Touchy subject...
The differences in domination of blacks in sports may go back farther than slavery. One question that has to be asked, is what made these people so
attractive as slaves in the first place. Could it be they were stronger and had a greater endurance than other groups the slave owners had
encountered? No no and NO I don't agree with slavery or think it should be rationalized - just putting forth a question. Also, what explains the
trend in black athletes succeeding that are not descendants of slaves or have never lived in the US? African nationals continue to kick butt in
Olympic competitions and marathons.
Anyhow, here are some interesting statistics:
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.
That being said, or quoted, in this case, I want to point out that genetic differences are not something to push under the rug and pretend they don't
exist. There is nothing WRONG with there being actual behavioral or physical differences between races or populations of people on this planet. People
are alike in many ways, and dissimilar in some ways also. It is not an excuse for racism or insulting someone, just some things that seem to be true
but never said. The book mentioned is Rushtons 1995 work
Race, Evolution, and Behavior.
Another tidbit supporting differences in racial types:
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 other side of the coin is that Black athletes succeed due to environmental responses.
archive.salon.com...
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?
Hmm good point also.
But wait! There's more!
Some suggest black athletes have a difference in musscle fiber composition that makes athletic activity easier and more coordinated. A "key
difference between the black and white athletes cropped up during an isometric test of leg-muscle strength. Black runners' quadriceps muscles were
about 31 per cent weaker than those of the whites, yet the blacks' quads fatigued much less rapidly during the test. In fact, they were able to exert
at least 70 per cent of maximal force for 169 seconds during the isometric efforts compared to just 97 seconds for the whites." (salon.com)
Studies in diets showed that black athletes (primarily runners) ate more carbohydrates and less protien than their white counterparts. Could diet
play a role in differences?
Black athletes often have a lesser percentage of body fat compared to white athletes of equal weight. Is this a genetic difference, environmental
difference, or training difference?
Black runners are often physically smaller than their white counterparts in height and weight which maygive them an advantage in long distance running
and endurance sports. Again, genetic, diet, or environment difference?
A "key difference between [blacks and whites] was that blood-lactate levels were considerably lower in the blacks at various running speeds. At a
tempo of 4:36 per mile, blacks' blood-lactate concentrations were 24 per cent lower, and 32 per cent lower at actual V02max running speed. Since
blood lactate often reflects lactic acid production inside muscle cells, this means that the black athletes experienced less muscle fatigue while
running at high-quality speeds." (salon.com)
So one thing people do seem to agree on is that there IS a difference. The part we can't figure out is why.
Edit: Black athletes ATE more carbs not are more carbs.
[edit on 13-11-2004 by RedBalloon]
