THE EAST AFRICANS
Quoted message said:So my question to you, why do so few black people do endurance races
in
the US.
__
from my observations there is a link between economic prosperity &
endurance sports. historically (in the context of human nature), once
locally propspering....you explore new bounderies. the king or queen
of spain loaded up ships w/treasures and sent explorers to the other
side of the world, within the u.s., lewis & clark packed up with stuff
to trade and set out to 'explore".
with that foundation, note modern day once you have enough propserity
you can then take time to explore (or take on endurance ventures).
look at the kind of endurance stuff richard branson, the british virgin
guy and that wealthy american guy obsessed with flying a ballon around
the world and non-stop air flights, etc. (steve fosse i think?)
wealthy people that look for endurance/exploration challenges.
mountain climbing, eco-challenge adventure sports, ironmans, etc. to
do these things "right"...at a highly competitive level takes money &
time. and you won't see a whole hell of a lot of people who don't
have some measure of both in these types of endurance sports.
globally you'll see japanese and some anglo heritage people....etc.
most black people i know who say they would like to run.....never get
into it...even as a hobby because they are too busy with their job &
just trying to keep up with their family life/responsibilities. i'm
talking about people i know that make $100K-$200k/year. i tell people
all the time to choose health fitness over a few more dollars. there
is a connection within american black culture between distance running
& income level....from my observation. small example...a
friend...black guy i went to college with...has his son running for bob
glover on donovans running team...his son is great for his age...last
year he was new york road runners young runner of the year in fact (15
years old....however i can assure you his parents earn $30M-$40M per
year. no, you don't have to make that much $ to ger your kids into
running progams...i just don't know of any black people with average
household incomes that run. i myself am sufficiently financially
secure to where I invest 15 hours/week on runnning (dressing,
stretching, running, showering, etc...the total time investment to do
this stuff right). So when i meet other black people who are "into
it"...I know i am meeting someone with a certain level of financial
security and or made personal choices to not chase the $$ and moreso
valued investing into their personal health. It's a very small number
of black folks that fall into one of these 2 categories. as a kid i
grew up with regina jacobs who was upper middle class, went to an
expensive private school as a child, etc....before she went to
stanford.
for another view...a controversial one...a guy name john entine in 2000
wrote the following (genetic bases argument).
Well, then, what about East African (especially Kenyan) long-distance
runners? Aren't they "pure" black superstars? Doesn't their incredible
success support Entine's claims for genetic superiority of blacks
over whites? Surprisingly, the answer is no, not at all. Once again,
Entine's own evidence demonstrates the exact opposite of what he's
trying to show. Without seeming to understand the significance of this
information, Entine cites "recent gene studies" that "show Ethiopians
with a genetic mixture of about 60 percent African and 40 percent
Caucasian."
In other words, East Africans are even less "black" than African
Americans. Therefore, if we simply reverse the traditional one-drop
rule and insist that anyone with Caucasian ancestry is Caucasian, we
would effectively eliminate blacks from the highest ranks of virtually
all sports. In purely scientific terms, of course, we cannot know if it
is East Africans' black genes, white genes, or mixed genes that make
them superior long-distance runners, but, ironically, the evidence
provided by Entine would certainly not implicate the black side of
their heritage. All the other blacks, Entine tells us, are even less
successful than whites at distances over 800 meters: "runners of West
African ancestry. . ., with rare exception, . . . do not even compete
in elite middle distance races." The conclusion based on this
information is unavoidable-if East Africans inherited their unique
running ability, then it must have come from their white ancestors. So
much for the advantage of being a "black" athlete.
Notice that what pushes people's buttons (and presumably makes Taboo
much more sellable) is not merely Entine's claim that physical
prowess or athletic ability is inherited. It is his much bolder
assertion that this inheritance is meaningfully associated with
traditional racial categories, that our words for different groups
actually match up with their ability to succeed at sports. But he seems
to think that validating one theory is all that's necessary to validate
the other. Again, he has tripped over the language. Demonstrating that
some identifiable populations pass on their running ability to their
children is a world away from demonstrating that black people as a
whole have a genetic advantage over white people as a whole. Even if we
could isolate the genes in Kenyans that translate into winning
marathons (and Entine doubts we ever will), we could merely say that
Kenyans, a beautiful blend of two very distinctive racial stocks, have
a genetic advantage over non-Kenyans, a much less threatening (and
politically much less potent) concept than the broader one. And the
case is even weaker for Americans with West African ancestry. Even if
those elusive "running and jumping" genes could be identified in West
Africans themselves, the deliberate obscuring of racial admixtures in
U.S. blacks would make it nearly impossible to determine the proportion
of African and European ancestry associated with sports success.
Entine VS. THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS
But how solid is Entine's case for the inheritance of athletic
ability- apart from questions of race? Does he at least show
conclusively that a genetic theory explains what a sociological
explanation cannot? The answer is no. His most extensive evidence
relates to what he calls the "Kenyan miracle," the phenomenal success
of long-distance runners from a tiny region in west-central Kenya,
which, according to Entire, "represents the greatest concentration of
raw athletic talent in the history of sports." Entire meticulously
spells out the accomplishments of the Kalenjins, a tribe of Kenyans
that continues to produce world class runners. He lists some
sociological explanations that people give for the Kalenjins' dominance
of long-distance running, but asserts that "all of the unique cultural
factors-altitude, diet, tribal traditions, role-model worship,
dedicated training-don't add up to the enormity of what is occurring in
Kenya."
Surprisingly, Entire does not say why the causes listed (especially
when taken in concert) aren't sufficient to explain the enormity of
what is occurring in Kenya." He also omits some obvious nongenetic
factors, such as group pride and international acclaim, that
undoubtedly play a strong role in Kenyans' successes.
Making matters worse, Entine doesn't address some commonsense questions
that need to be answered before anyone should accept a genetic
explanation for the "Kenyan miracle" or any other group's athletic
achievements. If athleticism has a significant genetic component, why
don't superstars consistently come from the same families? Why, as
Entine claims, should "the gap between Kenyans and all other runners"
continue to increase? Isn't any change in results prima facie evidence
that powerful nongenetic factors are operating? And if so, why are
these factors not enough to explain any "performance gap" we come
across?
