Seems like most of you guys did not read the question right. He wants sources who are against this theory.
I’m sure that if you look at websites of the extreme right wing you’ll find something, although I am not sure you want to include any racist crap in your paper.
PBS did a whole 3 part documentary on race which is titled “Race-The Power of an Illusion.” In the first part, they were talking about blacks in sports and their performances compared to whites who competed in the same sport. Lots of scientific dudes in the documentary talking about lot of things pertaining to race. If you want a URL for this show, here it is.
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm
I wish I could tell you more but I didn’t watch much of the show.
If you think these views are backwards and racist why not offer up your opinion as to why things are the way they are?
Its not even just a black thing. Different nationalities excel at different things. Look at all the North Europeans that take part in the Worlds strongest man comp. Look at how well Turks do at weightlifting (usaully only the lighter weight classes as we are all short asses!!!).
Nothing racist in saying someones good at something because of their ethnic background. Different races have inherent pros and cons. Thats just the way the cookie crumbles.
Saying that, if I have kids they will be 1/4 Turkish, 1/4 English and 1/2 Japanese so what the hell kind of sports are they gonna be good at???
I think it’s mostly genetic. Of course it doesnt take long before someone calls someone else a racist for even suggesting that the races are different.
I posted a comment on a message board defending a black athlete accused of being on steroids, citing the scientific research about blacks and some of their genetic predispositions to being muscular, fast, strong, etc.
i remember an interview with Dan Duchaine where they asked if it was possible that Skip LaCour could be so massive and be natural. He said it was possible but unusual for a white guy. Dan was obviously a racist, I guess…
The reason why I believe this is not a good paper to do for school is because of how controversial it is and how likely it is to offend a lot of people.
If your teacher specifically asked for this, then it shouldn’t be a problem.
Keep in mind that while there are a lot of arguments for both sides (people will argue until they’re blue in the face) there is no ‘real’ evidence to give a valid conclusion.
This is a topic which is offensive to non-blacks, because basically it is saying to them “you’re not good enough to make it to the top of this sport because of your race, you’re not born with the ideal genetics.”
It is also offensive to blacks because people tend to read between the lines and think you’re trying to say that black people are successful in sport are there because they were genetically gifted and did not have to work as hard as their non-black counterparts.
This is a simple way of putting it.
If you think you can pull it off, go ahead - but I would keep some other options handy just incase.
Cheers.
The ones that are owe more to the fortitude of their ancestors for surviving the trip by slave ship
If this isnt survival of the fittest (or some will say luckiest or most clever), I dont what it is.
Bottom line: the toughest made it here, and it stayed in the genepool (or at least some edge stayed).
And why do people always bring-up African Marathoners? What about the rest of the other black-dominated sports? What`s your said African-marathoner gonna do asides break in half?
I dont recall seeing African Marathoner types dominate in (American) Football, Basketball, and most of track-and-field explosive/real muscle needed` sports. Wonder why… ;0)
Hope this helps tp give you some extra perspectives for your paper.
As I recall, they did a muscle biopsy on the legs of a top sprinter (I think it may have been Bob Hayes) and were surprised to find the muscle fibre make-up came back 50/50.
As for the ideal calf muscle insertions, higher bone density and testosterone production, you have plenty of non-black atheletes who have all of these characteristics - yet none have broken the 10 second barrier for 100m, but a lot have come very close (eg. 10.00 Koji Ito of Japan, 10.03 Matt Shirvington of Australia, and a Polish guy did 10.00 too). Is it really genetics or a psychological barrier? (like the story about the 4 min mile) It may take just one non-black guy to break the 10 sec barrier before a whole lot will follow suit.
One thing that I have been thinking is that if this idea starts floating around for a while longer, people may start really pushing genetically engineering babies, to make super babies that are “naturally” great athletes.
Until some Rogue Scientist does it, you can be guaranteed that Ethics will stop it. Kind of bizarre that Ethics will only slow the inevitable progress, and never actually produce anything better.
My hunch is that the military is 15 years in advance on these gene-geneering ideas and theyre already preparing something. Why shouldnt they? Take the top brass, take the best, and breed it. Why rely on chance when you can have science & method on your side?
And, don`t worry about Ethics. If nobody does anything here, you can be sure someone in a less restricted country will get to the answer quicker. And leave us all in the dust eventually.
Last rant: this selection is already in place, although subconsciously. Like attracts like. The more beautiful people team up (usually) with either rich people (therefore insuring long-life for healthy offspring) or beautiful people (therefore not losing the genes and giving ugly people one less chance to spoil the genepool). You can use the same analogy for other traits, but money and looks are the most important factors. Statistics have also mentionned that the population has been getting more ectomorphic (taller, skinnier) as a whole over the last century. Excellent. Endormorphism has no use in our over-abundant food society. It`s about time the genepool caught up.
I think that you’re going to run into problems unless you come up with a better definition of “sports”. There are a lot of sports where you rarely, if ever, see a black athlete compete on a world-class level. Swimming has been mentioned; diving and any other water sport (water polo, skiing, etc.) would also fall into the same category.
Any of the alpine sports? No black champions. Tennis? One or two here and there, but overall, blacks might as well not be represented. Figure skating? Suria Bonally (sp?), and that’s it. Powerlifting? In the heavier classes, no black champions (although they’re pretty well represented in the lower weight classes, for some reason). Soccer? Blacks cannot be said to dominate the sport in the same way that they do in the NBA. Hockey? Nope. Sumo wrestling? Nope. Pride fighting, or any kind of martial arts? Nope.
And this is just off the top of my head. I could come up with a lot more (hammer throwing, pole vaulting, caber toss, cricket, ping pong, racketball, etc.) given a little time. Basically, the idea of blacks being “better” at sports is based on a small sample of certain sports that just happen to be popular in America and happen to rely on a couple of physical characteristics that blacks have more of than other ethnic groups. (Mainly, football and basketball, and these rely on running and jumping to a large degree - two things that I think blacks are better at than other ethnic groups.) But that’s a very far cry from a blanket “Blacks are better at (all) sports”.
Think about it.
Here’s some input. Don’t shy away from a topic because it is contoversial or difficult. Forge ahead with it.
My two cents is that is more societal then genetics. Look at Hockey, swimming, etc. Some would say Hispanics dominate soccer. Isn’t that really a factor of how many Hispanics play soccer vs. say Basketball.
Again my two cents.
One thing that is really annoying me about this thread is the use of the phrase ‘black person’.
Firstly there is no such thing as ‘race’ there are just genetically similar pools of humans. There is more variance in genes within the west african gene pool than there is between european and west african gene pools.
Secondly blacks encompasses both west african and east african gene pools. West africans are actually alot more similar to europeans than they are to east africans. North chinese populations are actually more closely related to europeans than they are to their fellow southern chinese cousins.
Thirdly approximately 75 percent of African Americans have one white
ancestor and 15 percent have a predominately white ancestry. What happens when these ‘races’ interbreed? The genetically similar pools are becoming more and more intermingled as it becomes easier to travel the globe and these groups live and work in closer proximity.
How would you characterise tiger woods for example? He got quite upset when the black community labelled him as black when he is over half asian and only 1/4 black.
Yes there are undoubtedly groups of genetically similar people with certain attributes that predispose them to excel at sport but to describe this simply in terms of black and white seems a massive oversimplification IHMO.
Reasons for such things are not simple.
Genetics absolutely plays a role, as well as the environment a young black male comes up in.
I wouldn’t write about this. Yes, it is controversial, but you still can piss a lot of people off and get forced into doing ‘sensitivity’ time. People are not discerning when reading or discussing such topics, but rather reflexive. Write about social security or prescription drug benefits.
“How would you characterize tiger woods for example?”
Well if you watched Dave Chappelle’s Racial Draft, you would have known that he is now black.
The “genetic pool of humans” that I came from must have been Stagnant. Creed, I think you are funny. I thought that being ?politically correct? was only an American thing. It does not matter what you call it. If it looks like duck and acts like a duck and sound like a duck its not a duck its really a gene pool of 15% chicken, 10% turkey, 74% duck and 1% ?other?. I can?t wait to hear your explanation of male and female, or are there no sexes either? Just for the record I am not a ?black person?, so what would be a more appropriate term? Regardless of race, I think you should be proud of who you are. I do have a problem with the term ?African American?. If we stand as a nation why divide us in that way. I am in no way suggesting that someone should forget about their heritage, far from it. What if the person in question is from South Africa and is white? They are still an ?African American? by definition right?
Me Solomon Grundy
P-Dog, I have no idea who “sal undy?” is.
Me Solomon Grundy
Whoa there Solomon, sorry have I offended your blackness! You can of course call yourself what you want. But genetically you and someone from ethiopia are no more alike than you and me. That is the point I am making. Actually we probably share more genes in common than that ethiopian. Unless you are of course of east african descendancy. You are labelled as ‘black’ by society and may well be treated differently because of that but scientifically there is no such thing as black.
There is only one race, the human race. This is not some ideological bullshit but science. I realise what i am saying may offend people but I am just stating a fact. And no I realise that in the real world it is not that simple but I am discussing the scientific grounds as to why blacks dominate sports. I just think we should be exact in our definition to avoid using terminology that has no scientific basis.
But tell me one thing, what would happen if you didn’t know what ‘race’ you were? Should you not feel proud of who you are and who your parents are?
But tell me one thing, what would happen if you didn’t know what ‘race’ you were? Should you not feel proud of who you are and who your parents are?
Since we are staying on the facts level, aren`t your ancestry just luck in the genetic lottery. Nobody chooses his parents.
Creed, I am not offended. First off, I’m as white as they get. I did not intend to give anyone the impression that I was anything else. I wish that as a society we could accept that the only race was the ?human race?, but we don?t. I merely wanted to bring to light the point that race is not an excuse for weakness/underachieving or a plus that makes a group of individuals better that another. I do think that the right attitude is a catalyst for success in any arena. Having an aggressive attitude could contribute to success in athletics as well as entertainment. Most of the comments in my first post were not directed at you. They were simply an attempt at making comments dealing with the topic. I wanted to probe the reason for the assumption that was made.
To answer your question, my pride or lack of, has nothing to do with my race.
Humbly
Me Solomon Grundy
Dan C
I agree no one can choose they’re parents. The point I was trying to (perhaps unsucessfully) make is, your parents are your parents, and you should be able to be proud of them regardless of what race they are. If their ancestry is unknown you should still be allowed to be proud of them for who they are and proud of yourself. Just because you don’t belong to any one ‘race’ shouldn’t mean you can’t be proud of yourself.
Obviously some people may be ashamed of their parents!
I dont mean for this paper to become to racial war. I just want the truth. The truth is that people with black skin, usually have the genes to make the worlds best athletes.
I wish it wasn’t this way. I wish that everyone was born the same in the physical department. It sucks that someone who has a stellar work ethic, practices all the time, and lives and breathes a sport, can be demolished by someone who hasn’t “tried” nearly as hard. But, that is just the way the word turns. I think that a lot of people with great work ethics wouldn’t have their drive if it wasn’t for their genetic weaknesses.
Well, I better get to starting my rough draft, its due tommorrow!