the church in Africa

[Solon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

why those of West African descent excel in those athletic events, only that they do. That can be proven. Look at the stars in the NBA. In the NFL. In the World Cup. In the Olympic finals for 100 M.

But tracing it back to West Africa is like looking for a good CEO in the Caucausus mountains. It just doesn't work like that. If you want to find hoopsters, go to the urban ghettos in the USA - not Cameroon or Ghana. I have absolutely no problem saying that black Americans are dominant in certain sport. As you point out, this is obvious. I am just pointing out that it has nothing to do with their racial origin, and (almost) everything to do with their culture and society.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by All-American

I was of the understanding that those of African ancestry typically have denser muscle matter than caucasians. Any truth to this?

I don't know the science of it all. The study in the Miller article about W. Montague Cobb measuring Jesse Owens' legs makes me think many consider there to be general physical differences between different races - remember, Cobb found Owens' legs to be more Caucasian than black African. However, the articles point out that these differences don't equate to athletic achievement.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

As you point out, this is obvious. I am just pointing out that it has nothing to do with their racial origin, and (almost) everything to do with their culture and society.

Are you talking about basketball or sprinting?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Solon

But tracing it back to West Africa is like looking for a good CEO in the Caucausus mountains. It just doesn't work like that. If you want to find hoopsters, go to the urban ghettos in the USA - not Cameroon or Ghana. I have absolutely no problem saying that black Americans are dominant in certain sport. As you point out, this is obvious. I am just pointing out that it has nothing to do with their racial origin, and (almost) everything to do with their culture and society.

The only thing I would offer is that (as sad it may seem) slave owners who tried to breed slaves... (No I am not jimmy the greek)... there is some of that component in there....

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Are you talking about basketball or sprinting?

Neither and both. I'm talking about the fallacy of equating race with athletic success.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Solon

Neither and both. I'm talking about the fallacy of equating race with athletic success.

Just curious... but what about kenyans and long distance running?? what are your thoughts?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

The only thing I would offer is that (as sad it may seem) slave owners who tried to breed slaves... (No I am not jimmy the greek)... there is some of that component in there....

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.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Just curious... but what about kenyans and long distance running?? what are your thoughts?

Same thing - it's not their racial background, but the way they live and have lived for hundreds of years. It's a complicated issue and I'm not quite smart enough to explain it properly (that's why I cited the articles above), but I'm drawing a difference between genes you get from your family and race you share with millions of people. Not all Kenyans are bad-ass marathoners, but most elite distance runners are east Africans. Their way of life and their gene pool has made them dominant in this field, but it's not a racial tendency. I guess the crux of it is that there are no features unique to their race that make them better distance runners. Nobody denies that they are great distance runners, but the color of their skin is not the determining factor.

Again, my gripe isn't with identifying Kenya as a place that produces great distance runners. 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. This is the crap Hitler talked about.

[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.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's more recognizing we need to seek out recruiting pools which are not as competitive as other pools.

Urban areas are already competitively groomed, Europe is more competitive, but East Africa is not.

I have absolutely no problem with this (or most of the other) posts. It's clear that there are some fabulous athletes in Africa (like runners in Kenya). My complaint was with the assertion that African Americans can trace their athletic success to their West African ancestry.