Racism

[Melanie_]

for some reason colorado athletes, peruvians and Tibetans.... nope... don,t do well at all in running...

genetics cannot be ignored.

Colorado, Peru, and Tibet are all colder overall then Kenya, so the conditions are different. Kenya is on the equator, and has a dry climate for much of the year.

Kenya has a population of over 31 million... how many are runners? If it was genetic, you would expect the entire population to excel in running, rather than just the ones who choose to train.

[M.Dancer]

Colorado, Peru, and Tibet are all colder overall then Kenya, so the conditions are different. Kenya is on the equator, and has a dry climate for much of the year.

Kenya has a population of over 31 million... how many are runners? If it was genetic, you would expect the entire population to excel in running, rather than just the ones who choose to train.

If lictor is right ( ) and the Kenyans could afford more than bare feet, they would dominate the premier league.....

Is it genetic, why the French dominate the culinary arts?

[kimmy]

Colorado, Peru, and Tibet are all colder overall then Kenya, so the conditions are different. Kenya is on the equator, and has a dry climate for much of the year.

Kenya has a population of over 31 million... how many are runners? If it was genetic, you would expect the entire population to excel in running, rather than just the ones who choose to train.

As I understand it, a lot of Kenyans *do* run, for reasons that are not genetic, but cultural.

Running had been (and may still be) the most popular form of transportation in Kenya.

And, when Kenya's most famous sports heroes have been runners, it inspires others follow their example (for the same reasons Canadian boys want to be hockey stars and not cricket stars.)

And ... is it really so scary to consider that there *could* be a genetic factor?

I once audited an anatomy class where the professor mentioned that some African group (and I can't recall which) has an ankle geometry that is more favorable to running than other groups. I believe his explanation was that tendon is on average attached just a millimeter or two outside the human mean in such a way that running benefited, at the expense of a corresponding trade-off in activities where the foot was to perform heavy pushing or lifting movements. Analogous to a higher gear on a bicycle: great for going fast on the level ground, but not much use for climbing a steep hill.

I can't recall much about that discussion, and it was mentioned only in brief. Maybe there's a study on it, or maybe it's his own pet theory.

But ... is it that far fetched?

Everybody would agree that a Kenyan and a Swede have slightly different geometry in the bones of their faces. Is it unreasonable to suggest that they might have slightly different geometry in the bones of their ankles as well?

-k

[Shwa]

Seriously. What does a Kenyan runner's ability have to do with racism? There ARE genetic differences between peoples, but those different genetic traits do not add up to superiority or inferiority ~as a race.~

Unless you consider redheads to be a trait of the superior race in which case I am throwing my lot in with the Western Irish... Go Sligo Go!

[kimmy]

There ARE genetic differences between peoples, but those different genetic traits do not add up to superiority or inferiority ~as a race.~

But the first half that statement is so scary and controversial for many people, because there are a lot of people who just don't understand the second half.

Acknowledging that there's any sort of difference beyond the purely superficial is taken by some people as ammunition to advocate the superiority of one group over the other.

So a lot of well-intentioned people will fight to the death to dispute the existence of any such genetic differences, no matter how slight.

-k

[lictor616]

Colorado, Peru, and Tibet are all colder overall then Kenya, so the conditions are different. Kenya is on the equator, and has a dry climate for much of the year.

Kenya has a population of over 31 million... how many are runners? If it was genetic, you would expect the entire population to excel in running, rather than just the ones who choose to train.

In merida venezuela (where I lived for a year on exchange) the weather is 26C year long... and is in similar elevation to Kenya's high points... again the difference is genetic and racial. sorry ...

[lictor616]

But the first half that statement is so scary and controversial for many people, because there are a lot of people who just don't understand the second half.

Acknowledging that there's any sort of difference beyond the purely superficial is taken by some people as ammunition to advocate the superiority of one group over the other.

So a lot of well-intentioned people will fight to the death to dispute the existence of any such genetic differences, no matter how slight.

-k

well said.

that should be painfully obvious to anyone who ahs ever even tried debating such issues... usually the debate is always shut down... and we all understand why don,t we...

yes it contradicts our new religion of the West... political correctness, who's main commandment is: "all the biped creatures of the world are equal in every aspect."

[lictor616]

As I understand it, a lot of Kenyans *do* run, for reasons that are not genetic, but cultural.

Running had been (and may still be) the most popular form of transportation in Kenya.

And, when Kenya's most famous sports heroes have been runners, it inspires others follow their example (for the same reasons Canadian boys want to be hockey stars and not cricket stars.)

And ... is it really so scary to consider that there *could* be a genetic factor?

I once audited an anatomy class where the professor mentioned that some African group (and I can't recall which) has an ankle geometry that is more favorable to running than other groups. I believe his explanation was that tendon is on average attached just a millimeter or two outside the human mean in such a way that running benefited, at the expense of a corresponding trade-off in activities where the foot was to perform heavy pushing or lifting movements. Analogous to a higher gear on a bicycle: great for going fast on the level ground, but not much use for climbing a steep hill.

I can't recall much about that discussion, and it was mentioned only in brief. Maybe there's a study on it, or maybe it's his own pet theory.

But ... is it that far fetched?

Everybody would agree that a Kenyan and a Swede have slightly different geometry in the bones of their faces. Is it unreasonable to suggest that they might have slightly different geometry in the bones of their ankles as well?

-k

whoops!

an article from the national post in 2001 made a slip up on the subject:

http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/national_post_2001.htm

"Success lies in the genes"

"Africans are naturally, genetically, more likely to have less body fat, which is a critical edge in elite running," notes Joseph Graves, Jr., an African American evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University. "Evolution has shaped body types and in part athletic possibilities. Don't expect an Eskimo to show up on an NBA court or a Watusi to win the world weightlifting championship. Differences don't necessarily correlate with skin colour, but rather with geography and climate. Genes play a major role in this."

of course the article is subject to the usual smoke and mirrors... they say that geography is at cause (but why: because evolution in different geographical settings CHANGES GENES)... clever little trick, but the most discerning among us know what that means.

[Shwa]

"So a lot of well-intentioned people will fight to the death to dispute the existence of any such genetic differences, no matter how slight."

Who are these well-intentioned people?

[lictor616]

"So a lot of well-intentioned people will fight to the death to dispute the existence of any such genetic differences, no matter how slight."

Who are these well-intentioned people?

the liberal <intellectuals> of course... the ministers of the new religion of Political Correctness.

[Shwa]

"the liberal <intellectuals> of course... the ministers of the new religion of Political Correctness."

So are you telling me that a John Ralston Saul or David Suzuki would deny that there are genetic differences between peoples on the planet? That is patently absurd.

Perhaps kimmy would be a better person to answer my question, thanks.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't get it according to This 52% of scientists are liberal, 35% are moderate and only 9% are conservative. Yet somehow it's the liberals who are denying that there are genetic differences between peoples. When most scientists are liberal and scientists are the ones who discover those differences.

Edited November 1, 2009 by TrueMetis

[lictor616]

I don't get it according to This 52% of scientists are liberal, 35% are moderate and only 9% are conservative. Yet somehow it's the liberals who are denying that there are genetic differences between peoples. When most scientists are liberal and scientists are the ones who discover those differences.

because non-liberal POV's are usually censored or ignored...

[Pliny]

So are you telling me that a John Ralston Saul or David Suzuki would deny that there are genetic differences between peoples on the planet? That is patently absurd.

Perhaps kimmy would be a better person to answer my question, thanks.

They wouldn't deny the genetic differences they would try to make them all the same. Their ideal is a completely homogeneous global population. Today, a man is the same as a woman. Somehow the politically correct have mixed up equality (and equal means "the same as") with justice and for justice to prevail everything must be equal. From that the whole socio-political philosophy is about leveling the playing field, redistributing wealth, making sure all things are equal to all things. You shouldn't have a nicer house or car than anyone else, for instance. You are greedy if you do and some believe that you would need to be punished for being greedy. To each according to their need and from each according to their ability - sounds nice but doesn't promote ability it promotes need.

[lictor616]

They wouldn't deny the genetic differences they would try to make them all the same. Their ideal is a completely homogeneous global population. Today, a man is the same as a woman. Somehow the politically correct have mixed up equality (and equal means "the same as") with justice and for justice to prevail everything must be equal. From that the whole socio-political philosophy is about leveling the playing field, redistributing wealth, making sure all things are equal to all things. You shouldn't have a nicer house or car than anyone else, for instance. You are greedy if you do and some believe that you would need to be punished for being greedy. To each according to their need and from each according to their ability - sounds nice but doesn't promote ability it promotes need.

I'm astonished... well said.. hear hear.

[GostHacked]

whoops!

an article from the national post in 2001 made a slip up on the subject:

http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/national_post_2001.htm

"Success lies in the genes"

I wonder if this guy took into account that starving africans don't have much at all let alone body fat. Once they become African-AMERICANs........ I joke I kid.

Kimmy

Acknowledging that there's any sort of difference beyond the purely superficial is taken by some people as ammunition to advocate the superiority of one group over the other.

Agreed Kimmy, something that had been stated pages ago, but ignored to continue the debae.

[kimmy]

"So a lot of well-intentioned people will fight to the death to dispute the existence of any such genetic differences, no matter how slight."

Who are these well-intentioned people?

Well, in this thread, Melanie (offering high altitude the reason for Kenyan dominance in distance running) and Morris Dancer (asking why Kenyans don't dominate the Premier League, and comparing Kenyan dominance in distance running to French dominance in cuisine). Melanie offers an environmental explanation; Morris offers cultural explanations and copious sarcasm; both seeking to dismiss the role of genetics.

Why are Melanie and Morris disputing the role of genetics? Why are we discussing Kenyan marathoners at all? Because if Lictor can get people to agree that a Kenyan might have genetic advantages when it comes to running, the next thing he's going to say is that if Kenyans are genetically more suited to running, it seems equally apparent that European people are genetically more suited to activities like "science" or "literature" or "having jobs" or "staying out of jail."

And I don't think anybody wants to do that discussion again.

Something mentioned in Lictor's own article that should be emphasized here:

"Differences among athletes of elite calibre are so small," notes Robert Malina, Michigan State anthropologist and editor of the American Journal of Human Biology, "that physique or the ability to fire muscle fibres more efficiently that might be genetically based ... it might be very, very significant. The fraction of a second is the difference between the gold medal and fourth place."

Genetics might determine your ultimate potential at some activity, but few people ever reach their ultimate potential at any activity.

Genetics gave me a body-type that's not well suited to running, but when I competed in track and field I was able to easily whip most of my longer-legged, slimmer opponents. None of us had gotten to the point where the hand nature dealt us meant more than the training and preparation we did. And most people never get to that point, at any activity at all.

If genetics were the be-all and end-all, the women's marathon world record holder wouldn't looks like this.

-k

[lictor616]

Well, in this thread, Melanie (offering high altitude the reason for Kenyan dominance in distance running) and Morris Dancer (asking why Kenyans don't dominate the Premier League, and comparing Kenyan dominance in distance running to French dominance in cuisine). Melanie offers an environmental explanation; Morris offers cultural explanations and copious sarcasm; both seeking to dismiss the role of genetics.

Why are Melanie and Morris disputing the role of genetics? Why are we discussing Kenyan marathoners at all? Because if Lictor can get people to agree that a Kenyan might have genetic advantages when it comes to running, the next thing he's going to say is that if Kenyans are genetically more suited to running, it seems equally apparent that European people are genetically more suited to activities like "science" or "literature" or "having jobs" or "staying out of jail."

And I don't think anybody wants to do that discussion again.

Something mentioned in Lictor's own article that should be emphasized here:

"Differences among athletes of elite calibre are so small," notes Robert Malina, Michigan State anthropologist and editor of the American Journal of Human Biology, "that physique or the ability to fire muscle fibres more efficiently that might be genetically based ... it might be very, very significant. The fraction of a second is the difference between the gold medal and fourth place."

Genetics might determine your ultimate potential at some activity, but few people ever reach their ultimate potential at any activity.

Genetics gave me a body-type that's not well suited to running, but when I competed in track and field I was able to easily whip most of my longer-legged, slimmer opponents. None of us had gotten to the point where the hand nature dealt us meant more than the training and preparation we did. And most people never get to that point, at any activity at all.

If genetics were the be-all and end-all, the women's marathon world record holder wouldn't looks like this.

-k

again it comes down to a debate of nature vs. nurture...

it would be foolish to minimize any... both are equally important.

without the right genes ... one may be flat footed... an no amount of training will make you a good runner...

on the other hand a couch potato with great bodytype... isn't any better... I suppose the main difference is that the person with a poor work ethic can at least EVENTUALLY bring himself to seeing his potential (which is high because of his genes)...

but to say that everything in life is 1% genetic and 99% attitude as some here seem to saying, is obviously wrong.

but you've already conceded that genes DO factor into the equation... whether I bring up the subject for ulterior motives (as a background for discussing racial differences) doesn't make these differences any less real.

If something is potentially racist.. it doesn't make it necessarily wrong.

"black people have dark skin for genetic reasons"... saying this is s mere statement of fact.

Edited November 1, 2009 by lictor616

[Pliny]

again it comes down to a debate of nature vs. nurture...

but to say that everything in life is 1% genetic and 99% attitude as some here seem to saying, is obviously wrong.

but you've already conceded that genes DO factor into the equation... whether I bring up the subject for ulterior motives (as a background for discussing racial differences) doesn't make these differences any less real.

In my opinion,

Racially, genetics is about 99% and attitude is 1%.

Individually, attitude is 99% and genetics 1%.

We strive to outdo or overcome our physical limitations as individuals. As a race...well let's see.. we could change our genes to make ourselves prettier and smarter and athletic as a whole - Who will do that for us?

Race is something that is not changed so easily or at all without genetics, attitude can be changed a lot easier....at least in some cases.

[Shwa]

"Perhaps kimmy would be a better person to answer my question, thanks."

Kimmy replied, "Well, in this thread..." Excellent reply Kimmy, I see that point of view perfectly. My enquiry was more along the lines of acknowledging 'genetic differences' and not about anyone's attempt to assign arbritary value to those differences. I appreciate your insight. Thanks!

[GostHacked]

Lictor

again it comes down to a debate of nature vs. nurture...

it would be foolish to minimize any... both are equally important.

Of course they are equally important. And they really need to be considered in why certain people are good at certain things. But to answer your question, if you had one.... do these differences make one race superior over another? Even when you throw genetic factors into the mix.

Kimmy

Something mentioned in Lictor's own article that should be emphasized here:

"Differences among athletes of elite calibre are so small," notes Robert Malina, Michigan State anthropologist and editor of the American Journal of Human Biology, "that physique or the ability to fire muscle fibres more efficiently that might be genetically based ... it might be very, very significant. The fraction of a second is the difference between the gold medal and fourth place."

The difference between first and second place are down to fractions of a second. Overall there is no difference if a guy comes in a 10.5 and the other one at 10.4. Intense and gruelling training gets you that fraction of a second difference/advantage. You really have to work at it to be #1.

[kimmy]

The difference between first and second place are down to fractions of a second. Overall there is no difference if a guy comes in a 10.5 and the other one at 10.4. Intense and gruelling training gets you that fraction of a second difference/advantage. You really have to work at it to be #1.

No, hard training doesn't get you from 10.5 to 10.4 (I assume we're talking about a 100m sprint?) Hard training gets you from the 14 seconds a non-athlete could run to the 10.5 seconds a superb athlete might run. From there, you've probably gotten as far as hard work can take you. Not unless you've been gifted with the right physical attributes will you ever improve above 10.5 seconds regardless of how much hard work you put in. (and even 10.5 seconds is probably a generous estimate of how much someone with an average body type could achieve regardless of how much work they put into it.) And at this point we're just talking about things like height and bone structure (those things are genetic too!) But if you're able to run a 10.5 second 100m, you've beaten almost everyone in the world, by a lot. Hard work alone can't take you to the point where you're able to beat physically gifted people who've done as much hard work as you have. But if you've done the hard work, you're able to beat anybody who hasn't done the hard work to get to that level.

-k

Edited November 5, 2009 by kimmy

[charter.rights]

No, hard training doesn't get you from 10.5 to 10.4 (I assume we're talking about a 100m sprint?) Hard training gets you from the 14 seconds a non-athlete could run to the 10.5 seconds a superb athlete might run. From there, you've probably gotten as far as hard work can take you. Not unless you've been gifted with the right physical attributes will you ever improve above 10.5 seconds regardless of how much hard work you put in. (and even 10.5 seconds is probably a generous estimate of how much someone with an average body type could achieve regardless of how much work they put into it.) And at this point we're just talking about things like height and bone structure (those things are genetic too!) But if you're able to run a 10.5 second 100m, you've beaten almost everyone in the world, by a lot. Hard work alone can't take you to the point where you're able to beat physically gifted people who've done as much hard work as you have. But if you've done the hard work, you're able to beat anybody who hasn't done the hard work to get to that level.

-k

except.....those who take steroids and other drugs....PCP seems to make superhumans out of people...without much work at all....

Edited November 5, 2009 by charter.rights

[GostHacked]

except.....those who take steroids and other drugs....PCP seems to make superhumans out of people...without much work at all....

Yep the Jamaican-Canadian that was Ben Johnson is a pefect example of just that (steroids).

[kimmy]

Nonsense.

Anabolic steroids on their own can't turn anyone into anything (other than, possibly, a eunuch or a corpse.) They can provide an elite athlete with a competitive advantage over other elite athletes (or, if you have a more cynical outlook, allow an elite athlete to compete on a level playing field against all the other elite athletes who are using that stuff.)

And I doubt PCP is a performance enhancing drug, unless you're competing at "withstanding tasers and baton-strikes".

-k