American Blacks... Superior Genetics?

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.

Slavery was an occupation that favors survival of the fittest, you have to either be strong or smart to survive. Weak and dumb and you die out.

Slavery went on for hundreds of years in the US. Enough for many generations to go through the ordeal.

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.

It would be scary to have another Hitler.

This thread reminds me of someone, sports person (I hate sports but it was on all the news stations) that said something about slaves were "bred" ::::shivers:::: with the healthiest and strongest together for field work.....he got in a lot of trouble for saying that, but it was true. I don't know why he got in so much trouble for it. Yes slavery is an unbelievably horrible thing and dead, dead, dead wrong....but it "is" a true fact of history.

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]

Why American Blacks? Africans tend to perform well at sports in general. Look at the long distance events at Athens olympics, as well as many other sports. Take a look at the football teams of Europe and you will find someone of African origin in almost all the top teams.

It can be explained by simple genetics. Just search "fast twitch muscles". One example,

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sanc'.

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?

Nope. There are other races here in the US that also had eugenic applications used against them (American Indians for instance.) It's more of an environmental factor than anything else.

Sports stars are very much admired, just as scholarship is prized by those raised in America in Japanese/Chinese/etc households and cultures. This does not make them smarter/bigger/whatever than the rest of us, but it DOES give them a cultural motivation to participate and to excel.

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.

For less than 200 years. And nobody's practiced selective breeding with the Black community since the late 1800's (nearly 200 years.)

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.

You're just noticing the extremes of the range.

Now... some of them do have physiques (long legs, lots of lean body muscle mass) that give them an advantage. This type of physique is fairly common in Africa and unusual elsewhere. But that's not the result of slavery; it's the result of thousands of years living in a certain type of environment.

I'm probably going to get some massive retaliation for this but, here goes...
I dont think anyone will deny that blacks are, on average, physically stronger than, say, whites or asians. Professional sports teams(who care nothing about race, only about making money via their player's performance) are dominated by blacks. However, if someone even mentions the possibility that whites or asians(even more so than whites), are on average more intelligent than blacks, they are labled a racist.
Notice that I say "on average" when stating this. Obviously, there are very intelligent blacks and very stupid asians and whites. I am not a racist, I dont really care who is the most intelligent "race". However, it seems to me that blacks are less intelligent on average than people of other descents. It also appears to me that asians are more intelligent on average than whites(which I am). Maybe I am just confusing a lack of education for a lack of intelligence, I dont know. What disturbs me is that even if this idea had merrit, it would be dismissed outright simply because of political correctness.
The Bell Curve was an interesting, but obviously controversial book detailing this idea.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by apw100]