Concerning things racial, I think you missed the central point of Jared Diamond's thesis. He lays differences among diverse peoples squarely at the feet of available resources and local culture, not racial differences.

See, in every study of which I am aware concerning human racial differences, within-race variances equaled between-races variances. What that means is that the worldwide differences we see in the whole collection of humanity is equaled by the same amount of variation within a racial group. If that equality of variance continues to hold true for all racial characters then it will be, once again, man imposing an artificial classification system on a phenomenon of nature that in reality, does not warrant a distinction.

The mistakes of Nazi eugenicists were in their assumption that racial differences are real and assuming that racial (rather than individual) characteristics are subject to manipulation.

B

Good Botnst, nowhere did I presume to explain current realities by citing phyisological racial differences. All due respect, your linking me with eugenics is a flashing neon, bright RED HERRING. I'm talking cultural habits.

For example, I imagine if I were a European looking for a piece of land to raise a family, I'd have been fighting the injuns to the death also. Still, it's a bit tragic to me that our European forbearers were largely unable to take advantage of the valuable information natives had to offer. I'm asserting that different cultures have valuable insight that can be of benefit to those who put chauvinism aside long enough to look at it.

I believe black success in B-Ball is due to habits of play, exercise, and diet, stretching back several centuries, at least that is the premise I'm loosely working from.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Part of the point I was trying to make. Affluence is a mixed blessing. I wish I had the discipline to behave as though calamity was about to strike and I had to carefully stretch every dollar. If I did, I wouldn't buy and eat an entire pint of Haagen Das in one sitting. If I knew I had 50 dollars this month for food and that's it, I suspect I'd be healthier at the end of the month than if I'd had $500 available for same.

Look at the obesity epidemic in our country. We humans are weak, much of the time, sad to say.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

OTOH, ignoring phyisological racial differences is -- well -- ignorant.

One thing that appears to be the case, tall men of African origin seem to handle it better than Europeans of similar height. I've never seen a white guy the height of Wilt Chamberlain with that kind of agile grace. OTOH, Bill Walton and Rick Barry were pretty graceful, but they're pretty rare.

Who knows, could be there's centuries of development among tall Africans that came about because of some environmental factor in their region that was lacking in northern climes.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

THE REAL STORY BEHIND RAY LEWIS
By Jon Entine, author of "Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It"


...The issue is complicated, however, because blacks do dominate so many sports, particularly those in which cultural or economic prejudices don't limit access (most winter sports, for example). Nineteen of the 22 starting defenders in Sunday's Super Bowl, and most of the players on offense, were of primarily West African ancestry. Seventy-five percent of the NFL, 85 percent of pro basketball, and more than a third of the players in Major League Baseball are black. Athletes of African ancestry hold every major world running record.

Athletic achievement has always been a double-edged sword for blacks. A loss encouraged the belief that blacks were inferior, intellectually and physically; every victory risked being devalued as simply a product of ancestry.

White fascination with black physicality has been part of a dark historical undercurrent. In the 19th Century, whites became enraptured by pseudo-sciences such as craniology (the study of the characteristics of the human skull). Racial and ethnic groups were ranked according to all kinds of measurements, for example: skull size. Whiteness came to symbolize wealth, rationality and civilized culture, whereas blackness became equated with hypersexuality, musicality, laziness, intellectual deficiency, cultural pathology--and athleticism. By this noxious stereotype, which still holds sway in many circles today, black athletes are seen by some as contemporary African savages in breechcloth and nose ring.

It is this racially charged subtext that informs the Lewis controversy and needs to be shattered.

"Race" is soaked in much folkloric nonsense. Virtually all complex phenomena, such as intelligence, do not fall into neat racial categories. Top geneticists, such as Stanford's Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, reject the biological meaningfulness of race, while still recognizing that many individual characteristics, from facial features to physique to the susceptibility for certain diseases, show up more frequently in certain populations.

Although racial labels are occasionally helpful terms, as when geneticists try to isolate shared genes that cause diseases, they can mislead. Some few traits are correlated, as with dark skin color and curly hair. But such links are not absolute. Some East Indians also have dark skin, but straight hair.

The flood of research resulting from the Human Genome Project is beginning to radically reshape our understanding of how genes and the environment interact. This new model makes the racial patterns we see in sports much more comprehensible. After all, over the past 30 years, as sports have opened wide to athletes from almost every country and as the playing field has become almost level, the results have become increasingly segregated. What's going on? Are blacks physically "superior" to whites?

The short answer is "no," notwithstanding that there are notable anatomical differences between subpopulations within the classic folk groupings of black, white and Asian. As a result, different populations may appear to be genetically advantaged in particular sports and laggards in others.

"Body stature does not fit classic 19th Century theories of race," notes Joseph Graves, an evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University, who has a book, "The Emperor's New Clothes," coming out in April on this very subject. "However, the fact that monolithic racial categories do not show up consistently in the genotype does not mean there are no group differences between pockets of populations. It varies by characteristic. It doesn't necessarily correlate with skin color, but [rather] by geography."

Although it is critical to remember that no individual athlete can succeed without the X factor--the lucky spin of the roulette wheel of genetics matched with considerable dedication and sports smarts--genes proscribe possibility (that is, theoretically, anyone could be the fastest runner in the world, but, in fact, it's impossible without a certain genetic makeup). Blacks of West African ancestry tend to have mesomorphic physiques--muscular with a smaller natural lung capacity and a natural preponderance of "fast twitch" muscle fibers. It's not surprising that over 100 meters, the purest test of speed, the top 200 times, and 494 of the top 500 times, are held by sprinters who trace their roots to West Africa.

"It's a strong genetic component (that determines) what type of muscle fiber you have, either slow or fast," says Bengt Saltin, director of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Center, an expert in this field. "And West Africans [almost all African-Americans trace their primary ancestry to West Africa] have already 70 or 75 percent of the fast type when they are born."

Whereas West Africans evolved in lowlands, ectomorphic (lean limbed) East Africans, who have large natural lung capacity and a preponderance of slow twitch fibers, predictably, dominate distance running. Kenya, with but 28 million people, holds more than one-third of the top times. Including other East Africans, that domination swells to almost 50 percent.

Whites remain dominant in sports that place a premium on upper body strength over foot speed--shot put, hammer throw, javelin and weightlifting. It may play a role in the continued white presence on the interior lines in football (witness Ravens tackle Tony Siragusa, who clogs the middle of the defensive line).

So, all the training in the world is not likely to turn an Inuit Eskimo into an NBA center or a Nigerian into an elite marathoner. The world's most elaborate sports factory combined with state-supervised illegal drug supplements still could not turn even one East German sprinter into the world's fastest human. Highly heritable characteristics such as skeletal structure, musculature and metabolic efficiency are not evenly distributed across population groups.

Complicating this prickly matter, however, is that folkloric categories of race, occasionally, do hold. "Populations with roots in equatorial Africa are more likely to have lower natural fat levels," Graves notes. "That is likely a factor in running. It's an adaptive mutation based on climate. But that's a long way from reconstructing racial science."

In America, the environment and cultural channeling long have been the default explanation to explain black domination of so many sports. Does "nurture" matter? Of course! There are no hockey superstars from Texas--white, black or Latin. However, there is little more than speculation in support of stereotypes that such racial disparities are "determined," as many sociologists claim, by social factors alone.

Even small biological factors can be the difference between a gold medal and finishing out of the money. Such trends feed on themselves, creating cultural stereotypes that amplify small, but meaningful, differences in performance linked to heredity. Many whites avoid pursuing sprinting and basketball because there are so few elite white athletes to emulate; for years, blacks avoided tennis and golf for the same reason. This dynamic creates a biosocial feedback loop, with nature and nurture fueling each other.

So, why, now talk about such a potentially divisive issue as human biodiversity? The science of genetics has now advanced to the point where open discussion can destroy, rather than reinforce, the most harmful of stereotypes.

Humans are different. Some subpopulations of blacks are predisposed to carry genes for colorectal cancer and sickle cell (though blacks who have evolved in cooler climates are no more likely to contract sickle cell than non-blacks). Some white populations are more genetically predisposed to cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis. Ashkenazi Jews have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer.

Sports provide a way to help us discuss this new paradigm, which is emerging out of the genetic revolution. Maybe it's time we celebrate human biodiversity rather than just offer lip service. Pretending that there are no slippery questions does not prevent them from being asked, if only under one's breath.

Now, let's look at another phenomenon -- that rarest of creatures -- the professional Jewish athlete in America. I grew up in Jewish neighborhoods from kindergarten all the way through high school, and I have come to a conclusion which is both general in nature and at the same time, based exclusively on my personal experience. The ridiculously low number of professional Jewish athletes in this country is largely cultural in nature. I encountered many gifted Jewish athletes all through my school years -- lots of kids who were lean, mean, strong, and fast, so I don't believe genetics is a factor at all. What I noticed is that in general, Jewish parents tend to place a high premium on academic achievement, and a low premium on athletic achievement, and that translates into lots of kids who get really good grades, but don't try out for the football and/or basketball team. Take it for what it's worth, but that's how it seemed to to me when I was growing up.

That's a peculiar piece, GS. The author argues against racial characterizations and for racial characterizations. Its as though the author hasn't read what the pen writes.

What I said previously is exactly what that author is trying to convey with many more words and a lot more convoluted syntax: The within group genetic variance is not significantly different from the between group genetic variance. The African discussion EXACTLY supports that argument when it describes east vs west africans.

B

That quote suggests that a genetic basis does exist, which has a racial component. You can look at muscle type as a factor, which it clearly is, within certain populations that don't include an entire race, or you can choose to blur the issue by ignoring that in favor of including the entire race. Embracing one perspective at the expense of ignoring the other is simply not productive.

Again, that misses the point of the NSD between variances.

What that says is no matter which racial distinction one draws a ring around, the group within the ring has the same variability as the larger population. Africans are as different from each other as they are different from Caucasians. Equally, differences among Caucasians are as great as differences between Africans and Caucasians.

Etc for the other "races."

Take for example the various structural and pigmentation differences within the "Caucasian" population. Scandinavians and Persians and Spaniards and Tamils are all the same. So lets break those divergent groups out so we'll just have "pure" characteristics. We pick-up our pen and begin writing descriptions so that just Scandinavians are Caucasians (a bit of irony, that). Well, Scandinavians vary from black-haired to blonde, short to tall, fat to skinny, slow twitchers and fast twitchers, etc. So let's narrow it down to just those above the 80th parallel. Etc.

The result is that local geographic groups are more important than racial groups. I have never heard of anybody suggesting that geography be the basis for racial distinctions, else we would change race as we fly around the world.

B

A racial melting pot we are brewing.

The racial running championship results make me think the whole worlds migration out of africa might be related to a physical defeat in the marketplace.

Is there anywhere in the world headed toward increased seperation of the races? Maybe the Middle East.

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831799-post13.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831807-post14.html

The nature of pro BB has changed over the years. Prior to WW2 bb was a tightly refereed game. It consisted of many ethnic backgrounds, but was mostly a product of white folk so it had mostly white players. They performed largely to local audiences. In the 40s and earlier, the emphasis was far greater upon group skills and team coordination than on individual talents. A “tall” person in bb during 40s and earlier was in the 6’ range but there were a few lanky guys as well.

In the 50s and later, tallness became a compelling factor. The emphasis of tallness came at the time of the green revolution (better food and more of it) and specifically along with the expanse of pro sports from radio to television. Any taller player had an advantage over a similarly skilled, but shorter player. And the big guy would draw a crowd.

Between the 40s and 60s there was a relaxation of the rules of the game. This change occurred right along with the transition from team to star effort. By the 60s BB was the realm of the “superstar” player. And as the sport continued to draw more fans, the “need” for people who were tall and competitive put pressure on recruitment.

I don’t know the distribution, but Europe has had a large semi-pro league for many decades. Given the population density, Europe is going to have a lot of potential NBA class players.

imo the broader picture is the lack of US born folk who perform well in any sport has more to do with American culture than it has do with the athletic abilities of folks born in the US.

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

Your point is accentuated by the state of Dutch 'hoops'.

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831799-post13.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831807-post14.html

Dude, it's all about the wooden Nikes...

If they could only get the dry-rot soles to last more than a half.

__________________
-Marty

1986 300E 220,000 miles+ transmission impossible
(Now waiting under a bridge in order to become one)

Reading your M103 duty cycle:
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831799-post13.html
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/831807-post14.html