@HighEliteMajor @DoubleDD Thanks both for chiming back in on this topic. To answer your rebuttal ddd, I think that's kind of the crux of things. Is the reason white guys own the high jump because that's where they choose to compete or is it because there is something about being Northern/Eastern European that makes you a better high jumper? I simply don't think the answer is as self evident as you and HEM do.
I get that it's easy to try to explain away the obvious... We rely on silly explanations to make us feel better.
I take particular umbrage at a statement like this not because it's not PC, but because it's antithetical to scientific inquiry. Being satisfied that what you see is all there is to something is the fastest path to not just ignorance, but regression. Two hundred years ago, people actually believed that flies and maggots were something that was generated directly by the process of decay, as in, they were an inherent part of biological matter, not a wholly external entity. It wasn't until someone thought to let a piece of beef rot in a vacuum chamber that people figured out something else was going on. From there, germ theory (and literally billions of saved lives) was a stones throw away. Taking at face value that blacks are just automatically more athletic is bad for science (it teaches us nothing about genetics), bad for sports (it teaches us nothing about athletics), and bad for humanities (it teaches us nothing about our behavior). All claims demand scrutiny and all alternatives should be given equal consideration until such time as they fail to be plausible.
The races are not the same. Does anyone really think that we are all the same and we are essentially spray painted? How stupid is that.
No. But this is a straw man. The question isn't are all races exactly the same or not. It's specific to the question of athleticism. Does athleticism at large favor one race? Does the correlation of performance in all sports to the races that are over-represented in them prove that those groups are better genetically adapted to them?
A very good doctor friend of mine (who happens to black) pointed out to me that there are number of genetic conditions that afflict folks based on race. He has no qualms in agreeing to the differences.
He reminded me that blacks have a significantly higher incidence of sickle cell anemia than other populations. It afflicts 1 out of 500 blacks, but only 1 out of 36,000 hispanics. Most all research points to malaria as the source of the genetic alterations, and thus blacks in Africa were much more susceptible. That is, simplistically, the sickle cell itself helped ward off malaria. Thus those with the sickle cell trait were more apt to survive malaria. Malaria, over the history of man, is considered one of the largest killers. This trait continues in blacks today. It is not hard to imagine that other adaptive, survival of the fittest, traits would continue through today. The sickle cell trait is more prevalent in areas where malaria is an issue, it's just more focused on blacks.
This is a good point to bring up and it bears discussing. Yup, the sickle cell trait is one that's found primarily in people with Sub-Saharan ancestry and yes, it's beneficial to fighting malaria. At no point, however, have I denied that this is how genetics work. I believe in science and statistics. I believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection. I believe that people adapted to the environments that they lived in over millions of years. No question. But this doesn't help your case as much as you think it does. Malaria, after all, is limited to a narrow band of the world. Because sickle cells can resist malaria, but also can cause other circulatory problems, places with malaria favored sickle cells (because you're more likely to be killed by the virus than the sickle cell), and places without it favored non-sickle cells. That said, traits like speed, agility, and strength are universally beneficial. Having European genetics in and of itself is no reason to prevent someone from developing these traits geographically/evolutionarily speaking.
Below is a link to an author he was aware of, and an explanation that is worth reading. Just as information.
http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p1.php ↗
I'm glad you brought up this book (Taboo by John Entine is where this information comes from). It's a good read and it brings up a lot of information about genetics and race insofar as it relates to athletic performance. However, the research and statistics quoted in the book neither represent the final word on the genetic science, nor do they fully account for all factors and considerations. Let me bring up one specific claim mentioned in the book and article:
Blacks of exclusively West African ancestry make up 13 percent of the North American and Caribbean population but 40 percent of Major League baseball players, 70 percent of the NFL, and 85 percent of professional basketball.
The problem with this claim is that it isn't actually true. The way Entine counts 'exclusive' West African ancestry is to assume that includes anyone who traces their roots back to the slave trade counts (this book was originally released around 2000, btw, and I don't know if he's released a more updated version recently but the attribution on the cite appears to be from that edition), but more recent data suggests that our average Western Hemisphere dwelling black person has significant European ancestry ↗ (58% of US blacks have European ancestry equivalent to having at least one white great-grandparent), and it's unclear/unknown if all black slaves were exclusively from West African countries.
It's also worth noting that although the books general claim is that West African ancestry gives a competitive edge in some sports and that there's science that supports those claims (and I'm not saying there isn't), it also suggests that other races have characteristics that benefit them in other sports/athletic endeavors as well. My bigger criticism with this book, however, is that it draws too broad of conclusions based on the data it cites. The closest thing that there is a scientific consensus to is that a specific gene common in West African ancestry (but far from exclusive to it) that allows people of that genetic grouping to dominate sprinting sports has been identified ↗.
Entine overreaches, imho, including jumping sports as well, though. As I included in my links above, although black men do hold a majority of records in the long jump and hurdles, high jump records are largely held by Eastern/Northern Europeans. Although a number of black men possess exceptional vertical leaps (MJ's was about 48" ), the highest recorded (although somewhat disputed) belongs to a French man of Persian ancestry by the name of Kadour Ziani, at 60" or 5'. The next best (and better documented) belongs to a Cuban by the name Leonel Marshall Jr (the high jump record also belongs to a Cuban, and in either case, being Hispanic, Cubans trace their ethnic origins largely back to Europe).
There are other studies in other sports that are dominated by white people that try to draw biomechanical/genetic conclusions on why white guys rule there. One such study was by a team of Duke researchers about whites and swimming, and concluded that things such as white's average height advantage and having slightly more body fat compared to Sub-Saharan blacks (supposedly increasing buoyancy) are what make them better. But this, HEM, is why I brought up Michael Phelps to you. If the Duke research is true, and Phelps represents the pinnacle of European advantage in swimming, why, with his Tyshawn Taylor-esque proportions (the two are the same height and have the same wingspan) and clearly good 'burst' speed, could Phelps not have become as good or better a basketball player as TT?
He also pointed me to that there have been multiple studies regarding athletes and muscle development, etc. His opinion was that discussion is constrained by the "everyone is the same mentality."
I think it's worth repeating that the PC/'everyone is the same' argument is a straw man to what I'm discussing, and that I think we are having an open discussion about race/genetics and it's affects on athletic performance and it's one that I've enjoyed (even if that's not true for the rest of everyone else. Sorry to hijack the thread, all, but this is the only time I've ever been able to have this discussion with, essentially, strangers). There probably aren't too many places on the internet where a group of people with disparate political/social/economic opinions could have a discussion like this without it degenerating into a real flame war (even if some of our language seems inflammatory to the other).
Anyway, it's not that I think everyone is the same with only superficial differences, it's that I don't think the notion that black people have the market cornered on elite athleticism (even if you limit it to burst speed, agility/change of direction, vertical jumping, distance jumping, throwing/shooting, body control) is well supported by the best genetic science. Even if it is true that West African/Sub-Saharan ancestry provides for some things, it certainly doesn't appear to cover all bases. European ancestry appears to bring a lot to the table as well. As it relates to basketball specifically, European ancestry appears to me to actually be favored with vertical jumping, upper and lower body strength, and height (yes, even in American, white males are the tallest group on average).
If basketball were solely about who could move the fastest in quick, (mostly) linear bursts, a book like Taboo would be awfully damning. But like most professional sports, it's a lot more complicated of a game than that. Given that I don't believe the research supports the idea that black athletes are either necessarily more prevalent per capita, nor that they possess a monopoly on genes that could/do give a competitive advantage in the sport (or in sports in general), I'm forced to look at other factors that may bias those numbers. I think there's good support for my hypothesis. Part of the problem I have with your position, guys, is that the aforementioned 'speed gene', although more common among West African blacks, is a mutation that also occurs in white people, so if it's true that more white people are spending just as much time and energy as black people on becoming the next Lebron, even if the gene is present at a lower rate, white people should still be churning out lots of athletes that can compete at the highest levels of basketball with black athletes. I think the reality is that they probably do, but for reasons of culture and socio/economics, the best white athletes tend to compete more in other sports. Now, I don't expect to necessarily sway anyone with my arguments, but I don't like having my case misrepresented by people trying to put words in my mouth either.
Lastly, I leave you with a bit of anecdotal evidence that I in no way claim represents the best data or is statistically significant, but it does reflect why I think white people really aren't putting as much effort into being the best basketball players compared to blacks: Professionally, I'm a software developer (as I write this at 2am on a Sunday, I'm supporting server updates). In my career and in my personal life, I've encountered what I believe is an inordinate number of really tall people (4 men, all of them white and nerdy) who had never played a game of organized basketball (or any other sports really) in their lives. The heights of these men range from 6'7" to 7'0" (really 3 guys 6'8"ish and one footer). Despite having been that tall since being freshmen or sophomores in HS, none of them was ever even asked to tryout for their basketball team. All of them are/were overweight to some degree. Again, that proves nothing as far as the white Lebron at IBM scenario, but I buy into the idea that those giant guys wouldn't have been ignored by their HS's basketball coach had they been black.
Anyway, HEM and ddd, please feel free to respond if you have more to say on the matter, but I'll leave my part in the discussion at that. Thanks all for bearing with us.
