Michael Johnson says black atheletic have superior atheletic gene

[Denny]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

mmmm I need to think about this. I find the opposite theory to this is black people are genetically intellectually inferior to other ethnic groups as one white scientist spouted a few years ago, that statement was considered racist and unacceptable. So why should one theory be considered and not the other?

[Intellexual]

We've been a discernible success in our species' history of selective breeding. There may have been longer spans, in Human History, of performance specific breeding but we're the most widely tested and accomplished of current breeds. Any discussion of race will be racist. There is a lot of inhumanity, ignorance, psuedo-science, and political correctness to overcome when considering such things.

Our ancestors were bred for performance as livestock. If the descendants weren't also as vulnerable to being brought up in poverty and poorly performing schooling environment, I do wonder if we would still be predisposed to physical fitness over all other manners of fitness (beside psychological and/or spiritual). We don't refute the breeding of animals for performance, production, and attributes. For a time, we were animals too though still treated as such in many regards today.

[JayEnn]

Our ancestors were bred for performance as livestock....We don't refute the breeding of animals for performance, production, and attributes.

I agree with this. There will be a number of other factors that are relevant too: techonolgy, training facilities, general health and diet, but I do believe that those decending from slaves will have a natural advantage.

[PammiePC]

I remember watching a show that talked about this topic extensively. I wish I could remember what channel or program it was. But it was a bunch of scientists discussing the truth/myth behind it (probably on Discovery, Science, or History Channel)

I agree with this. There will be a number of other factors that are relevant too: techonolgy, training facilities, general health and diet, but I do believe that those decending from slaves will have a natural advantage.

They did say that the whole "it's because their bred from slaves" thing is bs. Especially when talking about African Americans and saying that this specific group of people are athletic because of slavery in America. I have to say, I completely agree. Genetics and evolution is a hell of a thing, especially in humans and especially when you consider the fact that no amount of "breeding" in humans will give the breeder full control over who reproduces with who. The fact of the matter is that about 300-400 years of slavery cannot make that big of a difference in a genetic pool. Throw in the millions of people who aren't descendents of slaves having children with those who are, there is just way too much genetic variation over such a short period of time for slave breeding to be a legitimate cause (especially when speaking about athletes who are alive today).

As far as genetics in general, it's a very interesting debate. Body types, conditions, diseases do vary by race and geographies. But they also vary within race and geographies. I agree that the excelling of blacks in sports probably has more to do with means and opportunity than it does genetics, especially when you're talking about Olympic level athletes.

Also, take into consideration how participating in certain sports and activities forces your body to adapt and excel in that specific area. For example, gymnasts. Any male or female who begins gymnastics at a young age, regardless of their race or body type, will fit into a very specific body type by the time they are 16. Their body will also show very specific occupational stress markers for centuries after their death. This applies very evidently to swimmers as well. So perhaps these professional and Olympic level athletes have bodies that are able to perform these tasks extraordinarily better than others simply because they started performing at early stages in life. And then, perhaps, them performing these tasks at early stages in life has everything to do with their culture, ideals, hobbies, way of life and nothing to do with their genetics.

[Ororo]

If there is a 'West African gene' then present day West Africans not just people of West African descent would dominate sprinting today.

Even if there was a gene, having better coaches and training counts for quite a lot. How would you make up the difference in advantage?

They did say that the whole "it's because their bred from slaves" thing is bs. Especially when talking about African Americans and saying that this specific group of people are athletic because of slavery in America. I have to say, I completely agree. Genetics and evolution is a hell of a thing, especially in humans and especially when you consider the fact that no amount of "breeding" in humans will give the breeder full control over who reproduces with who. The fact of the matter is that about 300-400 years of slavery cannot make that big of a difference in a genetic pool. Throw in the millions of people who aren't descendents of slaves having children with those who are, there is just way too much genetic variation over such a short period of time for slave breeding to be a legitimate cause (especially when speaking about athletes who are alive today).

Also, take into consideration how participating in certain sports and activities forces your body to adapt and excel in that specific area. For example, gymnasts. Any male or female who begins gymnastics at a young age, regardless of their race or body type, will fit into a very specific body type by the time they are 16. Their body will also show very specific occupational stress markers for centuries after their death. This applies very evidently to swimmers as well. So perhaps these professional and Olympic level athletes have bodies that are able to perform these tasks extraordinarily better than others simply because they started performing at early stages in life. And then, perhaps, them performing these tasks at early stages in life has everything to do with their culture, ideals, hobbies, way of life and nothing to do with their genetics.

ITA with the bolded. It just doesn't seem like a large enough amount of time. Also, how can you successfully isolate one variable when there are so many others like training methods, knowledge facilities, which are dependent on wealth, etc.?

I came across a few articles discussing this topic and trying to explain why people of west African origin are better at sprinting and why Caucasian people are better at swimming. They said it was not genetic or racial. It's a difference in torso height. Something like 3cm of difference (or maybe more)that makes West African people and those descended from them better at sprinting. The difference seems negligible, but elite records are broken by tenths of a second. If this is all true, then the difference in skills and results of Americans of West African descent and West Africans would be training, wouldn't it? If we gave the same advantage to the latter, then I wonder if they'd achieve the same results.

[Denny]

If there is a 'West African gene' then present day West Africans not just people of West African descent would dominate sprinting today.

[Denny]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Olympics.html

another interesting article

[MommieDearest]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

mmmm I need to think about this. I find the opposite theory to this is black people are genetically intellectually inferior to other ethnic groups as one white scientist spouted a few years ago, that statement was considered racist and unacceptable. So why should
one theory be considered and not the other?

Back in the day, a popular sports commentator at the time was Jimmy the Greek (I can't recall his given name, too lazy to google). He made the very same statement- that blacks were naturally better athletes because they were "bred" that way. He was bascially crucified for that statement, and his career suffered greatly. I'm interested to see what kind of backlash, if any, Michael will receive.

[GalaxyGirl2012]

^ exactly. I'm surprised that johnson hadnt heard about that.

plus what does athletic ability gene mean anyway. if this were the case hen every black person who participated in every sport would be better at it than everyone else.

i suppose his reason as to why blacks are better at sprinting is because we used to run from master's dogs and overseers

my theory is that blacks dominate sprinting events because more blacks get into sprinting than whites.

[Denny]

my theory is that blacks dominate sprinting events because more blacks get into sprinting than whites.

I notice as soon as the doors of opportunity are opened for black people to participate with white people on an equal playing field and do well at it their excuse is 'well its a natural gift'. Prior to this we did not have the physique to do X, now they use that crap for why black people do not dominate swimming. Once that path is taken by young black children (after their mothers get over their fear of the fro getting wet) you will hear the mantra 'black people make better swimmers because their bodies needed to float during the Atlantic crossing in case they were thrown off the ships by evil slave traders - I'd bet money on it.