done this do not reflect their potential.
Originally posted by taibunsuu
Flick through any US sports game and it's pretty obvious that Blacks in the US dominate. I wonder...
Blacks in the US differ from most people genetically due to the workings of slavery?
For one, only the strongest could make it across the Atlantic in a slave ship.
Secondly, slave values were placed on their physical health and strength, and owners bred slaves like livestock.
So, I wonder if he trials of such lifestyle imposed over generations made American Blacks more likely to be stronger, faster, smarter, etc., than the stock of people from which they had their roots, and if this could explain why US sports are dominated by Blacks.