Olympics+blacks+ white+sprinting
- Thread starter BLACKLOOP
- Start date
Black people usually have higher calf muscles which contributes to our increased speed.
Here we go again
But it looks like even the very fast white runners look very slow along side the likes of bolt, gay....etc
Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk
Sound like a good read..where can I find a E-book of it
Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk
Anything you have to say is suspect because of your whiteness. We are faster because we work harder at it.
nah
Actually could never find the shit online, but buy it on amazon, it's paperback, like 4$ .. In short the white slave owners fucked themselves for future generations, by basically taking slavery's versions of Adrian Perterson & LeBron n shit & allowing them to mass produce.. When you think about it, it makes pretty good sense as a theory because when you look at Africans who weren't subject to the slave trade they have nowhere near the physical prowess we do.. They're good with distance running, but sprinting & contact sports that require fast twitch & muscle mass them niggas is lacking. When you look at Jamaicans Cubans Dominicans etc. who Were subject to these practices you see the dominant Black athletes we all know..
Black Americans seem to have more fast twitch muscle fibers.
White Americans seem to have slow twitch fibers and excel in distance running.
With the exception of the Kenyans and Ethiopians, it's rare to see a Black American runner beat them in the distance races.
White Americans seem to have slow twitch fibers and excel in distance running.
With the exception of the Kenyans and Ethiopians, it's rare to see a Black American runner beat them in the distance races.
they had a lil chinese dude that was movin tho
he ran a 10.1 today and qualified
he ran a 10.1 today and qualified
China?
Those guys are the epitome of not a single fuck was given.
They'll cheat, and look at you like you're the bad guy.
The Black man is the original man(period)
now start there>>>
now start there>>>
There a guy who wrote a paper on Entine and debunkt that theory...
excerpts:
I will then employ the concepts of genetic and racial determinism to critique Entine’s arguments. In the process, I use valid arguments from Hoberman’s book, since it alludes to the history of race and athletic stereotypes. However, using the notion of cultural determinism, I will also examine Hoberman’s own assumptions about race, culture, and sports, along with his use of empirical evidence in establishing the relationship between the three. Overall, my aims are 1. To inform future scientific inquiry on race-related issues across all disciplines, and 2. To pose the conundrums of genetic, racial, and cultural determinism as ethical issues for all investigators in the human sciences. Taboo Jon Entine fashioned Taboo after a 1989 NBC documentary entitled "The Black Athlete: Fact or Fiction," which he produced. The book is actually a long treatise divided into 7 sections and 24 chapters.
In the first two sections, Entine discusses the what he calls the "taboo" on discussing genetic explanations for Black athletic success and reviews the extent of this success. He focuses largely on running events, noting the predominance of sprinters of West African descent, and the plethora of great Kenyan distance runners. The next two sections of Taboo deal with the dubious history of race-based science, highlighting issues related to sports. Entine reviews the major theories of human evolution and hypotheses on the differentiation of human populations. He also covers the American eugenics movement and early racial stereotypes regarding physical and mental abilities. The fifth section of Taboo discusses scientific evidence--mainly physiological data such as studies on muscle fiber proportions--that is used to support the argument that genetic factors are primarily responsible for Black athletic success. Entine also briefly covers environmental explanations for this phenomenon. After a sixth section devoted to women athletes, Entine concludes with a final chapter on the "taboo," attempting to acknowledge and assuage concerns about racial bias while still holding steadfastly to his genetic hypothesis. Darwin’s Athletes John Hoberman’s argument is somewhat more complex than Entine’s thesis. Darwin’s Athletes (1997) presents a challenging sociohistorical analysis of the impact of sports on the African American experience. Hoberman asserts that both Black and White Americans have been obsessed with notions of African American athletic supremacy. He further contends that this obsession has contributed to the academic underachievement of African Americans by creating a cultural lens through which all African American achievement is viewed in terms of athletic and physical prowess. Moreover, Hoberman claims that both European and African Americans have largely embraced this cultural lens and thereby stagnated the educational attainment and societal advancement of African Americans. Darwin’s Athletes is organized into three sections. In the first section, entitled "Shooting Hoops Under the Bell Curve," Hoberman lays out his thesis of a "sports fixation" in the African American community, stating, "...many blacks and whites assume that the horizons of black life are coterminous with the achievements of athletes, and one of the most damaging and least publicized corollaries of the sports obsession has been a pronounced rejection of intellectual ambition" (p. 4).
Scientists and laypersons alike tend to favor genetic attribution in these situations, a phenomenon discussed at length by Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin (1984). All of these are very technical issues, the details of which are beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, they are relevant to the genetic hypothesis raised in Taboo. For purposes of this paper, I will set simpler criteria to validate claims of a genetic basis for Black athletic predominance. First, there must be a systematic way to define the populations in question (Black and White in this case, as Entine seems to use Whites as the normative, standard group, a point that will be critiqued later). Second, consistent genetic differences between these populations must be established. Third, one must show a link between these consistent differences and the trait in question (athletic performance). The first criterion is a general confound in the biological and social sciences with regard to issues of race. Although there are some outlandish exceptions (e.g. Rushton, 1995; see Zuckerman, 1990 for a critique), it is generally accepted that race is not a genetically-defined entity, but rather a social construct that draws on superficial physical features (see Omi & Winant, 1994). Even those who make reasonable arguments for a biological definition of race, such as Andreasen (1998; 2000), agree that any racial categorization resulting from such a definition would not correspond to common notions of race such as "Black" and "White." Socially-constructed definitions of race in scientific research usually involve rather vague and dubious governmental classification (e.g. Office of Management and Budget, 1997) or unstandardized self identification or researcher identification. This creates a difficulty in defining populations which confounds Entine’s argument. It is unclear what Entine actually means when he espouses genetically-based racial differences. Marks (2000) illustrates this point well by reviewing three possible meanings of Entine’s hypothesis: Does the author (Entine) think that the very best blacks have a genetic advantage over the very best whites, that the average black has a genetic advantage over the average white, or that all blacks have the genetic potential to be better than all whites? All three propositions, of course, are unknowable and thereby metaphysical, but the first is trivial (for it says nothing about races or populations), the second statistically intractable (for how do you find the average?), and the third ridiculous (for its racial essentialism) (quoted on p. 1077). The meaning of racial differences is impossible to interpret in lieu of a solid, robust definition of race (see also Schwartz, 2001). Additionally, many studies have found inconsistencies in racial identification in scientific research. For example, Pan et al. (1999) found that agreement on patients’ race between Medicare and Medicaid databases was remarkably low, particularly for groups such as Asian Americans who are not well represented in the population at large. Similarly, Hahn, Mulinare, and Teutsch (1992) found high degrees of incompatibility when examining racial identification at birth and death for infant mortality victims, again corresponding largely with representation in the population at large (lower representation corresponded to higher inconsistency). Thus, methods of racial categorization and identification raise questions about the validity of any race-based research (Zuberi, 2001). However, they are not particular to Entine’s hypothesis; rather, they are a general confound and source of error that seems difficult to avoid. Because questions involving race are often deemed important enough to investigate in spite of this confound, the first criterion will not be employed here to dismiss Entine’s hypothesis. I will assume that he has defined "Black" as reliably as most other researchers who explore issues of race. Nonetheless, I will revisit the issue of Entine’s racial categorization in a latter section. The second criterion--that of consistent genetic differences between populations--is difficult if not impossible to establish firmly without the first. Given that relatively unreliable nature of self/researcher identification and government classification as means to determine race, how does one establish consistent genetic differences between racial populations? As already noted, race is generally not defined in genetic terms; however, this does not preclude the possibility of consistent (though not absolute) genetic differences between racial populations. For example, Shriver et al. (1997) contend that ethnic affiliation can be estimated robustly by certain population-specific genetic markers. Also, various works have explored common genetic diseases within particular populations (e.g. Bowman & Murray, 1990).
Entine, however, does not rely on any gene frequency data to make his argument. Instead, he cites studies of human evolution by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza (1994). According to these researchers, the largest evolutionary distance within human populations exists between Africans and non- Africans; all non-African populations are more similar to each other than they are to Africans. It is noteworthy that Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza (1994) do not refer to these populations as "races." Nonetheless, Entine infers that the category of "African" equates with the common American notion of "Black." This, of course ignores the fact that a significant portion of the African American gene pool is derived from European ancestry, often due to forced sexual relationships between White male slave owners and Black female slaves. The larger problem with this portion of Entine’s analysis, however, is that he does not establish any systematic genetic differences between the populations in question. His evidence for genetic differences between Blacks and other populations is a broad statement about evolutionary divergence. Instead, Entine cites biological (as opposed to genetic) data on differences between Blacks and other groups (usually Whites). These include studies of fast twitch muscle fiber proportions and development of motor skills. Of course, any race differences in these realms, even if they are biological, may well be due to primarily or even exclusively environmental factors such as training and lifestyle variables. Thus, there is no evidence that the Black/White differences that Entine does cite are "genetic." Essentially, Entine confuses physical reduction with genetic reduction, and he also seems to give causal precedence to genetic factors. Additionally, Taboo is selective in its citation of scientific evidence, which itself is often questionable. Entine’s argument with regard to muscle fibers is based largely upon a single study by Ama et al. (1986). Although the authors of this study did find a higher proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers (thought to be related to sprinting ability) among African males than among European males, their study was based on a small sample and they cautioned that their results were only slightly beyond the margin of error. The African males in their sample came not only from west Africa, but also from the central and east African countries of Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Burundi. This contradicts Entine’s hypothesis of West African dominance in sprinting and East African dominance in distance events. Also, Entine fails to cite other studies, such as that of Peter Snell and Drew Gaffney, which found no difference in muscle fiber type between Blacks and Whites or between sprinters and non-sprinters (see Sokolove, 1988). Indeed, as Hoberman (1998) notes, the relationship of fast twitch muscle fibers to sprinting ability is highly controversial and not accepted by some experts. Entine’s failure to satisfy the second criterion renders moot the third criterion of establishing a link between observed genetic differences and the phenomenon at hand. However, it may be informative to loosen the criterion somewhat. If we accept the evolutionary taxonomy cited by Entine (which is by no means universally accepted) as a demonstration of systematic (albeit unspecified) genetic difference between Africans (whom Entine equates with Blacks) and other groups, can we then attempt to satisfy the third criterion? Some have indeed suggested that evolutionary factors, such as selection of lung capacity for high altitude and lean body structure, may play a role in the success of Kenyan long distance runners (see Moore, 1992, or Entine, 2000). However, the main evolutionary theories employed to explain the success of African American athletes have not involved long-standing genetic divergence, but rather recent selective pressures.
As reviewed by Harpalani (1996/1997; see also Kane, 1971), the two primary views postulated are the slave selection hypothesis and the slave breeding hypothesis (Harpalani, 1997). The “slave selection” hypothesis invokes natural selection for enhanced physical characteristics during the Middle Passage and slavery as the distal cause of African American athletic success. The “slave breeding” hypothesis invokes selective breeding for physical characteristics by slave owners as a distal cause of African American predominance in many sports. Both of these are highly speculative and unsupported by scientific evidence. Some experts do agree that slave breeding occurred in the ante-Bellum South and was a and was a relatively common practice (see Norde, 1986; Franklin & Moss, 1994). There are also some anecdotes that suggest selection for physical characteristics. For example, an excerpt from a slave sale advertisement in the Charleston Mercury read: She is very prolific in her generating qualities and affords a rare opportunity for any person who wishes to raise a family of strong and healthy servants (quoted in Rowe, 1988, 33). However, it would be very difficult if not impossible to correlate selectivity in slave breeding to athletic ability or any other traits among present day African Americans. The selection process in breeding seems rather haphazard, and it does not follow why slave breeders would select for speed, quickness, and jumping ability--the traits that seem to be most often attributed to African American athletes. In addition to these selection hypotheses, others have also considered genetic bases for racial differences in sports performance. For example, Yale geneticist Kenneth Kidd has found that more genetic variation occurs among Africans than people of any other continent; Kidd has speculated that this variation would allow for more rare combinations of genes which would result in exceptional athletic talent (Price, 1997a). However, this hypothesis has not been supported with scientific evidence. All of these examples illustrate the range of different biological and genetic views employed to explain Black athletic success. Harpalani (1996/1997) reviews other anatomical, physiological, and psychological theories that have been postulated. Although some studies have detected anatomical differences between Blacks and Whites, these were often based on limited sample sizes, and the differences in question could not be related to athletic performance. As noted by several commentators (Davis, 1990; Smith, 1995; Hoberman, 1997), there has been a particular obsession with explaining Black athletic success in genetic terms. This obsession seems to be rooted in erroneous notions of genetic determinism. I, myself, have been guilty to an extent of this error in my article, "The Athletic Dominance of African Americans: Is There A Genetic Basis?" (see Harpalani, 1996/1997). To my credit, I was far more cautious in interpreting biological and "genetic" evidence than Entine (2000). Nonetheless, I now believe that my former assertion--that it is possible to objectively study genetic bases for race differences in athletic performance and determine if Blacks have a genetic advantage (Harpalani, 1996/1997)--was incorrect. It is difficult to even conceive of the question posed in the title of my article in an interesting and meaningful way. The issue seems far too confounded by definitions of racial populations and gene- environment interactions, and also by the sociopolitical and perceptual biases of researchers, as I will discuss in the next section. Racial determinism Racial determinism, as defined operationally by me, is the notion that race and racial categories determine how phenomena are perceived and conceptualized in the world. For example, Entine begins Taboo with the following quote: Imagine an alien visitor chancing upon a basketball arena on a wintry night. It sees a curious sight; most of the faces of the extended tree trunks scampering around the court are black; the crowd, on the other hand, is almost all white (quoted on p.3). Entine assumes that the first feature of the basketball game perceived by the alien (or presumably any being) would be the racial composition of the players and spectators, which would define how the sport is viewed. However, what if the alien was completely colorblind? Or what if s/he was simply not as attuned to skin color or other racial features as most Americans seem to be? Perhaps s/he would notice the height difference between players and spectators, or the fact that all of the players wear shorts while the many of spectators do not. Maybe the alien would notice that all of the players on each team are dressed exactly the same, while the spectators clothing varies much more. Any number of other features might capture the alien’s attention. Entine’s assumption illustrates the concept of racial determinism, which is another error that characterizes Taboo. Race is apparently the first feature that Entine notices about athletic competition, and he builds his entire analysis on racial differentiation. The result, quite predictably, is a collection of data designed to prove racial differences in sports performance, to the neglect of contrary evidence. In the process, Entine makes various a priori assumptions that bias his view of the phenomena. For example, both Taboo and Entine’s 1989 documentary note two different kinds of "Black" athletes: West African-descended sprinters and leapers (e.g. basketball players) and East African- descended long distance runners. The only aspect that brings these groups together is their common categorization within the U.S. (and some other nations) as "Black." Individuals within these groups may share some physical features, such as skin color, but they are quite different from each other in many ways- -culture, language, geography, and purported athletic skill. The explanations for their athletic success-- both "genetic"/biological and environmental/cultural--are quite distinct. Even in terms of genetic distance (to the extent that measures of it are valid), East and West Africans are quite distinct. Moreover, as noted, African American and Afro-Caribbean individuals often have a significant amount of European ancestry. The only reason for even considering these two groups together is racial determinism.
READ THE FULL PAPER
Last edited:
school in session!! Read up fellas!! Good read at least something to think about!
been asked and answered....
a little bit of athleticism...an emphasis placed on athletic achievement within our communities ... fierce competition comin' up through the ranks... and a lot of hard work, training and dedication...
and white folks for the most part have options to do other sports..or to be successful without having to play sports at all...
so if they stop bein' competitive in a particular sport..instead of training harder...they jus leave the sport and try something else...or leave athletics altogether...
a little bit of athleticism...an emphasis placed on athletic achievement within our communities ... fierce competition comin' up through the ranks... and a lot of hard work, training and dedication...
and white folks for the most part have options to do other sports..or to be successful without having to play sports at all...
so if they stop bein' competitive in a particular sport..instead of training harder...they jus leave the sport and try something else...or leave athletics altogether...
Good read
Geechiedan... I appreciate your posts on this issue. I'm amazed that black folks are so willing to embrace all this biological determinism stuff knowing full well the implications and logical conclusion to the "genetics" argument.
