JeffB, I'm no biologist. And I was not suggesting that there was a "race" gene. But to say that the concept of race is just a social thing, to me, is a bit too politically correct. Physical attributes are clearly genetically related. The differences between "races," whatever it is, is clearly related to the differences of physical attributes at least for a very large part, and not just a social thing. (My guess is that it has to do with a whole set of genes, not just one gene.) Now, you can argue that the physical attributes that distinguish races do not affect athletic abilities. That needs scientific data. But as Lynus pointed out, even casual observation of the sporting phenomena seems to indicate that they do affect athletic abilities. And as my earlier post said, there are many other social and cultural factors that affect success in a certain sport. These factors are too complex to give us just a simple answer whether the concentration of certain people in certain sport is due to race. What I don't agree is the notion that "race is just a social construct."
I don't care about political correctness and buzzwords of the like Scientists have no definition of race. That is the point. There is no science or data behind the concept of race despite more than 100 years of research into the subject. Thus, it is a social construct. That simply means that society is grouping people by physical characteristics. That doesn't mean that people aren't different and it doesn't mean that a gene defining a physical attribute may not affect other abilities. What it means is that because there is more genetic diversity within a race than there is between races, people we traditionally group in the same race actually have less in common with each other than they do with people in a different race. This means our concept of race is flawed. What should replace it is a population model based on regional genetic differences, not differences of appearance. This should account for the migratory patterns of humans. Is there a "tall" race? How about a "blonde" race? Is there a "fat" race? How about a "freckled" race or "big ear" race? Maybe we can have a "big butt" race or a "pointy nose" race? Sounds absurd doesn't it. But that is what our society has doing with people. We group them through the casual observation that people look different. We've take the most noticeable difference between groups--skin color--and build constructs around them. Casual observation is replete with fallacies. Hitler casually observed that White people ruled over the greatest nations and that non-White people were colonized. His analysis was an oversimplification. Race itself is an oversimplication. As you yourself point out, there are other social, economic factors that may account for the prowess of an individual. Interestingly, you can't casually observe those. Here is a question for you. Assume a black person and white person procreate and their progeny procreate exclusively with white people. At what point is the progeny no longer black? Do they form a new race ("mixed" perhaps)?
One important thing to note is that the concept of race and how to classify raes varies between cultures. In this country, we classify Indians and Pakistanis as Asian. In Britain, they are often classified as Black. In Africa, there really is no such thing as Black. But they too have a concept of race based on phenotype. Their concept of race is also based on the casual observation that people of different tribes are different. We call it ethnicy but to them it is the same thing as what we call race. The things these cultures have in common is that they historically have a caste system. Race is but one social tool--like religion, gender, etc.--used to enforce caste.
Good post JeffB, and all-in-all I hear what you're saying, especially about perceived racial differences vs. (for example) African tribal differences (hence what I was saying about (the best) sprinters hailing from west-African ancestry and (the best)distance runners hailing from east-African ancestry). But you have left out something very important: that races evolved (if you believe in evolution, anyway) due to the climate in which they lived. Its common knowledge that darker people hail from hotter climates and have a pigment in their skin to protect them from the sun, and people hailing from areas that are colder and with less-oppressive sunlight are lighter so that their skin can better absorb the UV rays that cause vitamin D synthesis in the skin. Now, we all bleed red. Blood and organs may be switched from one person to another and just about the only requirement is for the blood types to match. That said, I absolutely believe that all people all the world over account for the Human Race, but if something as simple as skin color can change due to our respective environments, then I see no reason why other physical atttributes cannot change as well.
Exactly, that's the one thing that is flawed about JeffB's argument, no blacks evolved in Europe, so I would guess that Africans do have something else in common with each other, how about the home of their ancestry.
I didn't leave out anything. You are asserting that there is race based on skin color and then telling me how skin color evolved. That doesn't prove race. It only proves that people developed different skin color. I am not arguing against that. My point is that there is no scientific basis for classifying people by skin color. Read the links I posted. An ethnic group is distinct from a race because an ethnic group isn't defined by skin color but by cultural/environmental similarities. Two distinct ethic groups can have the exact same skin color. Again, even in the "common knowledge" observation about why people may have different skin color you are using the race construct to classify, when the reality is that this method of classification is faulty and people within the same race have less in common than people across races. Why they developed darker skin isn't important at all. After more than a hundred years of research, scientists are concluding that there is no genetic basis for race. Of course, scientific eveidence doesn't make it anyeasier to let go of the concept of race as we understand it. It even took a while for Western society to accept that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.
That isn't a flaw in my argument. I have never stated that people don't/haven't evolved. Nor have I argued that differences don't exist or didn't evolve in different regions. Again, this isn't about whether or not differences have evolved or whether differences exist. Of course they do!! Don't confuse an argument about methods of classification (race) with an argument about what is being classified (skin color/people). Sure morest Africans are "black." But even when you casually note one difference based on region (skin/color), once you get into genetics, you note even greater differences beyond the superficial. Africa is composed of hundreds of ethnic groups that vary greatly due to the varying environments of Africa. Some of these differences are perceiveavle, others aren't. Some Africans divide themselves based on nose type, neck length, body type, etc. Science can sometimes distinguish their ancestral origin based on traits common to a region. But no method of classification based on skin color has been proven to work, despite the work of many scientist to try and make it so. Even still, no one has addressed the reality that the definition of race often changes from culture to culture.
Oh, and you are so precise in using the term ancestry. Ancestry can be investigated through genetics. Race cannot. Black does not mean African. Race does not mean ancestry. (Though it has become politically correct to view race as such.) I think the biggest problem we are having here is that the reality that race is too often confused with ethnicity, nationality and ancestry. Remember to have one thing in common is not to have every thing in common. This isn't just my argument. This is also the latest science on the matter. I have a friend whose mother was a US ambassador to Zimbabwe. He went home to live with her one summer. This dude is as dark as Mutumbo, but in Zimbabwe, he was called "white boy" and treated as such because he wasn't of the local ethnicity (as given away by his physical attributes) and he was culturally different (born and raised in the US of A). He wasn't easily classified by the local racial construct. BTW, this is a great discussion. You guys are great!
I hear what you are saying here, and I think you are right. it is reasonable to expect differences in athletic atrributes based on regional evolution. However, it is unreasonable to expect those attributes to always be present with the physical trait of skin color because even amongst those people of the same color (and even very similar genetic makeup), athletic attributes vary greatly. The running example is a great one to point this out. Just becasue A and B often occur together doesn't mean A causes B. It doesn't even mean they have a direct relationship, which is what ideas like "black people are good athletes" and the inverse argument "white people are smarter" are saying. This is a common fallacy.
JeffB, Now after reading your later posts, I think I understand the difference between you and myself, and maybe others on this subject. (I can only speak for myself.) You are seeing "race" as a method of classification. That is fine. And by that, you are right that race is a social construct because we all know that there is no clearly defined boundaries (even socially) to distinguish between races--if nothing else, just for the simple fact that there are "inter-racial" marriages. (But to say that a bull dog is the same kind of dog as a labrador because there are bull-labrador cross-bred is of course wrong.) I see "race" not just a method of classification, but also an indication of ancestry. Black people have different ancestry from white people. Again, the boundaries get more fuzzy the farther back you trace. The point is that different physical attibutes are indicators of different ancestries. That's the whole point of genetics (at least before the advent of molecular biology and genetic engineering). That is why I say race is not just a social construct. So we are not exactly disagreeing. We are talking about two different concepts. The original question of this thread is whether "race" has anything to do with sports. It is clear that the question is not about some social classification but about ancestral lineage. I believe different ancestral lineages do give you different athletic abilities. You also mentioned about the physical diversity within a race is greater than the diversity between races. That is true. But that does not negate the differences between (ancestral) races because we are not talking about individuals but about collective groups. For example, the diversity of size among women and the diversity of size among men are greater than the difference of the typical sizes of a woman and a man. Does that mean that the statement "women are smaller than men" is false? No, because we are not talking about individuals but about collective groups. I hope this clarifies our differences. BTW, good posts.
Actually the point I was arguing had more to do with ancestry and point of origin than race as we understand it. It just so happens that skin color is the most visible bond to ancestry and point of origin, which relates directly to my saying that the best sprinters tend to have West African ancestry and the best distance runners tend to have East African ancestry; similarly, I never said my money would be on just any white guy in the World's Strongest Man Competetion, but on the Scandinavian white guy. Sure, that theory won't always ring true in the spirit of this thread, but it would ring true enough that to bet against it would be foolish. See? I have been breaking it down to ethnicity and not so much "race" as you take it to mean. I used the term "race" mainly due to the direct nature of the initial question posed in the title of this thread, and also due to the word "race" being (perhaps ignorantly) used when "ethnicity" would be a better and more specific term. Concerning your friend in Zimbabwe, my best friend is Mexican-American. We went down to Cancun and to surrounding towns/villages last August and all the locals called him "gringo," so I understand what you're saying, but he is STILL of Latin American descent, regardless of what the locals thought of him. Similarly, my ancestry is 100% Anglo (English, Welsch, Scottish, and Irish, if you wanted to know), but my cultural upbringing is 100% American. Nothing in the world will change my ancestry or my "race," but no Euro on the planet would think of my ethnicity and culture as anything other than American, and more specifically, Texan. This is a good thread, and I'm very happy that we can have an intelligent discussion about this subject without people throwing out allegations of racism and bigotry, which is what I feared this thread would turn into the moment I posted my first....er, post.
Yeah, what he said. That's the point I was making when I said: Like Easy said, we're talking about a collective group. On an individual basis, this whole thread is pointless.
Good post there. The problem is that the term "race" is evolving even as our understanding of ancestory is improving. Race simply doesn't exist as scientific fact, just as the Earth is not the center of the universe. As a means of indicating ancestry, I cannot argue against that except to say the term is too vague. However, as argued by those who want the US Census Bureau to drop racial classification, race is a fuzzy term muddled by a long history. If you mean ancestory you should say ancestory or ethnicity. It seems fickle and PC, but it does make a difference (I know I sound like HeyP and his motion offense now ). It is like the controversy over black people using the term "n*gger." Sure the term can be used to indicate brotherhood amongst blacks, but just because they use it that way doesn't change the nature of the term (as a racial slur), as blacks still won't allow white people to call them that. It is a contradiction brought about by change. Different physical attibutes can be guides to determinging different ancestries as long as what you are trying to do is note continental differences. When we start talking about attributes beyond looks, then the color guide fails as within one population of a certain color there are distinct differences (which is the point of the recent Brazilian study and the Seattle times piece). For historical and cultural reasons, the term "race" is too general. You are using race (which isn't just something I alone see as a method of classification but as a term anthropologically and biologically defined as a social construct) to indicate ancestory. Ancestory is what you are using to classify people. The key is when is the group you are describing too broad? At what point od you acknowledge other, maybe more significant, differences? To say Kenyans are better long distance runners is true. But to say blacks are better long distance runners is false. It is false because 1) noone of any race or ancestory--even blacks and other Africans-- consistently beats the Kenyans; 2) not all or even most blacks have proven to be better long distance runners; and 3) "blacks" is so broad a term that it glosses over the distinctiveness of Kenyan ancestory (which, if anything not purely environmental, is what may be influencing their running prowess) to make a general statement about African ancestory which is not true. Through projects such as the Human Genome Project, that is what science is learning. I guess what it boils down to is one person saying "People A are better Fs than people B." And another person saying "Actually, not all or even most people A are better Fs than people B. Sub-group Q of people A are the better Fs than everyone including other As."
We don't really disagree in the arguments we present. I have a very technical view of race, ancestory and ethnicity (due to my profession). So yeah there is a misunderstanding occuring. However, races (even as indicators of ancestory) are defined differently between cultures while ethicities and ancestories are not. It has to due with the nature and historical use of the term "race." In today's society, we are moving beyond racial caste and now the old terminology of that period ("race") is taking on the attributes of other, more specific terms. I think that is why so many of these types of discussions boil down to flame wars. And I think that is where our misunderstanding lies. I didn't join this thread earlier, because I understood what you meant because you were specific about ethnicity. It is a good question. I only joined it to put my 2 cents in on the whole bit about "race" being a biological fact. Concerning your Mexican-American friend: that is a great example of the contradictions that arise when discussing "race." People used his skin color to infer his ancestory. Great! In my example, the same reasoning failed because his ancestory couldn't be infered by his skin color/race. The local people don't see all people of the same color as "gringos." Across two different cultures, skin color yielded different meanings to the locals. That is important, because Americans tend to thing that the way we see things is just the way things are. I'll put it like this (to get back on topic). I don't think any particular "race" or general ancestral group (African, European, etc.) have a particular advantage in sports. But I do think that specific ethnicities (like Kenyans who were a largely trading society which developed in hot, dry, well above sea level areas) may have advantages in certain activities. Thus, blacks aren't good long-distance runners but Kenyans (who are black) are. Still, we have to wonder if non-Kenyan raised person of Kenyan ancestory can run as well as a native Kenyan. It may not be anything biological, but just the result of humans adapting to their climate (without really evolving). The best comparison I can make is Denver and its professional sports. The "mile high" advantage that is so lauded to have helped the Broncos and, once upon a time, the Nuggets. Certainly those athletes in Denver haven't evolved a gene to help then endure the altitude more than other athletes. It is environmental. They are just conditioned to the altitude.
Canadian Donovan Bailey was the 100 m gold medalist in the 1996 Olympics. He also held the world record time until beaten by Maurice Green. Britain's Linford Christie was the 100 m gold medalist in the 1992 Olypmics. So I guess my answer is yes.
I also like to add that when society expects you to do something because of the way you look, then more likely you're going to grow up learning and possibly mastering the skills to do it. If you see some black guy at the club, then you instinctively expect him to know how to dance. If your father was a fireman, and your father's father was a fireman, then everyone expects you to be a fireman. In our classrooms, many teachers might expect boys to take a more vocal position and be good at math. Our teachers might not be racist, but when they instinctively place stereotypical assumptions on our children, eventually the children get it and adapt to it.
Okay then, point taken. Perhaps I should have simply stated "a black guy" rather than "black American." But MY point is that while anybody is capable of winning various sporting titles, the best bets are on specific peoples from specific ancestry and ethnicity. If you read my earlier posts, history has shown that black people of west African descent are, on average, the best sprinters, and thus are the most likely to hold the title of World's Fastest Man. Recent history has shown that the best bet is nearly always on the African American (Carl Lewis, Leroy Burell, Michael Johnson). Linford Christie, while not an American, is certainly from a first-world, westernized culture in Great Britain, much like Donovan Bailey in Canada. I was a little too quick in that quote of mine. My point, going back to my initial post in this thread, was where the best bets were and are, and that in general and on average, black people of west African descent are the best sprinters. Now if you're a betting man and you want to bet against the American Track & Field Team in the 2002 Olympics, I'll give you great odds and sell you the Brooklyn Bridge to boot.
