the church in Africa

[MikeWaters]

I hope we focus on senegal. I hear that there are really tall people there, that like Basketball.

I hope this isn't considered cynical.

[Indy Coug]

Look at how many college and pro football players have Nigerian surnames.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I hope we focus on senegal. I hear that there are really tall people there, that like Basketball.

I hope this isn't considered cynical.

I'll take any of the West African countries: Senegal, Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast, etc. That's where most of the great black athletes are descended from in sports like BB, FB, soccer, sprinting and jumping events of track. Fortunately it's where we have the best success right now in the church.

[Archaea]

I hope we focus upon that part of East Africa, mostly upon the tallish males. We should have BYU scouts everywhere.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

That's where most of the great black athletes are descended from in sports like BB, FB, soccer, sprinting and jumping events of track. Fortunately it's where we have the best success right now in the church.

I've got to speak out against this sentiment. I find this particular comment pretty racially insensitive.

"Scientific Racism" is a late 19th - early 20th century fallacy that we need to eliminate. While the presence of multiple deadly diseases in West Africa sadly made natives from this region more valuable as slaves and subsequently resulted in large numbers being forcefully brought to the Americas for plantation work, it is simplistic and dehumanizing to imply that black Africans are somehow genetically predisposed to athletic success any more than those of other races. It negates these athletes' achievements by attributing them to genetics instead of hard work, training, and skill.

As black Americans achieved greater athletic successes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, white Americans attempted to explain away this success as a result of different physiology. Black Africans, and those of black African descent, some scientists theorized, had foot and calf structures different from white Caucasians, and therefore were automatically advantaged in running sports. Comfortingly (for the whites), these theorists claimed that white brainpower was likewise genetically superior to that of black Africans.

This went so far that in the 1930s W. Montague Cobb took muscle biopsies of one of America's finest African-American athletes, Jesse Owens to determine if his anatomy contained features unique to his race. Cobb found that Owens' calf muscles were closer to normal measurements for the Caucasian race.

I could go on, but let me just provide a couple of very good articles on this issue. Both are available (free) through the aafla.org (athletic amateur foundation of Los Angeles) website.

1. Mark Dyreson, "American Ideas about Race and Olympic Races from the 1890s to the 1950s: Shattering Myths or Reinforcing Scientific Racism?" in Journal of Sport History, 2001, Vol. 28, No. 2, p. 173-215.

2. Patrick Miller, "The Anatomy of Scientific Racism: Racialist Responses to Black Athletic Achievement," Journal of Sport History, 1998, Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 119-151.

So, you say, how does one account for the predominance of African Americans in certain US sports, and in certain "skill positions" in these sports? While genes do play a role (clearly, athletic parents will often produce athletic children), African genes provide no scientifically measurable advantage over genes from those of other races. More succinctly: there are good athletes of every race; race itself has yet to be shown to be a determining factor in athleticism.

Culture is a huge part of explaining athletic aptitudes. Athletics in many African American communities is seen as one of the only means of social mobility. Hence, it is emphasized much more in that culture than in others.

So, while a harmless joke here or there is just that - harmless - I would urge us to shy away from notions of scientific racism. That crap just sets us back a few too many decades for my comfort. I have no problem with joking about baptizing lots of tall people or athletic people, but I am uncomfortable when people espouse ideas that equate athletic achievement with racial descent, especially in light of the LDS church's past racial policies.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I've got to speak out against this sentiment. I find this particular comment pretty racially insensitive.

"Scientific Racism" is a late 19th - early 20th century fallacy that we need to eliminate. While the presence of multiple deadly diseases in West Africa sadly made natives from this region more valuable as slaves and subsequently resulted in large numbers being forcefully brought to the Americas for plantation work, it is simplistic and dehumanizing to imply that black Africans are somehow genetically predisposed to athletic success any more than those of other races. It negates these athletes' achievements by attributing them to genetics instead of hard work, training, and skill.

As black Americans achieved greater athletic successes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, white Americans attempted to explain away this success as a result of different physiology. Black Africans, and those of black African descent, some scientists theorized, had foot and calf structures different from white Caucasians, and therefore were automatically advantaged in running sports. Comfortingly (for the whites), these theorists claimed that white brainpower was likewise genetically superior to that of black Africans.

This went so far that in the 1930s W. Montague Cobb took muscle biopsies of one of America's finest African-American athletes, Jesse Owens to determine if his anatomy contained features unique to his race. Cobb found that Owens' calf muscles were closer to normal measurements for the Caucasian race.

I could go on, but let me just provide a couple of very good articles on this issue. Both are available (free) through the aafla.org (athletic amateur foundation of Los Angeles) website.

1. Mark Dyreson, "American Ideas about Race and Olympic Races from the 1890s to the 1950s: Shattering Myths or Reinforcing Scientific Racism?" in Journal of Sport History, 2001, Vol. 28, No. 2, p. 173-215.

2. Patrick Miller, "The Anatomy of Scientific Racism: Racialist Responses to Black Athletic Achievement," Journal of Sport History, 1998, Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 119-151.

So, you say, how does one account for the predominance of African Americans in certain US sports, and in certain "skill positions" in these sports? While genes do play a role (clearly, athletic parents will often produce athletic children), African genes provide no scientifically measurable advantage over genes from those of other races. More succinctly: there are good athletes of every race; race itself has yet to be shown to be a determining factor in athleticism.

Culture is a huge part of explaining athletic aptitudes. Athletics in many African American communities is seen as one of the only means of social mobility. Hence, it is emphasized much more in that culture than in others.

So, while a harmless joke here or there is just that - harmless - I would urge us to shy away from notions of scientific racism. That crap just sets us back a few too many decades for my comfort. I have no problem with joking about baptizing lots of tall people or athletic people, but I am uncomfortable when people espouse ideas that equate athletic achievement with racial descent, especially in light of the LDS church's past racial policies.

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.

[All-American]

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

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

I've got to speak out against this sentiment. I find this particular comment pretty racially insensitive.

"Scientific Racism" is a late 19th - early 20th century fallacy that we need to eliminate. While the presence of multiple deadly diseases in West Africa sadly made natives from this region more valuable as slaves and subsequently resulted in large numbers being forcefully brought to the Americas for plantation work, it is simplistic and dehumanizing to imply that black Africans are somehow genetically predisposed to athletic success any more than those of other races. It negates these athletes' achievements by attributing them to genetics instead of hard work, training, and skill.

As black Americans achieved greater athletic successes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, white Americans attempted to explain away this success as a result of different physiology. Black Africans, and those of black African descent, some scientists theorized, had foot and calf structures different from white Caucasians, and therefore were automatically advantaged in running sports. Comfortingly (for the whites), these theorists claimed that white brainpower was likewise genetically superior to that of black Africans.

This went so far that in the 1930s W. Montague Cobb took muscle biopsies of one of America's finest African-American athletes, Jesse Owens to determine if his anatomy contained features unique to his race. Cobb found that Owens' calf muscles were closer to normal measurements for the Caucasian race.

I could go on, but let me just provide a couple of very good articles on this issue. Both are available (free) through the aafla.org (athletic amateur foundation of Los Angeles) website.

1. Mark Dyreson, "American Ideas about Race and Olympic Races from the 1890s to the 1950s: Shattering Myths or Reinforcing Scientific Racism?" in Journal of Sport History, 2001, Vol. 28, No. 2, p. 173-215.

2. Patrick Miller, "The Anatomy of Scientific Racism: Racialist Responses to Black Athletic Achievement," Journal of Sport History, 1998, Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 119-151.

So, you say, how does one account for the predominance of African Americans in certain US sports, and in certain "skill positions" in these sports? While genes do play a role (clearly, athletic parents will often produce athletic children), African genes provide no scientifically measurable advantage over genes from those of other races. More succinctly: there are good athletes of every race; race itself has yet to be shown to be a determining factor in athleticism.

Culture is a huge part of explaining athletic aptitudes. Athletics in many African American communities is seen as one of the only means of social mobility. Hence, it is emphasized much more in that culture than in others.

So, while a harmless joke here or there is just that - harmless - I would urge us to shy away from notions of scientific racism. That crap just sets us back a few too many decades for my comfort. I have no problem with joking about baptizing lots of tall people or athletic people, but I am uncomfortable when people espouse ideas that equate athletic achievement with racial descent, especially in light of the LDS church's past racial policies.

When it applies specifically to short distance sprinting, there is little doubt that people of West African descent have a distinct advantage over people of other backgrounds.

Take a look at the IAAF top 50 100M sprinters in the world rankings. Approximately 80% are of West African ancestry.

Acknowledging that West Africans are faster than other people is no more "racist" or threatening than acknowledging that Swedes have lighter skin than people from Yemen.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Solon

I've got to speak out against this sentiment. I find this particular comment pretty racially insensitive.

"Scientific Racism" is a late 19th - early 20th century fallacy that we need to eliminate. While the presence of multiple deadly diseases in West Africa sadly made natives from this region more valuable as slaves and subsequently resulted in large numbers being forcefully brought to the Americas for plantation work, it is simplistic and dehumanizing to imply that black Africans are somehow genetically predisposed to athletic success any more than those of other races. It negates these athletes' achievements by attributing them to genetics instead of hard work, training, and skill.

As black Americans achieved greater athletic successes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, white Americans attempted to explain away this success as a result of different physiology. Black Africans, and those of black African descent, some scientists theorized, had foot and calf structures different from white Caucasians, and therefore were automatically advantaged in running sports. Comfortingly (for the whites), these theorists claimed that white brainpower was likewise genetically superior to that of black Africans.

This went so far that in the 1930s W. Montague Cobb took muscle biopsies of one of America's finest African-American athletes, Jesse Owens to determine if his anatomy contained features unique to his race. Cobb found that Owens' calf muscles were closer to normal measurements for the Caucasian race.

I could go on, but let me just provide a couple of very good articles on this issue. Both are available (free) through the aafla.org (athletic amateur foundation of Los Angeles) website.

1. Mark Dyreson, "American Ideas about Race and Olympic Races from the 1890s to the 1950s: Shattering Myths or Reinforcing Scientific Racism?" in Journal of Sport History, 2001, Vol. 28, No. 2, p. 173-215.

2. Patrick Miller, "The Anatomy of Scientific Racism: Racialist Responses to Black Athletic Achievement," Journal of Sport History, 1998, Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 119-151.

So, you say, how does one account for the predominance of African Americans in certain US sports, and in certain "skill positions" in these sports? While genes do play a role (clearly, athletic parents will often produce athletic children), African genes provide no scientifically measurable advantage over genes from those of other races. More succinctly: there are good athletes of every race; race itself has yet to be shown to be a determining factor in athleticism.

Culture is a huge part of explaining athletic aptitudes. Athletics in many African American communities is seen as one of the only means of social mobility. Hence, it is emphasized much more in that culture than in others.

So, while a harmless joke here or there is just that - harmless - I would urge us to shy away from notions of scientific racism. That crap just sets us back a few too many decades for my comfort. I have no problem with joking about baptizing lots of tall people or athletic people, but I am uncomfortable when people espouse ideas that equate athletic achievement with racial descent, especially in light of the LDS church's past racial policies.

I'm not making a case for scientific racism. I'm an empiricist here. I'm not going to get into 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. Maybe there's a scientific reason. Maybe they work harder. Maybe they're more likely to enjoy those sports. Maybe they're given more opportunities. Maybe another reason. I don't know and I'm not going there.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

When it applies specifically to short distance sprinting, there is little doubt that people of West African descent have a distinct advantage over people of other backgrounds.

Take a look at the IAAF top 50 100M sprinters in the world rankings. Approximately 80% are of West African ancestry.

Acknowledging that West Africans are faster than other people is no more "racist" or threatening than acknowledging that Swedes have lighter skin than people from Yemen.

You and Jay make valid observations. We don't care why West African descent seems to produce better sprinters, we just know they do. So rather than argue that short pigmies from Indonesia should be our forwards on the basketball team, we go with the flow.