Jason Williams, the cat-like guard of the Sacramento Kings, is affectionately called "The Thrilla in Vanilla" by his teammates. As in: Wow, maybe some white guys can jump and run.
But let's be real: the best whites and Asians cannot jump as high as elite African American athletes. Blacks have redefined modern sports, making up 87% of the NBA and 75% of the NFL. And while only one in eight people in the world are of African ancestry, blacks hold every major running record.
My book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It addresses this phenomenon free from racist rhetoric.
What are the facts? What have scientists who actually study this issue found?
"If you can believe that individuals of recent African ancestry are not genetically advantaged over those of European and Asian ancestry in certain athletic endeavors," notes retired University of California-Berkeley molecular biologist Vincent Sarich, "then you probably could be led to believe just about anything. But such dominance will never convince those whose minds are made up that genetics plays not role in shaping the racial patterns we see in sports. When we discuss issues such as race, it pushes buttons and the cerebral cortex just shuts down."
Of course, blacks don't dominate all sports. If you don't have access, you can't to excel; there are no Texans starring in the National Hockey League playoffs. But by and large, athletes who trace their ancestry to Africa are over-represented in many sports in which the social and economic barriers to participation are low. Remarkably, as equality of opportunity has increased in the past 30 years, equality of results on the field has declined.
The socially acceptable explanation for such a staggering trend – that blacks succeed to escape the clutches of the ghetto – is unconvincing and I believe racist. Donovan Bailey, the Olympic 100-meter champion, who quit his job on the Toronto Stock Exchange and put his Porsche in hock to pursue his dream to become the world's fastest human, hardly fits such a sweeping stereotype. Neither does the (once) middle-class Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant who speaks fluent Italian, Chris Webber who went to private school before moving on the University of Michigan, or Grant Hill, the son of a Yale father and a Wellesley mother. Few people glibly claim that white skiers or female soccer stars, many of comfortable means, are successful because they needed to flee desperate financial conditions. We only use such stereotypes to stigmatize black athletes.
No athlete succeeds because of economic conditions or ancestry. The success of each individual is a product of that person's ambition, creativity, and intelligence matched with the serendipity of life - the X factors that make sports so compelling. But if the roulette wheel of genetics did not land on that athlete's number, hard work would come to naught. So while the success of any individual rests with the athlete, the pattern of success in sports is circumscribed by population genetics - the inherent differences between populations shaped over many thousands of years of evolution.
"Differences among athletes of elite caliber are so small ... it might be very, very significant," agrees Robert Malina, Michigan State University anthropologist and editor of the Journal of Human Biology, who has studied anatomical differences of elite athletes over more than 30 years. "The fraction of a second is the difference between the gold medal and fourth place."
Running offers the best prima facie case for the potential impact of body type differences. Athletes of West African descent dominate sports requiring speed and jumping, such as basketball and football. They hold the fastest two hundred 100-meter times, all under 10 seconds, and 494 of the top 500 times. In last weekend's NFL draft, of the 69 players who ran the 40-yard dash in 4.5 seconds or less, only one is white.
This is not to say that blacks of West African ancestry are "superior" athletes. Body type does not confer rank. Generally, they are lousy at endurance sports as a consequence of smaller natural lung capacity, body type, a preponderance of fast twitch type muscle fibers type, and characteristics. Having less natural body fat, an advantage in sprinting, is a disadvantage in swimming; sports scientists have long known that blacks are less natural buoyant, which makes becoming an elite long distance swimmer a long shot at best.
Humans are different, the consequence of thousands of years of evolution in varying terrains. This is not an issue of black and white. East African blacks, from Kenya and Ethiopia, for example, have traveled a different evolutionary path and are genetically distinct in many aspects of their body type and physiology from West Africans. The best East African time in the 100 meters, 10.28 seconds, ranks near 5,000 on the all time list.
While relatively poor sprinters, East Africans win more than 50 percent of top endurance races. Almost all trace their ancestry to the 6,000-8,000 foot highlands that snake along the western edge of the Great Rift Valley. This region of roughly 1.5 million wins 40 percent of international distance events. The Nandi district in Kenya, 500,000 people – one-twelve-thousandth of Earth's population – sweeps an unfathomable 20 percent, marking it as the greatest concentration of raw athletic talent in the history of sports. They win in large measure because elite runners have a near perfect biomechanical package for endurance: lean, ectomorphic physiques and huge natural lung capacity.
"Kenyans are born with a high number of slow twitch fibers," states Bengt Saltin, director of the Institute of Sports Science in Copenhagen. "They have 70 to 75 percent of their muscle fibers being slow. Very many in sports physiology would like to believe that it is training, the environment, what you eat that plays the most important role. But based on the data it is 'in your genes' whether or not you are talented or whether you will become talented."
Genetically linked, highly heritable characteristics such as skeletal structure, the distribution of muscle fiber types, reflex capabilities, metabolic efficiency, lung capacity and the ability to use energy more efficiently are not evenly distributed among populations and cannot be explained. For example, whites of Eurasian ancestry, who have, on average, more natural upper-body strength, predictably dominate weightlifting, field events such as the shot-put and hammer (whites hold 47 of the top 50 throws), and the offensive line in football. Where flexibility is key, East Asians shine, such as in diving and some skating and gymnastic events (hence the term "Chinese splits").
"It's time we dispense with the notion that athleticism is entirely due only to biology or only to culture," says Michael Crawford, University of Kansas professor of genetics and president of the Human Biology Association. "Any dialogue between different racial groups should start with the facts."
What about claims that "race is biologically meaningless" or that "humans share 99.9% of their DNA proving there are no racial differences"?
Well, yes and no. The 19th century concept of race based on skin color and defined as "white, yellow, and black" is certainly biologically naïve. Rather than identify groups by facial characteristics, scientists now isolate populations based on gene frequencies and proteins. "I don't believe this is a racist issue," says Saltin, one of hundreds of scientists who have documented patterned physique and physiological differences between populations. But such overwhelming evidence does not prevent journalists, and even some scientists, from injecting charges of racism into what is mainstream human anatomy.
A few weeks ago, at a New York conference on race and sports, Harvard anthropologist Stephen Jay Gould, renowned for his political correctness as much as for his scientific acumen, apparently attempted to score some media points with his declaration that there is no "running gene." However, no scientist claims there is a running gene. Geneticists assert only that evolution has played in role in circumscribing some patterned differences between populations, including in body type and physiology.
Gould's circumlocution seems designed to play to the popular myth of equal possibility. Reuters fell for the ruse, headlining its story: "Athletic Achievement Isn't in the Genes." Yet, even Gould didn't go that far. In his speech, he noted that sports success is a complex combination of social, environmental, and biological factors, none of which can easily be teased out and isolated. Of course, that's exactly what geneticists and anthropologists have shown repeatedly. Humans are different, a product of the intertwined and inseparable relationship of genes and environment.
The media reporting on genetics rarely demonstrates such nuance.
Unfortunately, some scientists, themselves anticipating a backlash from those who see genetic research as inexplicable or something to fear, perpetuate the confusion. In February, Dr. Francis Collins of the National Human Genome Research Project made a point of stating that humans are "99.9 percent the same." It echoed comments made by President Clinton in his State of the Union address in January 2000. Attempting to allay fears about the unethical potential of recent advances in genetic science and mindful of the ways in which research on genetics has historically been abused, Clinton declared, "there are more differences within races than between races."
Both statements were meant to reassure us that (in the words of one nationally syndicated columnist), "there are no scientific differences between humans -- race has no biological reality, it is only a 'social construction' that perpetuates racism."
In truth, while technically correct, such assertions are scientifically meaningless and provide absolutely no support for the popular myth that "race has no biological reality." There is zero genetic difference between a wolf and a cocker spaniel. If one really believes that such genetic similarity means that there is no hard-wired functional difference between a wolf and a hand-licking spaniel, then I invite that person to adopt a wolf as a house pet for the children. Such differences are grounded in gene sequences and proteins and are activated by obscure environmental triggers. All the training in the world is not likely to turn an Inuit Eskimo, programmed to be short and stout, into a NBA center or an American (black or white) into a great marathoner: nature sets limits.
Why do we so readily accept that evolution has turned out blacks with a genetic proclivity to contract sickle cell and colo-rectal cancer, Jews of European heritage who are one hundred times more likely than other groups to fall victim to the degenerative neurological disease Tay-Sachs, and whites who are most vulnerable to cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis, yet find it racist to acknowledge that the success of East African distance runners, Eurasian white power lifters, and sprinters of West African ancestry can be explained, in part, by genetics? Why would Dr. Collins and Professor Gould and so many other respected scientists continue to publicly peddle the myth that there are no meaningful patterned biological differences when their own research belies this?
Few scientists are willing to talk about this charade, let alone acknowledge their silent complicity. As UCLA's Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs and Steel) has noted, "Even today, few scientists dare to study racial origins, lest they be branded racists just for being interested in the subject."
Most researchers are fearful that their views will be misinterpreted by journalists (and by the general public) unable to grasp the magnitude of the revolution in our understanding of what it means to be human. Certainly, caution over the potential misuse of genetic research is certainly warranted. After all, pseudo-science and claims that certain "races" are genetically superior and destined to dominate historically have been evoked to justify colonialism, slavery, apartheid and the Holocaust. But scientists who have documented anatomical differences between populations generally reject notions that physical ability and mental acuity are inversely linked. Yet, in some important ways, certainly in the proclivity to many diseases and in highly heritable characteristics such as skeletal structure, musculature and metabolic efficiency, group differences are real and sometimes huge.
Science is not an assertion of inalterable facts but a method of interrogating reality. The question is no longer whether inquiries about human diversity will continue but to what end. The challenge is in whether we can conduct the debate so that human diversity might be cause for celebration rather than serving as fodder for demagogues. "If decent people don't discuss human biodiversity," warns Walter E. Williams, an African American social scientist at George Mason University in a review of Taboo, "we concede the turf to black and white racists." Sports offer a nonpolemical way to convey this message and de-politicize what has sometimes been a vitriolic debate.
Jon Entine is author of Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why we're Afraid to Talk About It (Public Affairs, 2000), now out in paperback.
Entine, Sarich and their ilk have a questionable agenda with these "truths" about racial dominance in certain sports. The truth is much more granular than they are willing to write about or educate (perhaps they don't understand, that is always possible given the general ignorance among Americans about "race.")
The truth is that African Americans are not, as a whole, more athletic. The truth is not that Kenyans, as a whole, are better runners. There are certain micro-populations within all populations that have extraordinary abilities due to certain chracteristics (or the higher concentration of these characteristics). It is also true that these characteristics can be found in other populations. So, certain West African populations may possess higher levels of the quick-twitching muscles that allow for quicker bursts of speed than other African and non-African populations, but that does not mean that ALL West Africans possess this characteristic. It also does not mean, unless African Americans disproportionately descend from the same West African micro-populations with these physical characteristics (which Entine most certainly has not demonstrated in his book unless I am mistaken), that one can conclude that "African Americans and Canadians of African descent are naturally superior athletes."
Don't even get me started on how the ODR totally confound these conclusions. What are we to make of Derrick Jeter? David Justice? Warren Moon? Ato Bolden? Mike Bibby? Marion Jones (without the growth hormones)?
Entine, Sarich and their ilk have a questionable agenda with these "truths" about racial dominance in certain sports. The truth is much more granular than they are willing to write about or educate (perhaps they don't understand, that is always possible given the general ignorance among Americans about "race.")
The truth is that African Americans are not, as a whole, more athletic. The truth is not that Kenyans, as a whole, are better runners. There are certain micro-populations within all populations that have extraordinary abilities due to certain chracteristics (or the higher concentration of these characteristics).
Entine doesn't say that African Americans on average are more athletic. People in the U.S., including many black people, believe this. He argues that people of different ancestries dominate certain sports because the physiological qualities needed for success in those sports are more common in some human populations and not in others. So on average, African Americans may be better suited physically for some sports and not for others.
The Kenyans who dominate distance running come primarily from groups that live in the highlands. When people talk about Kenyan runners, they are talking about these people. I’m not sure if the mixed Arab/African populations that reside along Kenya’s coastal areas are known for their distance running prowess. More on Kenyan runners here:
http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/AAAS_peeringUnderTheHood.htm
Whatever physical qualities these Kenyans possess may be found among some Mexican Amerindian groups and North African populations who reside in similar environments and produced some top-level distance runners.
sagascend wrote:
It is also true that these characteristics can be found in other populations. So, certain West African populations may possess higher levels of the quick-twitching muscles that allow for quicker bursts of speed than other African and non-African populations, but that does not mean that ALL West Africans possess this characteristic.
But looking at the dominance of people of predominant West African ancestry in sprinting events one could conclude that either all West Africans have these characteristics or all top sprinters of West African descent are descended from micro- populations that possess the characteristics that give them an edge in sprinting.
We observe average differences in the physical makeup of human populations all the time. Some groups of people even on the same continent are physically larger or built differently than other groups. This is true of Europe with its taller Scandinavians and Balkan people and shorter Mediterranean people. It’s also true of Africa with the very tall Dinka and Tutsi, the slim and slightly built people of the Horn and the very small people of the Congo or the San peoples. We shouldn’t be surprised that these average differences in the human population lead to certain groups dominating some sporting events at the elite or professional level.
Entine doesn't say that African Americans on average are more athletic. People in the U.S., including many black people, believe this. He argues that people of different ancestries dominate certain sports because the physiological qualities needed for success in those sports are more common in some human populations and not in others. So on average, African Americans may be better suited physically for some sports and not for others.
I don't have a problem with drawing population-based conclusions. I have a problem with using that data to draw race-based or ethnicity-based conclusions. Especially with African Americans. Entine is speaking of very precise findings in a much too general way, leading to the conclusion among lay people that "Blacks are better at sports." I suspect his motives because of that imprecision, not the subject matter or research.
G-Man wrote:
The Kenyans who dominate distance running come primarily from groups that live in the highlands. When people talk about Kenyan runners, they are talking about these people. I’m not sure if the mixed Arab/African populations that reside along Kenya’s coastal areas are known for their distance running prowess. More on Kenyan runners here:
http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/AAAS_peeringUnderTheHood.htm
Again, I don't see that Entine makes much of an effort to draw that distinction in his communication to the wider public. It's hair splitting research presented broadly as "Kenyans" rather than "certain Kenyans." It would be even better to specify what about these Kenyans (or any other runner with these abilities) produces the results.
G-Man wrote:
Whatever physical qualities these Kenyans possess may be found among some Mexican Amerindian groups and North African populations who reside in similar environments and produced some top-level distance runners.
Yes. To me the difference between a responsible scientist studying human populations and a racialist scientist is the care he or she takes to focus on the physical qualities rather than the "race."
G-Man wrote:
But looking at the dominance of people of predominant West African ancestry in sprinting events one could conclude that either all West Africans have these characteristics or all top sprinters of West African descent are descended from micro- populations that possess the characteristics that give them an edge in sprinting.
Why would one ever conclude that all West Africans have these characteristics? How many West African sprinters win 100m and 200m races? I am talking about runners directly from Ghana, Ivory Coast, Senegal, etc. It seems to me that the so-called dominance of West Africans in sprinting is really the dominance of a micro-population of West African descended New Worlders. It seems to me that if this dominance was attributable to mere West Africaness that the U.S., Canada, and Jamaica would never dominate sprinting based on genetic reasons. If West Africa is the "source" why wouldn't these homegrown genetic superspecimens dominate sprinting? To me, West African nations should be blowing Americans out of the water in sprinting using this logic, but they don't. The small group of Kenyans certainly seems to be in distance running.
G-Man wrote:
We observe average differences in the physical makeup of human populations all the time. Some groups of people even on the same continent are physically larger or built differently than other groups. This is true of Europe with its taller Scandinavians and Balkan people and shorter Mediterranean people. It’s also true of Africa with the very tall Dinka and Tutsi, the slim and slightly built people of the Horn and the very small people of the Congo or the San peoples. We shouldn’t be surprised that these average differences in the human population lead to certain groups dominating some sporting events at the elite or professional level.
We should be if the genetic "prototype" that dominates a sport can be found in multiple nations, especially if populations that should dominate based on that theory, do not. Wouldn't you be surprised to learn that Americans of European descent dominate international downhill sking, soccer, or powerlifting if their "homegrown" European counterparts, ostensibly with the same genes, did not have a significant presence in these sports? Using another example, if northern European Americans are taller then northern Europeans residing halfway across the globe, why would one conclude that "northern European genes" are the main factor in determining their average height?
My unsolicited opinion is that slavery is a confounding variable (genetic, cultural, economic and social) in this neat picture of pure West African genetic dominance in certain sports.
What all this suggests is that the relationship between sports, culture and genetics is much more complex than either liberal antiracists or 'race realists' like Entine and Murray will allow. Athletic talent is at least in part inherited, and there are undoubted genetic differences between populations. Nor should we dismiss the possibility that West Africans and Kenyans have a genetic advantage when it comes to sprinting or long distance running. It has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and there is clearly much more to sport than natural ability, but in principle there is no reason to assume that certain populations have physical characteristics more suited to particular athletic activities. But are blacks naturally better athletes than whites? Not necessarily. We should be highly suspicious of any and all attempts to confuse the genetics of populations and the politics of race.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 274 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Wed 31 Jan 2007 23:06 Post subject:
I agree w/ Sagascends points about micropopulations and slavery as variable that makes the whole issue more complex.
Micropopulations aren't races in the sense that Entine and others use the term. The Wolof of Senegal, for example, are certainly "black" and certainly West African, but to my knowledge they've never produced a world class sprinter.
If you considered Jamaicans as a race by themselves, they'd be the most sucessful sprinters of all - on a per capita basis they far outperform black Americans. Should we then speak of a Jamaican race?
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 274 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Fri 02 Feb 2007 04:56 Post subject:
Just speculation here,
I'm guessing it's a combination of cultural factors - with Jamaicans placing a greater emphasis on track and field as a sport than the US, and genetic factors. The sheer brutality of the slavery in Jamaica only allowed the fittest to survive, and/or Africans with specific physical attributes were selected for Jamaica's plantations. Based on the modern accounts I've read on sugar cane cutters, a particular type of physique is better suited to that work, and maybe that same physique gives one an advantage in track.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 274 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Fri 02 Feb 2007 20:23 Post subject:
Well, the Dominican portion of Hispaniola has produced a huge number of pro baseball players for the US major leagues. There's substantial overlap betw. the abilities required for baseball and sprinting.
Haiti I would say has been so poor, even relative to the Dom Rep, that malnutrition and lack of resources for competition have been issues. Plus the French cultural influence has pushed Haiti towards soccer. They have produced some standout soccer players in France and the US.
Cuba is a difficult question. They've certainly had standout international track stars - Juantorena, etc. but nothing like Jamaica's sprinting success. A different origin for their slave descended population? Cuba has certainly had well organized and funded sports programs.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 363 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Sat 03 Feb 2007 21:21 Post subject:
Quote:
Any idea why Jamaicans would be doing so good?
It could be a combination of a founder effect and a national focus on track. In a small place like Jamaica, a handful of people 2 or 3 hundred years ago who had genes that helped them excel at sprinting could have reproduced very succesfully, leaving those genes very well represented in the Jamaican population. The national focus on track then assures those genes are found and utilized.
Cuba is a difficult question. They've certainly had standout international track stars - Juantorena, etc. but nothing like Jamaica's sprinting success. A different origin for their slave descended population? Cuba has certainly had well organized and funded sports programs.
Their sports program develops talent in a wide variety of sports-boxing, track, fencing, weight lifting. They're not focused on one specific sport like Jamaica. Many people who excel in other sports in Cuba could possibly excel in sprinting. Also, black Cubans or Cubans of seemingly predominant African ancestry aren't the only people who participate in sports at the elite level.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
