the church in Africa

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Solon

That isn't the same thing as asserting that a certain race has athletically superior genes or DNA. In fact, this further proves my point. If the best specimens of a certain race were selectively bred to perpetrate traits that made more valuable slaves, we can conclude that there was a variety of physical attributes in existence and not a superior athletic race.

Hey, we all know how genetics work. It's no secret that one of the reasons I married my wife is because her name hangs in her high school's athletic hall of fame. I want athlete kids and, frankly, I don't contribute a whole hell of a lot in that department. Race is incidental. It's culture and (small-scale) heredity that matter - not overarching generalized notions of racial superiority.

Well said.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

My gripe is asserting that their race gives them an athletic advantage and that, if you took them out of Kenya and moved them to a completely different environment, four hundred years from now they would still dominate because of their racial superiority.

But this is essentially what we've seen with sprinters of West African descent. The US, Caribbean nations, Western Europe and so forth with vastly different cultures, environment, resources, etc. all have West African sprinters.

Nations like China with 1.2B people and a government that is fully willing to pull kids out of families and train them for life to excel in Olympic sports is completely and utterly inable to produce a sprinter in the top 50 in the world for men or women in the 100M dash.

Now, I don't think in general that a given subpopulation is superior athletically than another, but I do believe that in a sport like sprinting where the particular physical traits required to be successful are so isolated, that inequities in racial ability can exist.

http://www.iaaf.org/worldrankings/index.html

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

But this is essentially what we've seen with sprinters of West African descent. The US, Caribbean nations, Western Europe and so forth with vastly different cultures, environment, resources, etc. all have West African sprinters.

Nations like China with 1.2B people and a government that is fully willing to pull kids out of families and train them for life to excel in Olympic sports is completely and utterly inable to produce a sprinter in the top 50 in the world for men or women in the 100M dash.

Now, I don't think in general that a given subpopulation is superior athletically than another, but I do believe that in a sport like sprinting where the particular physical traits required to be successful are so isolated, that inequities in racial ability can exist.

http://www.iaaf.org/worldrankings/index.html

The closest China has come, with 42 different ethnic groups, is a world class high hurdler or two. That is a classic example of "races" or "ethnic groups" producing differeing traits.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Solon, first you have to define race. Are the Kenyans a different race than the West Africans?

Do they have different genes that make them more prone to have success in one area of athletics than another (sprinting vs. long distance)?

I think if you are arguing that race doesn't explain it, but genes do, you are just parsing definitions.

Sure, but defining 'race' is one of the toughest questions out there. I consider race to be almost completely a social construction, but I'm not a scientist. We can continually define smaller and smaller sub-populations as 'races' in an attempt to identify 'racial' tendencies, but I'm neither qualified nor inclined to do so.

I'm just looking at this historically, where 19th and early 20th century Europeans classified the races in big, generalized groups such as black African, white European, Asian, American Indian, etc. and then tried to make conclusions based on those races (pseudo-anthropology). It's the broad strokes I'm opposed to.

All I meant with the 'genes' talk is that there is variation within a race. Athletic parents can/will have athletic kids, but any "athlete gene" that Africans have that makes them superior to white/Caucasians has yet to be identified.

Again, my only complaint was the assertion that African Americans can credit their athletic success to West African ancestry.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

But this is essentially what we've seen with sprinters of West African descent. The US, Caribbean nations, Western Europe and so forth with vastly different cultures, environment, resources, etc. all have West African sprinters.

Nations like China with 1.2B people and a government that is fully willing to pull kids out of families and train them for life to excel in Olympic sports is completely and utterly inable to produce a sprinter in the top 50 in the world for men or women in the 100M dash.

Now, I don't think in general that a given subpopulation is superior athletically than another, but I do believe that in a sport like sprinting where the particular physical traits required to be successful are so isolated, that inequities in racial ability can exist.

http://www.iaaf.org/worldrankings/index.html

In addition to track, NBA players with West Africa descent have also emerged from North America, Carribean, Europe, and Africa. Almost as stark as the 100M example is the World Cup soccer observation. Brazil, England, France, Holland, and even US where soccer is not popular among black youth--players with West African descent are overrepresented in all those countries.

Football is an American sport, so you can't draw the same comparison.

So it's neither stereotyping nor going out on a limb to say that if you had a pool of West African saints, you could develop some good football and basketball players.

[MikeWaters]

If you credit genes, and you admit that some genes are more predominant in some groups, then you are crediting race. You would then be admitting it is possible that West Africans are more likely to be superior sprinters due to genes.

There never will be a single gene credited as an "athlete gene" in a large group. There isn't even a single gene for most inherited disease.

There is the instance of the freak boy in Europe, whose parents were both Olympic athletes. This boy has a mutation that has led to excessive muscle production. He got one copy from his and one copy from his mom. He has incredible strength for his age.

It is safe to say that some genes may be important. It is also safe to say that some genes may be more predominant in some groups.

Or am I wrong?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

Sure, but defining 'race' is one of the toughest questions out there. I consider race to be almost completely a social construction, but I'm not a scientist. We can continually define smaller and smaller sub-populations as 'races' in an attempt to identify 'racial' tendencies, but I'm neither qualified nor inclined to do so.

...
Again, my only complaint was the assertion that African Americans can credit their athletic success to West African ancestry.

You've knocked down that strawman. Good boy.

Nobody asserted or will assert that anybody's "athletic success" is tied to one specific gene or that other factors don't contribute to athletic success. It started off with a joke that we could also identify some Senegalese basketball players which some colleges have recruited with success in basketball. If there is a talent pool which is not as vigorously pursued then BYU would be well-served to go to a less competitive field if similar talent exists.

Most of us aren't make social judgments about the character or quality of individuals based on the social construction of race. We are making an empirical observation that certain speed or springing sports are dominated for whatever reason by persons with some proportion of West African ancestry. Rather than deny the empirical evidence, we simply recognize if one wishes to be successful one needs to go where one will more likely be successful.

Truthfully, if you could recruit the best Icelanders for 100m sprinting or the best Jamaicans, which would you select, sight unseen. I'll take Jamaica and you take Iceland. Team with the most winners takes the spoils.

[Solon]

[QUOTE=Indy Coug;70454The US, Caribbean nations, Western Europe and so forth with vastly different cultures, environment, resources, etc. all have West African sprinters[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't consider these nations to have vastly different cultures and environments, and the resources at the top levels are probably pretty close since most of the Carribbean athletes compete(d) for US colleges.

Athletics themselves are western inventions. Athletic training, competition, and science as we know it today all started with the democratization of European/US sport in the late 19th century. China, a nation with an unbelievably long and rich heritage, has no foundation for competing in western sports with western powers. They're playing catch-up. The sports that are played and the agonistic mentality associated with competition at the highest levels are an integral part of the western ethos - this same ethos that pervades Europe and the US (and the Carribbean nations that are former European colonies).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I wouldn't consider these nations to have vastly different cultures and environments, and the resources at the top levels are probably pretty close since most of the Carribbean athletes compete(d) for US colleges.

Athletics themselves are western inventions. Athletic training, competition, and science as we know it today all started with the democratization of European/US sport in the late 19th century. China, a nation with an unbelievably long and rich heritage, has no foundation for competing in western sports with western powers. They're playing catch-up. The sports that are played and the agonistic mentality associated with competition at the highest levels are an integral part of the western ethos - this same ethos that pervades Europe and the US (and the Carribbean nations that are former European colonies).

You have no idea what China is investing to surpass the west in sports. They have the East German scientists to help them cheat. They take the kids from early ages, two or three after genetic testing, they even mate good athletes to produce better athletes. Eventually they will be the world superpower in sport. Unless they overload on steroids, they don't have the proper combination of explosion and power to sprint with the world's best despite Herculean efforts to do so. China has a tradition for excellence and will surpass us in almost everything.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You've knocked down that strawman.

It started off with a joke that we could also identify some Senegalese basketball players which some colleges have recruited with success in basketball.

First, it's hardly a "straw man" to take exception to Jay Santos' post:

"I'll take any of the West African countries: . . . That's where most of the great black athletes are descended from in sports like BB, FB, soccer, sprinting and jumping events of track."

This is the only thing I found objectionable. It's perfectly valid and kind of funny to dream about discovering great African athletes for the team. Santos' post, however, struck me as being in poor taste. Nothing against him personally; he probably didn't intend it that way.

Second, my objection to Santos' post is rooted in the historical processes which have led to changing perceptions of race and athletics. A hundred years ago, black athletes were considered inferior. Today, many consider the black athlete to be superior. If we narrow it down to specific groups of families or genetic traits, we can identify traits that make better athletes. These traits, however, are not "racial" traits . . i.e. they don't transcend the entire race like the more obvious (defining) features (most obviously skin color).

If you want to say that the elite distance-running people from Kenya are a "race," fine - that's the terminology issue Mike W identified. But I'm understanding "race" in this regard refer mainly to skin color.

Seriously, though. Did Santos' post not bother anyone else? Maybe I am a freak.

Also, if you get a chance, read those articles I referenced. They're by leading sport historians and don't really pass judgment on today as much as make you realize 19th and 20th centuries were really messed up.