I have completely tuned out the Olympics because the jingoistic, shallow American commentary makes me want to puke…but I was just sent this clip from the BBC coverage. Watch how it goes from Darwin to eugenics to Hitler to slavery in order to explain how so many black athletes excel at sprinting events…because, obviously, being able to survive shackling in a slave ship and a lifetime of menial stoop labor in the cotton fields clearly selects for genes of benefit in short foot races.
Who authorized that kind of drivel to even be made? It’s bad science and bad history.
So we go from Darwin to Eugenics to Hitler to Slavery, then a tiny bit of Science comes in and we now should be a little bit sceptical.
I couldn’t have done a better Parody of right wing racists if I tried.
What was most noteworthy was the reaction of Michael Johnson and Denise Lewis afterwards – they appeared in a slight state of shock, particularly Johnson, and rightly so. Terrible from the BBC, especially after the plaudits they had gained for an otherwise excellent coverage of the Games. Most disappointing.
Actually Johnson recently fronted an entire BBC programme on the subject of selection by slavery so I doubt he was that surprised.
It would seem that the BBC is being infiltrated by the British National Party, the UK’s analog of the US’ Tea Party.
@ OP
I feel betrayed by the BBC. There was a time that they had relevance…and then… they decided to sell their souls to the
devilpopeRCC. What happened?Even assuming the validity of their premises (which, obviously, I don’t), ten seconds’ thought would alert one to the fact that this “selection by slavery” canard couldn’t possibly apply to the majority of the successful black athletes – who are natives of African countries and whose ancestors were categorically not dragged off by slavers. It is a depressingly euro-centric knee-jerk to equate all black people with slavery, even the ones who had nothing to do with it at all.
How the hell did this happen? Seriously, I like the BBC normally. Their news and sports coverage is normally pretty decent and they’ve always done a lot for promoting diversity on screen… And now this? What the fuck?! I’m shocked.
Why do people always assert that Jesse Owens made a mockery of the idea of Aryan superiority by demolishing the Nazis at the 1936 olympics?
Seems like the Germans actually did pretty well that year, all things considered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Summer_Olympics#Medal_count
You couldn’t watch with the sound muted? Maybe some music playing instead?
@6 the pece was stupid and without point but it was talking about short sprinting not long distance running and that does seem to have been largely dominated by African Americans and People of West African descent from the West Indies. Michael Johnson did put the discussion back on track in the programme by pointing out all the other reasons why this may have happened.
Piece
The BBC has a sort of obsession with being P.C and Multicultural, but it’s not backed up by much intelligence, or ay least no relevant expert knowledge, so can often come off as just plain ridiculous. In most cases the BBC is just an easy target for the right wing morons, but on this one it seems to have gone right over the edge and just said exactly what they wanted to hear.
I saw this live yesterday, and was pretty appalled. It’s amazing how many people (even those who know about and accept Darwinian evolution) buy into the claim that Nazi racial theory was a distorted version of Darwinism, when the truth is that their ideology was creationist and totally incompatible with Darwinism. With even the BBC are peddling this false claim, it needs to be rebutted forcefully.
Okay, while not pretending that the science and the history on display here are both stupidly ill-considered…
In all honesty, it sounded to me like the INTENT was to be complimentary to the black athletes in question; showing them to be the inheritors of a legacy of fiercely healthy survivors who overcame brutalizing conditions and overwhelming odds to pass on the genes which are the peak of human performance to their descendants.
I’m not saying that it didn’t come across as foolish, ill-informed and tone-deaf, but I at the same time, it felt to me like the intent was to praise these black athletes rather than demean them.
…and?
That just means it’s no different than exclaiming in complimentary surprise about how eloquent Obama is.
I think I’ve bruised my face, I facepalmed so many times throughout that.
Oh dear…
As ever, context is everything and the video is presented entirely out of context and without the studio discussion which took place immediately after it was aired in which three world class Black athletes, Michael Johnson (who recently fronted a full programme on this subject), Denise Lewis and Colin Jackson explained, very well for non-scientists, that its all much more complicated than the film might suggest and that genetics is only one of many different factors that go into developing world class athletes.
Having seen the whole thing, I wouldn’t say that Lewis was at all shocked, although she is clearly less well-versed in the scientific arguments than either Johnson or Jackson – who is still very much involved on the coaching side – and perhaps a little comfortable in the discussion as a result.
Taken in its proper context, the video was part of a Q&A aimed at a non-scientific audience and was used to set up a discussion in which all three very well-respected participants were given a platform to explain why the ‘theory’ put forward in the video was wrong, some a bit more effectively than others it has to be said.
I would strongly suggest that before any passes judgement on the video, the BBC or even the presenter – John Inverdale – who was clearly cast in the Devil’s Advocate role throughout, they should endeavour to view the entire programme sequence, with the studio discussion, so they can judge the piece in its proper context and not just on the basis of the video, which is, perhaps, deliberately provocative.
I agree it was a poorly made clip with a poorly thought out argument, and I was extremely surprised to see something like that on the BBC. Particularly the eugenics bit was a complete non-sequitur.
But as Michael Johnson said, he had actually done something very much along the same lines earlier, for Channel 4: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/michael-johnson-survival-of-the-fastest/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1
In the programme Johnson gets deeper into the nature vs nurture debate, but his conclusion seems to support the idea that unnatural selection by slave traders and owners has contributed to why almost all of the top sprinters are descendants of African slaves.
@cartomancer #6
Exactly: the ones who could run were the ones that did not become slaves. Over generations, slavers had to work harder to meet their quotas, putting selective pressure… yeah.
What I find amusing is that the kind of people who would buy in to this racist clap-trap are the very ones who screech that evolution is a lie.
For future reference you can access BBC coverage of the Olympics on your computer by downloading the app called TunnelBear. It takes about 5 minutes. The basic 500mb version is free and if you need more bandwidth there is a small fee. It’s really very useful. This app makes it look like your computer is in the UK, thus circumventing the restrictions on access imposed by the networks. No American bias, no annoying life histories of how the athlete overcame a hangnail or acne to make it to this level. Best of all, you can choose the events you want to watch. Don’t like water polo (blech), find rowing or fencing or whatever moves you. (I am in no way affiliated with this company and get nothing out of promoting it.)
I think some folks here are trying to put a racist slant on that, that isn’t deserved. Sure, some of it was a distortion of natural selection, but it made the case that some of the black athletes might have a genetic ‘advantage’ when it comes to sprinting.
I must’ve tuned in just as Michael Johnson reacted to it, because i didn’t seen the video. I didn’t know what had prompted his comments, but he handled it very well, in his usual eloquent manner, & pointed out that there are also powerful cultural influences at play.
From what i recall, he said that there isn’t much difference in the gene distribution between black & white athletes in terms of genes for fast-twitch muscles. Please correct me if i’ve got any of that wrong.
That video could only be racist if the definition is recognizing that there are differences in gene distribution, & epigenetic influences, across human populations, & attributing physiological attributes accordingly.
To deny that would be to deny the process of natural selection.
Oops! My mistake. It’s the BBC coverage you don’t like. Then fuck TunnelBear. I grovel for forgiveness.
And you mean to say that they’re saying American slaves were bred like horses to toil in the hot Southern sun? I missed that. My ancestors excelled at whiskey drinking, think that’s a hereditary trait?
BBC America’s coverage of the Olympics has been worse than NBC’s. It’s all about how many medals team GB has.
That network has really gone downhill since Blair’s government got them to fire Andrew Gilligan for reporting a true story.
And it differs from the joke about how Mexicans do bad about the Olympics because all the ones that can run, jump, or swim are already in the US…how exactly?
Your “only” is a joke. What if it’s racist to posit speciation based on “just so” narratives that are used to justify racism (blacks are brutish/stronger/more physically apt, which tends to go along with accusations of lesser intelligence), when there is no evidence that there was even a selection pressure that would result in more physically capable slaves from reproducing more (whether a slave was removed from the gene pool tended to have more to do with whether he ever met eyes with a white woman, or offended a slaveowner — not if he could clear two acres a day instead of 1.9)?
In short, it’s not racist because it’s wrong about evolution. It’s racist because it plays into racist narratives without first adequately providing any sort of plausible factual backing. Of course, if it was just created to allow people to correct it, as been hinted above, it would seem to be racist by design.
Two things:
1. Subjecting generations of people to unthinkable amounts of physical labour surely produces a strong selection pressure. This was an environment where a large number of people would die long before reaching reproductive age.
2. Michael Johnson himself explained in his documentary that slaveowners used to breed their slaves, selecting those men and women who would produce the most capable offspring.
I would like to repeat that I found the BBC clip awful and unjustifiable, but let’s not fall victim to Hume’s Law here.
My understanding is that evolution takes place very slowly and over vast time periods, especially in the case of larger animals such as ourselves that, on average, have at least twenty years between generations. The slave trade as it is being referred to here is surely too short a time period to have had any kind of measurable effect.
The thing about eugenics is that there are many obvious reasons why it is totally immoral but if someone had the power, the knowledge and the will to produce a superior human using selective breeding it could be done. Among the numerous problems, the first would be how to decide which traits in humans are superior. The Nazi ideas of racial superiority were highly unscientific. Their idea of who was superior and who was inferior was entirely arbitrary. I am pretty sure that anyone who was a big enough megalomaniac to want to try it would fall into the same trap.
Even if slaveowners had had enough time and ability to selectively breed for desirable traits, do you really think they would have selected for the ability to run fast?
Even a layman like me can see how badly that video mangled the science, and that is before we start getting into the ridiculous and frankly racist narrative about slavery ‘forging’ future black athletes.
I also noted a subcurrent of hyperbolic anti-scientific panic mongering about the ‘dangers’ of scientists intervening in the genepool once again, completely ignoring the fact that any genetic experimentation on humans, where it would be legal at all, would only be carried out under the most stringent of conditions. The idea of mad scietists creating frankenstein-esque super athletes in secret labs somewhere is ludicrous.
I have been avoiding olympic coverage like the plague over here in Blighty – I find the elements of smug nationalism that come out with every medal win to be nauseating – but I did not realise that it had gotten this bad.
cartomancer (#6):
Even if there are genetic differences between groups of people, the difference is so small as to be irrelevant and could be overcome by training, environment, opportunity and effort.
For example, long distance runners. Many of the greats come from East Africa. Is that really an issue of genetics, or the fact that the people live on vast plains with little transportation, where travelling long distances on foot is the norm and running is part of the culture? Compare that with a country like Japan which is mountainous and has few plains, yet the country produces a large number of marathon and endurance runners. That says to me that training, sports culture, nutrition and willpower play a far greater role than genetics.
Another example is hockey. The reason there aren’t many all-star black hockey players is due where the game is played compared to populations, not skin. Of the world’s hockey powers, only Canada, the US and Germany have significant black populations. Canada’s population is small, and in the US and Germany, few play it. Other countries may have numbers, but they are competitively irrelevant (e.g. France).
There may be individuals who have rare genetics that make them better in a sport, but they don’t represent the majority of an ethnicity (e.g. Ian Thorpe and his size 17 feet, Michael Gross with his 7 foot armspan, or rock climber Sasha DiGiulian).
Oh, don’t for a moment think I was trying to big up the idea that certain African peoples are fast runners thanks solely or largely to their genetics. It’s possible, but I am very wary of making such claims without an understanding of all the relevant factors and studies.
All I was doing was pointing out a blindingly obvious flaw with the “selection through slavery” hypothesis as PZ characterised it – as a way of emphasising how it only takes a tiny bit of commonsense thinking to abandon the whole silly idea.
Well, clearly, the selection force on this population was the need to escape being captured by slavers….
cartomancer (#30) –
I knew you were on the side of sanity. I was trying to agree with you.
And this presumably would be why athletes of European descent are so dominant in sports like shooting, archery, equestrian, swimming, and rowing? Their ancestors were slavers who faced intense selective pressure trying to catch ever harder to catch slaves? Predator-Prey arms race and all that, right?
Germany is a hockey power?
Wow, that’s really, really creepy of the Beeb.
Amphiox – Germany can compete with the top seven teams and occasionally beat them. They’re always in the World Championship pool, they never get relegated to the A group anymore.
http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/championships/world-ranking/mens-world-ranking/2012-ranking.html
Just a thought. Does anyone have a plausible hypothesis as to why world class black swimmers are really rare?
Same reason Golf is an overwhelmingly white mans sport.
$$$
while water is everywhere, proper training forbcompetative swimming is expensive.
-b
etc.
And it differs from the joke about how Mexicans do bad about the Olympics because all the ones that can run, jump, or swim are already in the US…how exactly?
Context, for one thing.
Not having a border with Mexico, unless you count the Atlantic Ocean, that particular joke really doesn’t fly over here and as far as Mexico’s sporting reputation goes the country is best known over here for having a pretty decent football (soccer) team and for producing a succession of great professional boxers.
Even if there are genetic differences between groups of people, the difference is so small as to be irrelevant and could be overcome by training, environment, opportunity and effort.
Which was precisely the point that both Michael Johnson and Colin Jackson made very well in the post video discussion.
For example, long distance runners. Many of the greats come from East Africa. Is that really an issue of genetics, or the fact that the people live on vast plains with little transportation, where travelling long distances on foot is the norm and running is part of the culture? Compare that with a country like Japan which is mountainous and has few plains, yet the country produces a large number of marathon and endurance runners. That says to me that training, sports culture, nutrition and willpower play a far greater role than genetics.
A far greater role, yes, but genetics may still play some small part. For distance runners, heat is a key factor in influencing performance for reasons of basic thermodynamics – the more heat the body generates during exercise, the more energy is wasted. East African distance runners tend to be, on average, around 10 kilos lighter than their western counterparts while Japanese distance runners tend to be physically smaller and lighter. In both cases this is an advantage albeit one that some European athletes can also enjoy if they have the right mix of genetic and environmental influences.
What we have to be clear about here is which parts of the genetic hypothesis are plausible and which have been shown to be wrong. It’s entirely plausible that within a particular population, a particular set on individuals may be genetically advantaged by comparison to not only the rest of that population but even, plausibily, to other populations and even if that advantage is very small if may make an important difference at the level of elite athletes where even very small difference in performance can make the difference between success and failure.
It is wrong to suggest is that this idea of genetic advantage extends to whole populations or that it operates in isolation from other environmental factors, which is the point that Michael Johnson was making – for genetics to make a difference you also need to have the various enivronmental influences as well.
stonyground
It’s probably the same story as with hockey – opportunity, facilities where they live, and which sports are the focus. Past bigotry caused a lot of present poverty, which means swimming pools and coaches aren’t where the people are.
I suspect that, generally, people want to take part in sports or activities containing people like themselves. If there isn’t anyone to watch, they won’t watch and won’t get involved. They want someone to identify with, and if others like them are there, they will feel comfortable and probably experience less bigotry. It’s a rare person who wants to fly without a net.
Actually, training, environment, opportunity and effort can just as easily magnify pre-existing small genetic differences.
The problem in the “hypothesis” (word used loosely) is not the “genetic difference” part, but actually in the “group” part. The genetic differences act on individuals, and in reality their distribution across groups is not sufficiently uniform that one can use them to make broad, sweeping conclusions about average performance differences between groups.
Ah, I see. Your arbitrary definition of the cutoff to be a “hockey power” is a couple slots lower than my arbitrary definition of the same!
(As a Canadian hockey fan, my definition of international hockey power is any nation that I worry about when Team Canada plays them, or any nation that I would not view it as a national disaster should Team Canada lose to them in an important tournament game)
But the argument is not about bulk of the frequency distribution, but about an extreme tail of world-class performance. A simultaneous small difference in averages and small difference in standard deviation could have very large consequences for population differences within the Olympic-caliber tails.
Speaking as someone in the UK, I find it extremely surprising the BBC would air this. However, if it was followed by a studio discussion basically stating that this issue was much more complex than the video made out, as unity said in #17, that makes it more understandable, albeit still somewhat surprising for the BBC to mix something like this in with Olympics coverage.
On the actual video itself, it is a valid observation that certain sports, such as sprinting, are dominated by black people, but the idea this has something to do with slavery weeding out ‘unfit’ black folk seems a very flawed hypothesis.
You should most definitely watch the studio discussion that followed. Michael Johnson earned HUGE science points — he spoke clearly and directly about the difference between genetic predisposition and actual accomplishment, and he was spot-on about the cultural drivers maintaining the successful sprinting culture in Jamaica. I wanted to applaud.
We privileged, smug Canadian hockey fans traditionally accepted 6 international hockey powers: us (of course), Russia/USSR (the great enemy), Sweden, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and the US (grudgingly).
Then the Czechs had to be so inconsiderate as to split into two nations, both roughly equally good, messing up our nice even number.
So to restore the symmetry, we had to admit an eighth member, which at first tended to rotate between Switzerland and Norway, but into which Germany has recently been muscling in….
Unity #17 makes a good point. I would like to see the whole programme before deciding how bad it is.
Too often the opponents of science cherry pick material in order to attack science. without seeing the full programme and getting the context in which the clip was presented I don’t think it is reasonable or fair to critique the programme.
The clip by itself is certainly awful though.
Disclaimer: I’m not a biologist, so at best I have a layman’s understanding of genetics.
That said, I wonder if the question is really backwards. Rather than asking why so many of African descent are world-class sprinters, shouldn’t the question be whay so few whites/Asians/native Americans etc. are world-class sprinters? As I understand it, genetic diversity among Africans is a lot greater than among other populations. Is it possible that the populations who migrated out of Africa happened not to include anyone in the fast end of the distribution? And so it’s not that Africans are inherently faster, it’s just that there’s more diversity among them?
I just watched the whole BBC segment on iPlayer, and I honestly feel this is a gross misrepresentation of what the BBC was doing here.
The segment after the video is around 1:39 here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01lv65s/Olympics_London_2012_BBC_One_Day_13_19.0022.00/
I realise most of you probably can’t watch that so I will summarise it for you:
The video was shown as an introduction to the topic – to raise questions. Now, rightly or wrongly those ARE questions a lot of people have probably wondered about i.e. was/is there a genetic factor to the dominance of black sprinters over the years? (81/82 sub-10s sprinters have been black apparently, which rightly or wrongly does raise the question in most people’s minds). A bit more obscure is whether the genetic factor originated in selection during slavery, and the video was intended to raise this as question as well. It also raised the concern that if genetics are found to be involved might science be tempted to interfere. That’s left hanging.
The presenter then posed some questions to the 3 coloured athletes (Colin Jackson, Michael Johnson and Denise Lewis) who have been co-presenting the athletics with him all week. Note they are co-presenters, not ‘being interviewed’ and highly respected athletes.
Firstly, there was no shock of any kind from Colin or Michael, in fact I get the distinct impression they were expecting it, perhaps had even seen the video in advance, and had come with answers and comments prepared. Denise didn’t seem remotely shocked to me; she didn’t seem to know as much about it and just asked Michael a question rather than giving her own opinion.
Colin explained that he had been involved in genetic studies and stated the results that a beneficial gene had indeed been identified, and that “97-98%” of “Afro-American and Caribbean athletes” had the gene while “80% of European… white European athletes..” have it. He went on to say that (paraphrasing) the conclusion was that while there seems to be a genetic factor, since white Europeans can also have the gene in question (albeit a smaller fraction) nurture/environment seems to play the primary role.
John Inverdale then asked Michael whether white athletes might feel disadvantaged purely because of expectations. Johnson said “I don’t think so” and went on to explain how he had made a documentary on the very subject of “the slave trade and how that may have affected the genes” but then explained that there are too many complex factors involved to really be sure the effect is significant.
John then posed the 81/82 figure and suggested it seemed “incontrovertible” (which most laypeople would probably be inclined to think, so he’s only posing a question lots of people would want him to ask). Michael immediately responded with “It’s not. It’s not. It is not. It’s not.” and went on to explain exactly why it’s neither surprising nor proof of genetics being the determining factor.
Michael states “Genes contribute – there’s no doubt about that”. He clarifies that genetics may affect the probabilities but are neither a guarantee for those who have them nor are those without them excluded.
Denise asked whether environment was also a factor and Michael confirmed that it probably is, then the segment ended.
Overall there was nothing racist in this at all. The video raised some questions and three experienced, respected and knowledgeable black athletes were given ample opportunity to comment and dispell the most common misconceptions. John was clearly trying to ask the slightly controversial questions that a) people would be wondering themselves. b) The co-presenters probably wanted the opportunity to respond to.
Now if there are actual factual errors in the video, rather than just objections to the questions it deliberately raised so the presenters could respond to them, then be more specific. Perhaps watch Johnson’s programme first and see what his conclusions were – or would he be deemed racist too, just for giving the idea credibility?
Overall, if anything, the segment has almost certainly done more to dispel misconceptions than anything. If anything harmful becomes of it, it will be because people saw fit to post the video where it can and will be taken out of context, without the presenters’ responses. Questions were raised and the presenters answered them, albeit briefly. That’s not an unreasonable way to educate and entertain an audience – ask the questions they would ask (or raise concerns they would raise) and have someone authoritative answer the questions.
Taking it out of context and branding it racist is unreasonable sensationalism.
Out of all the sports programs to potentially channel Jimmy the Greek, I never would have imagined the BBC to be among them.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” – Santayana
Would like to hear what the BBC has to say about why Whites dominate swimming, diving, and other water sports. What genes explain that phenomena?
But I agree with the commenters above who feel that the BBC’s intent was not to be racist. This kind of reminds me of the “model minority” stereotype for Asian Americans. Flattering, but can also be seen as sinister.
OK so most sprinters are black. Well, most olympic swimmers are white so what pseudoscientific faux Darwinian explanation can we come up with for that?
Psyche
Oh Dear, I guess the day had to come when I disagreed with PZ :-(
OK, so here’s my beef: I think that you were too quick to be completely dismissive of the data. the fact is that out of 82 top contenders, in the 60 years since desegragation, 81 have been black. That merits a look. YES – once we look we can start to say that desegregation was only in america, and the african nations have been transforming slowly from 3rd world to better ( which changes the ratios) etc etc.
but it DID merit a look. unfortunately the BBC did a terrible botch job of it by adding in eugenics etc.
as for natural selection: again I think that you were too dismissive too quickly. a case could be made that the black people of africa (slave or not) have had harder lives over the last 1000 years than the caucasians. meaning that now that they are well fed and live better they are perhaps indeed reaping the benefit of better genes. it merits a look by people more informed than I.
as a last point I would point out that 100 years ago it would be unthinkable for the chinese to field a star tall basketball player – but now…. merits a look as to why.
just my 2cents PZ :-)
A couple years back, the Onion pointed out a historical irony relevant to this.
redpanda:
Well, the Nazi argument had sufficiently extreme forms that a single counterexample would bring it down; plus, big “anecdotes” tend to trump more abstract data. It was likewise with Jack Johnson and the percieved need for a “great White Hope” to beat him, rather than white Americans settling for some kind of statistical advantage. Heck, we see this pattern of thinking today with Michael Phelps and the implication that his lead in medals can be construed as the USA “winning” the Olympics. (Although a lot of that is just USA bias.) Not that Olympics are any kind of measure of the actual “quantified athleticism” of a country.
Which fails to answer the original question – how come that of the 82 men to break 10 seconds in the 100 metres, 81 are black?
Check out that first ‘B’ in ‘BBC’. Might explain all. Of course they’re on our side; it’s our Olympics, and we’re doing really well. A few Olympics ago, we were struggling to get one gold medal. Now we’re 3rd in the table.
…and the commentary team this side of the pond, at least, has Michael Johnson more or less permanently on it. He’s American, last time I heard.
I’m looking at the women’s 1500 meters and it’s not lending support to the East African runner theory. The American man who won the silver medal on 10,000 meters also puts that into question. Maybe we’d see lots of white guys running in the Olympics if we drank less, played less video games and exercised more?
I still kinda believe that West African sprinters are more talented on average though…
Oh, but not the horrible part about weeding out the slaves of course.
Nigerian and Ghana sprinters seem every bit as talented as American and Jamaican and I think it’s probably only a matter of time until sprinting is dominated by Nigeria, Ghana and their neighbours.
Here’s my unscientific theory of why Australia is not a major force in ice hockey, based on some unscientific observations:
1) Nowhere on the continent of Australia does an outside body of water freeze to a point where it’s possible to skate on it.Ice skating is just not part of Australian culture
2) Victoria, Australia’s second most populous state, with a population of over 5 million people, has four ice rinks. Three of those rinks are located in the capital city of Melbourne, and two of those rinks are in one building.
3) In Canada, outside bodies of water annually freeze to a point where one can skate upon them.
4)In the Canadian Province of British Columbia(population 4.5 million), outdoor skating is a very popular winter pastime. There are also about a hundred indoor skate rinks situated throughout the province.
Of course the fact that Australia has only once qualified to compete in ice hockey at the Olympics (in 1960) may be linked to genetics. I doubt it, but further research and a BBC TV program are probably warranted.
17: “context is everything and the video is presented entirely out of context.” This.
50: “I would like to see the whole programme before deciding how bad it is.” Very much, this.
Other than those comments – shame on you all for your predictable knee-jerk responses to something apparently filmed with a phone from a screen – reliable source? This is precisely the kind of behaviour we’re all so quick to deride when it’s Jebus freaks quote mining and relating out of context snippets that support their case just as long you you miss out the massive “NOT” that was at the beginning or end of the sentence.
Seriously. Own house in order. Sheesh. I’m no bugler for the BBC but at least during the opening ceremony they didn’t cut from a commemoration and tribute to victims of the war on terror to an interview with a bloody swimmer like the networks of some nations I could name.
Nonsense. I’m sure it has something to do with Australians’ history as criminals.
PZ,
Although my ancestors were undoubtedly criminals, they hailed from Sicily and so were never captured, unlike their less-successful British/Irish counterparts.
My family had to pay its own way to Australia.
Like George carlin said, Australia was lucky–they got the criminal. America got screwed–they got the puritans.
American Genetic Association – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The American Genetic Association (AGA), formerly the American Breeders’ Association, founded 1903, is a USA-based learned society dedicated to the study of genetics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Breeders_Association – Cached
More results from en.wikipedia.org »
Pools cost money, and for a variety of historical reasons black people are disproportionately likely to not have it?
Paucity of black swimmers – IIRC black people generally have slightly denser bones (about 300g more for the “average” black compared to the “average” non-black adult male). This means they are slightly less bouyant.
Individuals in either group, of course, vary so much that many blacks are more bouyant than many non-whites, so it can’t be down to bone density, except that this may have an affect on black learner swimmers. They might find it slightly more scary learing to swim and might give up more frequently. This, combined with the exististing lack of black faces in swimming, may help to perpeuate a “swimming is not for blacks” mindset in blacks.
But yes, much more to do the availabilty of and access to facilties and training.
hangs head in shame – ^ sooo many typos and spelling mistakes
@17, 50 and 63:
I agree. This is a knee-jerk overreaction to a video which was unwisely posted out of context. Perhaps the video wasn’t great and should have been clearer on the facts rather than trying to be thought-provoking and build up for discussion. But that doesn’t make it racist.
The ice hockey example is weak – running can be done anywhere, and it is. It doesn’t require specialist equipment so very few regions of the world are excluded; in short, sprinting is popular worldwide. Unlike Ice Hockey.
Not only that but it seems that even from a single nation there is a higher proportion of coloured sprinters than might be expected statistically. For example I could name several British sprinters of colour (Linford Christie, Colin Jackson, Dwain Chambers) but not a single white one. Except perhaps Abrahams of Chariots of Fire fame. My all-time athletics hero and GBs greatest ever male athlete Daley Thompson is coloured.
Now I admit that’s badly selected data, but it’s what’s stuck in my head, and quite likely the heads of many UK citizens. Even today, when the UK is very multi-cultural, whites are still the majority. So it seems like a statistical anomaly worth investigating. There is no other obvious reason such as whites not having access to appropriate equipment or coaches. It’s a question which I think should at least be permitted without accusations of racism.
I am not defending the hypothesis that genetics are the main factor behind this. I’m sure Colin Jackson is correct that even if genetics are a factor, environmental factors are more important. But it’s not a racist question, any more than it’s racist to ask whether there might be a genetic factor in malaria survival rates. It’s a hypothesis which might explain data which at least appears puzzling.
To finish, some quotes from Michael Johnson:
“It’s a fact that hasn’t been discussed openly before. It’s a taboo subject in the States but it is what it is. Why shouldn’t we discuss it?”
“All my life I believed I became an athlete through my own determination, but it’s impossible to think that being descended from slaves hasn’t left an imprint through the generations.
‘Difficult as it was to hear, slavery has benefited descendants like me – I believe there is a superior athletic gene in us.”
If Michael Johnson can entertain the question as credible, I see no reason the BBC shouldn’t pose it to him.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167064/London-2012-Olympics-Michael-Johnson-descendants-slaves-medals-sprint-finals.html#ixzz23BMiihmf
Is “coloured” still an acceptable term in GB for blacks/Africans/people of color?
What a Maroon – no,it’s not. Not for about the last 30 years.
Ring Tailed Lemurian,
Thanks, I didn’t think so.
@71, if you want to contribute to a discussion on race, don’t use racist terms to refer to the races.
My Black Jamaican Mum sometimes uses the word “colored” — may be a generational thing since she’s in her 70s.
The BBC clip had a lot of context in it which isn’t evident from the clip that PZ posted.
For one thing, the topic was discussed by Michael Johnson in his film “Survival of the Fastest” where Johnson met scientists, historians and African American intellectuals.
I don’t think anyone involved, Johnson included, believed they were advocating “racist apologetics”.
To add to my post above, I watched the BBC coverage live, and there was a significant discussion that was not included in the clip.
Another addition (sorry), former athlete Colin Jackson (seated to the left of Michael Johnson) has made not one but two films about his Jamaican heritage. He, like Johnson, delved into the genetic heritage of sprinters.
The BBC weren’t just pulling this thing out of their ass. Jackson and Johnson had spent an age researching into this, and the BBC clip in the middle of coverage merely summarised a point of view within the wider discussion.
My sincerest apologies for any offence caused by my use of the term. I had either forgotten or did not realise it is considered inappropriate. I’m not sure I would have used it if not for references to ‘people of colour’, a term new to me but which in factual terms doesn’t seem any different descriptively, since to me it goes without saying that we are all people.
I admit I should have checked and sought to use the correct terms for the individuals involved. I do believe people should only be referred to according to their personal preference and if any of my terminology was inappropriate I can only apologise.
Perhaps since it’s not been acceptable in the UK for 30 years, that explains my error to some extent. I suspect I am too young to remember it being discussed as offensive, yet old enough to have heard the term.
It may serve as some defense that Wikipedia states:
“In British usage the term can refer to those of Asian, Middle-Eastern or African descent and is not usually considered derogatory, though more accurate terms are preferable (particularly if referring to a single ethnicity).”
In this case I did mean non-white (including mixed race) ethnicity as suggested, in the same way the term people of colour is now apparently used in the US. I certainly did not mean it to be derogatory, hopefully that is apparent.
Either way, I apologise for my ignorance on that issue and have sought to bring myself up to date on the preferred terms.
Other fun videos the BBC can make to “raise questions”:
1) Why are so many British Indians doctors, lawyers and engineers, while others are so business-savvy, and yet others are cleaners?
The video begins with a simplistic explanation of the Hindu caste system (Indians are defined by the caste system). It suggests that Indian people are specialised for particular roles because over thousands of years, genes for intelligence (Brahmin), nobility and courage (Kshatriya), mercantile ability (Vaisya) and servility (Sudra) were selectively bred into Indian populations. These are mapped to modern British Indian professions: doctor/lawyer (Brahmin), corner shop owner (Vaisya) and public toilet cleaner (Sudra).
After the video, a stimulating discussion occurs in which three brown people explain that while genetics may play some role, there are probably socio-economic and cultural explanations for why so many Indians are doctors and lawyers, while those from lower SE backgrounds are cleaners. One of the brown people has read three studies about gene distribution across castes. He sorrowfully concludes that as a Brahmin lawyer, he has probably benefitted from thousands of years of selective breeding, although obviously the issue is more complicated than that. The white people in the audience all learn a valuable lesson. Progress is made.
2) Why are Ashkenazi Jews so damn smart?
The video begins with a montage of Holocaust images (Jews are defined by the Holocaust). It goes on to suggest that Jews are so damn clever because only Jews with above-average IQs were able to survive centuries of oppression and persecution in Christian Europe. All the stupid Jews were killed in pogroms or gas chambers. This explains why so many Nobel prize winners are Jewish.
After the video, three Jews have an enlightened discussion. One of them suggests that Jewish culture places a strong emphasis on learning and scholarship, but he concedes that genetics may play a role. Everyone learns things. No one is accused of racism. It is so refreshing.
3) Why are Chinese people and other East Asians so studious?
The video explains the rise of the scholar-bureaucrat class in Imperial China and outlines the Confucian ideal of the educated, well rounded scholar gentleman. It suggests that this social system created selection pressure for intelligent, studious people. Modern Chinese people are descended from this stock and as a result are predisposed to learning.
Another discussion takes place, &c.
4) Why are British Jamaicans and other British black people overrepresented in prisons and underrepresented in higher education?
The video informs us that slave owners bred their slaves for physical fortitude, but they didn’t want slaves who could read and write. Slaves who were too clever and socially well adjusted were troublemakers. Over many generations, genes for learning difficulties and poor socialisation were selected for within Black populations.
Afterwards there is a panel discussion with three black Britons. One of them suggests that lower socio-economic background and lack of opportunities for migrants are probably more salient to the question, but she concedes that genetics might play a role, because after all there are genetic differences, and it would be nice if we would discuss them without everyone being accused of racism all the time by overzealous do-gooder wishy washy left wing politically correct Communist types.
5) Why do white people suck at running?
Possible explanations: Vikings did most of their invading in longboats (this would explain white people’s success in swimming events); Germanic tribes had access to horses (hence racing and polo are dominated by white athletes); Scotland is a hilly country (possible connection to high jump??)
@74
“@71, if you want to contribute to a discussion on race, don’t use racist terms to refer to the races.”
I already tried to address this above.
I apologise if I used a term inappropriately, but I have certainly never been told it’s a “racist term” before.
I have educated myself on some of the reasons why it is considered inappropriate in many places (though there is definitely still some uncertainty on the issue, it’s not quite as clear as @73 suggests, perhaps dependent on when we grew up and where).
I’m glad there are a good number of people who agree with the actual content of my posts though.
There’s Olympics on? Why would I bother with that when I can be playing the baseball/soccer amalgamation outside with my daughter? There’s no racism in the announcing. Just ‘SPORTS TEAM, EVERYONE!’ and ‘I WIN!’
Winterwind:
And after all that the BBC could make a video which explains why some people don’t bother to read through the comments and appreciate that the video has been taken entire out of context and is missing an important studio discussion which addresses, and counters, the content of the video, before the start running off at the keyboard with a bunch of smartass non sequiturs.
To repeat, yet again, the video was followed by a studio discussion in which two highly respected and very well informed black athletes explained why there is a hell of lot more to the success of black athletes than the slave trade and that genetics, if it plays nay part at all, is only one small factor amongst many that contribute to athletic success.
But I guess that’s expecting too much of even the BBC.
unity: Cool story bro.
It’s OK for the BBC to make racist videos as long as they provide a forum for well informed minorities to discuss the video afterwards. That’s what I said in my comment. Perhaps the BBC could make an app that translates comments with big words in them for people like you.
@75 kayden:
“My Black Jamaican Mum sometimes uses the word “colored” — may be a generational thing since she’s in her 70s.”
It’s good of you to share this with us, but I won’t make excuses for myself nor accept them from others.
It’s enough for me that if some people of colour consider it offensive, I should not use it. If those within a particular minority wish to use terms others within their minority disapprove of, that’s their prerogative.
It does seem Scotland is somewhat behind the times on this subject, but I have found what seems like a good primer on the subject of terminology:
http://www.universities-scotland.ac.uk/raceequalitytoolkit/terminology.htm
In this case, having done some research and read up on the matter, I humbly and ashamedly admit to some degree of naivety and ignorance on the terminology issue.
sc_a669c25262ca45fe2256cfa7b31376ae:
For future reference ‘coloured’ in its British usage is considered to be archaic and outdated.
Generally speaking ‘coloured’ fell out of favour over here towards the end of the 1970’s as people became more aware of how the term was used in South Africa under apartheid, so there’s a generational element to the manner in which its usage is regarded. If used by an older person its likely to given the benefit of the doubt and treated as a well-intentioned but slightly ignorant attempt at politeness but amongst later generations its generally taken to be a sign that the speaker is a racist.
One thing that Americans, and others, need to appreciate is that here in the UK we don’t anything like the same degree of cultural baggage around race that one finds in the US and some other countries. That’s not to say that racism hasn’t been a problem and, indeed, isn’t still a problem in some quarters but the fact that we didn’t have racial prejudice institutalised in law within living memory does mean that some things which cause serious offence in the US due to its history don’t resonate over here in anything like the same way.
Seems unlikely, given the BBC’s all-out offensive to try and make British people give a shit about the war in Syria – specifically, to make people think that funding the rebels is a good idea, because, y’know, they’re not being funded, trained and armed by jihadist groups at all.
Well alright, they are a little bit – but it’s an alliance of convenience, and once the war is over Al Qaeda will step aside so the Syrians can have a nice secular democracy.
Just like they did for the MNLA in Mali during that ongoing war we never mention. Ahem.
The odd piece of claptrap is to be expected, really, when we consider how current BBC journalism manages to syncretise the worst of right-wing alarmist histrionics with the worst of tendentious left-wing mendacity. Having not watched the programme I can’t comment with any certainty, however the video didn’t seem like a talking point in a larger discussion, more a specious piece of nonsense delivered in an authoratative tone that Michael Johnson, Colin Jackson and Denise Lewis saw fit to denounce. It’s still bad history, bad science, and the shitty old “black African/ white European” binary that is so important in the West, yet of absolutely zero importance to anyone else (unless they’re taking the piss out of us).
Me, I reckon the day Polyneasians ditch rugby and take up sprinting will be the day this old “West African slave-sprinter” chestnut gets put to bed once and for all. Anyone else who has ever been flattened by a Maori winger travelling at the speed of a family car will likely support this hypothesis.
Thanks unity.
I wasn’t around in the 70s, and had never even heard of this usage of the term. I’m not sure who you mean by ‘younger generations’ but this has never been an issue in my time.
I only read the term ‘poc’ since I started reading FTB, and honestly didn’t see any distinction between the terms. To me it seemed logical that ‘people of colour’ and ‘coloured people’ would have the same meaning. But I now see why the term comes with baggage. And even if it didn’t, as I said already, I don’t get to choose what terms are appropriate.
‘people of color’?
goofiest phrase ever.
in the OPINION of this person-without-color.
(there’s that. but still.)
I cannot imagine what the relevance would be of whether or not folks believed themselves to be advocating racist apologetics.
Pink is a colour. Unless you are invisible, or composed of dark matter, in which case I apologise unreservedly.
Winterwind:
Umlike yourself – seemingly – I saw the entire sequence as it aired and the whole sequence was clearly intended to tackle and address the somewaht popular misconceptions presented in the video, albeit for a lay audience of sports fans many of whom would be unlikely to watch a serious science documentary on the same issue.
As others have pointed out, both Michael Johnson and Colin Jackson spoke eloquently and with considerable expertise on the content of the video, given that neither are evolutionary biologists, and both carried the discussion with a considerable degree of authority which comes from their both having been world class athletes and, certainly in Jackson’s case – not entirely sure about Johnson – from having been involved in the coaching of up and coming athletes after their own career ended.
It about tailoring the message to a particular, lay, audience and in that respect Johnson and Jackson were excellent choices to carry the debate because most of the audience would find it easily to engage with them as ‘experts’ than they would a pointy-headed science boffin. By the same token, to use your Askenazi Jew ‘example’, you an I might prefer to see that contested and debunked by a scientist of the stature of the late Jacob Bronowski. Joe Public, on the other hand, is much more likely to pay attention if the counter arguments are presented by Woody Allen and Mel Brooks – both familiar, both intelligent and articulate, and both people that the public find easy to relate to as very successful Jews.
The aim of the whole piece was not to give the public a grounding in population genetics but to try to ensure that the next time someone starts banging on about Black athletes always winning the sprints in the pub, someone will hopefully htunr around an respond by pointing out that they saw Michael Johnson talking about that on the TV and he reckons its bollocks, which is really what the full piece was aiming for.
@Winterwind
Or anyone else…
We seem to have cleared up the context issue, but apparently I and a few others are still missing something. So please do educate us.
In what way is this video racist? In what way is it historically incorrect? In what way is it scientifically incorrect? Please be specific.
What about Johnson’s video exploring this exact subject, and his conclusion that genetics do indeed play some part, and may well be due to selection during slavery? Is he wrong too? Or is he being misquoted?
Thanks.
Q: why do you call yourself ‘black’ when your skin is brown instead?
P: is your skin ‘white’?
Q: well, no. It’s flesh-colored.
P: so’s mine.
sc_a669c25262ca45fe2256cfa7b31376ae,
Thanks. FWIW, my mother (the daughter of a Scot) uses “colored”, but here in the US it was archaic even when I was growing up in the ’70s.
I’m not sure who you mean by ‘younger generations’ but this has never been an issue in my time.
If you’re under 50, and certainly if you’re under 40 then chances are that you won’t have come across the archaic use of ‘coloured’ which really only survives today in people over that age who grew in working class areas of the UK. The term ‘coloured’ really passed out of common usage at the end of 70s, so if your formative years came after that you may easily have never have come across the term other than as a thinly veiled racist epithet.
@unity: I agree with you, and think overall the segment will do much more to dispell myths about black sprinters only being successful because of their genes than to incite any sort of racism or anti-science. But the popular opinion still seems to be that regardless of context the video was racist, and historically and scientifically inaccurate.
The BBC’s discussion may be a load of crap, even in context, but several commenters here are revealing some historical confusion as well:
Africans in general: greatest genetic diversity in the world.
African-Americans: mostly of west african origin but currently most African-Americans have some european ancestry. Self-sustaining, even naturally growing populations from the start. Death/fertility rates possibly a bit worse than for poor white settlers – I haven’t seen an analysis of that one.
West Indians: mostly of west african origin, essentially the same groups of people as African-Americans but with much less european ancestry. Death rate under conditions of slavery completely appalling. No hope of self-sustaining populations until after abolition, hence a huge dependence on the slave trade just to keep the population stable, even in nominally free St Domingue (Haiti). Consequence: a reasonably large proportion of the West Indian population is probably descended from people who arrived just before abolition.
Conclusions to be drawn about black athletes in general? I really can’t imagine there are any.
@Pen
The video states that most of the greatest sprinters were of West African origins,
Is this factually incorrect? I suspect this is something Michael Johnson investigated, since he includes himself in his comments on his programme.
If not, then what you say seems entirely compatible with the idea that slavery may have been an influence.
It’s factually correct, but the fields in 100-400m sprinting have not been representative of human genetic diversity. This remains the case. As I said earlier, when Polynesians start taking up sprinting in droves I honestly believe the whole “slave-sprinter” bullshit will die on the rocks, because as far as I can see Polynesians possess many of the same physical and physiological traits that supposedly make West Africans the best “race” for sprinting.
Also an Italian held the 200m world record for almost 20 years through the 80s and 90s.
Um… thought. Has anyone studied the effects of stereotype threat on PHYSICAL performance? Maybe black runners do better because everyone ‘knows’ black runners are naturally better for whatever reason, because the top runners all tend to be black, and so on in the usual circle.
I know some of this goes on in US football, where from a very young age white boys get disproportionately diverted to quarterback and black boys get diverted to wide receiver and running back, because ‘whites are smarter and blacks are faster’, therefore self-fulfilling prophecy, natch.
The ‘context’ argument is bullshit. So is the argument this isn’t racist claptrap because black people were part of the show. So is the claim that it was some sort of devil’s advocate position. Yes, you can have a discussion about genetic influences but conflating the success of black athletes with Nazi eugenics is just awful.
Given the bombshells in the video, I was expecting them to be eviscerating it for an hour…
Montage 1:33:36-1:38:58 (5:22 duration)
Chatter 1:38:58-1:42:31 (3:33 duration)
The discussion didn’t even last as long as the clip.
Full Transcript
—
???: Well fascinating stuff – I’m sure the all kids at home on holiday are going “I don’t want to biology and chemistry until September when I go back to school – because it was really interesting stuff. Now Collin, you’re a bit of an authority on all this as well, so what’s your take?
Collin: Well I was lucky enough to be part of the BBC program where they took muscle biopsies, et cetra et cetra what my genetic makeup was, and one of the things we found out: that what was unique obviously was I had super fast-twitch muscles. And when they cross-referenced this to lots of other afro-american and carribean athletes, it was about 97-98% of the whole had this type of muscle group. They also found out that 80% of white european athletes had this gene too and the ability to run fast. So they’ve kinda put it down to the fact that perhaps it’s more about nurture more than nature because we haven’t found the right man yet got blond hair and blue eyes that will do it.
???: But are we at the point now where you are a very talented athlete at 14, 15, 16 and you’re white, you’re almost institutionally programmed to think that you won’t be able to compete at the highest level in the sprints?
Michael: I don’t think so, and I did a program on this very subject as well that went even a little bit deeper into the slave trade and how that may have actually affected the genes. I interviewed lots of different scientists and historians about this topic, and they all have different philosophies on it. But at the end of the day, what we come back to is that no matter what the situation, you may be predisposed to be a sprinter or have the talent to be a sprinter, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re actually gonna get there. There are so many different factors, and we can’t forget that, that contribute to whether an athlete will succeed or not or whether they’ll ultimately reach their full potential.
???: But if you’re playing the laws or probabilities though, and if I use that statistic again: 82% people who’ve broken 10s 100m, 81 of them are black. Surely that is so overwhelming and incontrovertible…
Michael: It’s not. It’s not. It is not. It’s not, because the thing is that you have to look at Jamaica for example. There is no doubt about it that part of the reason why Jamaica has such great sprinters in that tiny country: you can’t deny the fact that not only is athletics the national sport, sprinting is the national sport. So kids grow up seeing sprinters who look like them, who come from the same neighborhoods as they come from. And those are their role models, and those are their heroes. If you have that same situation with white sprinters for example. Let’s say that you have five Christophe Lemaitres who come from the same neighborhood, and they are heroes in that neighborhood or in that community, those kids are gonna want to do that too. And the more you have who decide, “Yeah I’m gonna follow that path,” the more likely you are to find those. Now genes can contribute – there’s no doubt about it – and some people who are more… If you have the actin3-rn77 version of the gene then you have a slight advantage in terms of your probability to become a great sprinter. But it doesn’t mean you’re going to be, and it doesn’t mean that someone who doesn’t have it can’t be.
Denise: I was just going to ask whether climate also has a part to play in it: warm conditions, environment, also motivation by fellow athletes, the inspiration…
Michael: Environment certainly has something to do with it. I think access to facilities, coaching, all of those sorts of things, motivation, everything.
What pressure of evolution is responsible for the gene in Caucasians that lets them divine racist intent?
* oops
82% people82 people* Gah, the BBC program [The Making of Me] where
Taken out of context or not, it’s still a blatantly stupid and racist idea. Maybe people of African descent have some genetic advantage for distance running or sprinting, and maybe they haven’t. I don’t think you’ll find out by testing only top echelon athletes because it’s not a scientifically valid sample. You’re selecting for the thing you want to test for. My ancestors were especially good at hacking up Romans. Does that mean I should be good at the Javelin toss or the hammer throw ?
Probably… in school I threw the shot put across the gym and out the door on the far side.. .
Oh, and contrary to popular opinion, some of my ancestors arrived on these shores as convicts, also. No doubt my not being good at ice hockey has to do with that.
I was surprised when I watched this and expected it to make waves, but as people have pointed out, as it was discussed, there was a context surrounding the video that mollified this thesis slightly and explained why it was shown (e.g. not just out of the blue).
However, I do agree it was poorly chosen and ill-framed, lurching from Darwinism to Eugenics and back to Darwinism and then to these three black athletes (who have been excellent commentators, btw– better than the interviewer who I think has generally been tone deaf when interviewing athletes). It was out of place and I think if I had been there I would have explained to them that I thought it was off the tone and if it wasn’t intending to be uncomfortable, they should have taken more time over it and made it clear that this was just a idea.
However, it was immediately clear that this thesis wasn’t new to Michael Johnson at all, even if it was new to the others, and that in fact he seemed to have been involved in its initial airing.
I know that many people dislike the BBC, dislike its coverage, pick up on some of the things it does wrong (and there are some absolute janglers, like this today). But I absolutely cannot credit the idea that it is worse than North American TV beause it’s NOT.
“I have been avoiding olympic coverage like the plague over here in Blighty – I find the elements of smug nationalism that come out with every medal win to be nauseating – but I did not realise that it had gotten this bad.”
And here was I, having come from Canada, where celebrating nationally isn’t a sin, finally glad that British people were standing up and taking pride in their country and their citizens instead of denigrating the country.
It’s normal for a country to expect more and celebrate when people do well. You think Jamaica is not celebrating every single medal? You think France didn’t celebrate their swimming success?
And the coverage hasn’t only been about British medals. British commentators, naturally, have been excited about British athletes but when David Rudisha won the gold and broke a world record, they were equally thrilled. If you’ve been “avoiding the coverage like the plague” how do you know what the coverage has actually been like aside from this one video? If you’ve been watching the 6 o’clock news, then you’re getting the highlights– the Team GB medals, primarily. If you watched the rest of the day, you’d discover that everything is covered and commentated very well (except diving and sailing, but that is the individuals commentating, methinks)
“I’ve always been prejudiced against X but now I’ve seen this one, isolated example of something bad X has done and I’m shocked. SHOCKED!”
The piece itself wasn’t great and maybe the discussion afterwards stopped too short, but you can’t really blame them for bringing this up.
It is what The Royle Family watching the telly at home or in the pub generally assume about runners and any sport with apparent black dominance. You can bet Jessica Ennis’ mixed heritage is being attributed to part of her success, at least, right now. (even though she had to beat much bigger and stronger women, white and black, to do it).
They under cooked it, in that inimitable mass media way, but hopefully some of the concept of multiple factors got through. It’s better than leaving the lay intuition about these things unaddressed, if only marginally so.
@99
Well, Jamaica made a killing in this year’s games, which may have something to do with this being on national tv. And that would be West African origins, yes.
I don’t know.
Not sure about that:
1. If today’s West Africans and today’s West Indians are equally good sprinters, there’s little reason to think so.
2. I was suggesting that today’s West Indians were significantly descended from West Africans who had not spent a very long time in slavery – significantly, not entirely – but to that extent, they wouldn’t be genetically different from West Africans.
3. The most common cause of death for West Indian slaves was certainly disease, aggravated by grueling conditions. I can’t imagine why the survivors should have been better runners.
4. Although the death rate was high and birth rate low, I don’t know if the time frame of a couple of centuries, for those who did manage to raise several generations under West Indian slavery is long enough for significant natural selection. I’m not a biologist.
@ PZ
a lifetime of menial stoop labor in the cotton fields
Aren’t you being a bit Americanocentric? It was sugar plantations in the Caribbean. Mind you I’m just as bad. When I was doing my list @98 I forgot black South & Central Americans. It’s because I don’t know anything about them…
While I disagree with the simplistic notion that slavery played a key role in the dominance of black sprinters, anyone who suggests that it has nothing to do with genetics is, quite frankly, utterly delusional.
And if you believe that it’s merely down to black athletes working harder, you are incredibly naive.
sc_a669c25262ca45fe2256cfa7b31376ae: I for one find it offensive to “credit” white people with creating the west African sprinter wonder through slavery unless you have overwhelmingly undeniable mountains of evidence that that’s what actually happened.
It’s true that west Africans and people with partially west African descent are faster sprinters on average than other people, for some reason.
I photograph people of all colours, and want to get their skin tones right. In the unlikely event that I ever get the chance to take portraits of Denise Lewis, Jessica Ennis, and Rebecca Adlington, I wouldn’t want to make the mistake of presenting them all as some sort of uniform “flesh colour”!
I wish we had better ways of talking about skin colours without getting bogged-down with irrelevant implications. Perhaps we should just use RGB (Red Green Blue) values, but that implies some sort of shyness or embarrassment about skin colour. Skin colour ought to be something we can talk about objectively, like height or eye colour, without getting hung-up about it.
ps: I live in the UK and use Photoshop. These have presumably influenced my thoughts about skin colour.
In athletics, particularly in power events like sprints etc it is commonly discussed that those who are better at it have a greater percentage of fast twitch muscle fibres (I forget which ones that is).
Forgetting the slavery evolution and breeding BS for a second: Is it possible there’s a genetic and/or developmental factor that shows West African lineages with a slightly higher number of people being inclined this way?
There was once a time when Whites dominated all western sports, with Africans having neither the opportunity to compete nor the resources to be competitive.
With 95%+ of all human genetic diversity found in Africa, I would positively expect, as a null hypothesis, that 95%+ of all the genetic variants with implications for extreme performance will be found in African or recent African descent populations, and that the day will come when all sports will be dominated by people from these populations, once opportunity equalizes.
@112 Rasmus
“I for one find it offensive to “credit” white people with creating the west African sprinter wonder through slavery unless you have overwhelmingly undeniable mountains of evidence that that’s what actually happened.”
I saw nothing in the video which suggested that white people deserve ‘credit’ for African-american sprinting success. If it did condone slavery either explicitly or implicitly, then I would indeed be appalled.
Also, how would one acquire the evidence you require without first asking the question and carrying out research as Johnson has done? Yet it seems it’s the question itself which is off-limits to some.
Let me quote Michael Johnson again, since he’s far more entitled and qualified to comment than I am:
“All my life I believed I became an athlete through my own determination, but it’s impossible to think that being descended from slaves hasn’t left an imprint through the generations.
‘Difficult as it was to hear, slavery has benefited descendants like me – I believe there is a superior athletic gene in us.”
And I think this comment explains to some extent why we are seeing this so differently:
“It’s a fact that hasn’t been discussed openly before. It’s a taboo subject in the States but it is what it is. Why shouldn’t we discuss it?”
I repeat – “it’s a taboo subject in the states”. This may explain why this video/segment is viewed in a different light in the US, with different assumptions about its motives. That doesn’t mean it should continue to be taboo (clearly Johnson doesn’t think it should be, and wants to discuss it) and it doesn’t mean there is no truth of the matter which people should seek out. That’s what science and skepticism are about, right? Seeking the truth of the matter? But how can that be done if honest questions are deemed off-limits?
The video presentation does not help in this matter though, as it did leave some room for interpretation, arguably too much. I agree it did not make the eugenics connection very clear – perhaps it was put together in a hurry, I don’t know. My interpretation (and perhaps I’m mistaken here) was twofold – firstly it hi-lighted how harmful and wrong Hitler’s view of evolution was, how factually wrong he was about his assumed superiority of his chosen ‘race’. Secondly it was intended as a warning of the possible consequences of genetic manipulation of humans, of reducing human beings to their genetics – and which rather frighteningly may soon become a scientific reality.
And either way, if there actually is a genetic advantage (and both Johnson and Jackson confirmed that there is a genetic factor) then the fact of the matter is that genetics are relevant, whether that makes us feel uncomfortable or not. Science doesn’t always give us the answers we want to hear, but who here will condone disregarding the facts in favour of wishful thinking? I suspect not many.
Would it be racist to ask whether Africans might have a genetic advantage to malaria resistance, based only on the statistic that they have a higher survival rate than white Europeans? Would it be a stupid question just because there are cases where genetics is clearly not the explanation for similar statistics in other diseases?
The fact of the matter is that there are genetic variations among humans, both individually and as groups, which may provide advantages (or disadvantages) in certain situations. Is it really considered racist to ask whether genetics explain a particular observation of statistical differences between groups of genetically different people? It might be taboo, it might even be answered in the negative. But surely it’s not a racist question?
I suspect there is some conflation here with asking an honest question and trying to answer it scientifically (which is what Johnson and Jackson have clearly been doing, and the BBC is taking to a wider audience) and assuming that genetics must be the only explanation.
The latter, I would definitely consider racist. And sadly this is probably an assumption many people in the UK and elsewhere may carry around with them, and which can only be dispelled by people like Johnson and Jackson being given opportunity to discuss it at a time when a wide audience is watching e.g. right before the 200m final.
The former I would not see as racist, and I’m yet to see an explanation for why it should be interpreted as such, other than a difference in what questions are considered taboo in different parts of the world.
If you think the question should be taboo, I can understand that and I can see the reasons why it would be considered as such in the US. But clearly Johnson and Jackson don’t feel that way – they want to have the discussion and take part in the research, and they seem to have given this matter a lot more thought than most of us ever will.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167064/London-2012-Olympics-Michael-Johnson-descendants-slaves-medals-sprint-finals.html#ixzz23ENyGVS8
@114 Muz:
Is it possible there’s a genetic and/or developmental factor that shows West African lineages with a slightly higher number of people being inclined this way?
Yes there is – both Jackson and Johnson confirmed it. But they also state very clearly that it’s not the primary factor determining success.
Read the transcript someone posted a few post up if you want to know more.
Also if anyone has a link for Johnson’s programme Survival of the Fastest, I’d like to watch it. I’m betting a lot of our speculation is covered in that. 4OD says it’s not available.
That also explains why the swimmers are primarily white and from the US or Australia. Only the white people who were able to survive swimming across the ocean, the fittest, the best swimmers were able to colonize the new world. man oh man.
sc_a669c25262ca45fe2256cfa7b31376ae: My point is that it’s adding to the idea that most everything in history can be explained and framed by European people’s actions, as if white people are the only ones who have agency in history.
I don’t think any question should be taboo in and of itself, but you have to consider the consequences before you air something to the public. Racial biology is not a subject that’s suitable for documentaries about work in progress.
I’m not sure I understand the fuss here. Bad science? Certainly. Bad history? Undoubtedly. Drivel? Seems to be, although I take the point made by others above that it should be taken in the context of the debate that followed. But racist? I honestly don’t see any racism in that video at all. Where do they say anything that suggests black athletes are in any way lesser than white athletes??
Complain about the bad science, by all means, but raising the knee-jerk “racism” card when it isn’t there just suppresses discussions that are better off out in the open.
There are some very dodgy folk working for the BBC -especially in top echelons. They authorise moments like this
sc_a669c25262ca45fe2256cfa7b31376ae: My point is that it’s adding to the idea that most everything in history can be explained and framed by European people’s actions, as if white people are the only ones who have agency in history.
I can see why that attitude would and should be considered racist. But I don’t see it in this video.
Also, even if this is factually true, and Michael Johnson is correct in saying “slavery has [genetically] benefited descendants like me” slavery is still something those who carried out or condone/d is should be ashamed of. In other words this hypothesis being true would not condone slavery in any rational person’s mind.
I don’t think any question should be taboo in and of itself, but you have to consider the consequences before you air something to the public.
I think the main consequence would have been that Johnson and Jackson dispelled some myths about the role of genetics without denying it can be a factor, in front of a massive audience, many of who quite possibly were carrying potentially racist assumptions.
It promoted discussion.
Racial biology is not a subject that’s suitable for documentaries about work in progress.
I’m sure we both know that science is always a work in progress. This is a scientific question, and answers are coming in. Black athletes who have been heavily involved in the research and know the results are there to comment in front of a massive UK audience they would never usually get, many of whom will be carrying the exact myths they are seeking to dispel – whether that’s the assumption genetics must be to blame, or the asumption that anyone mentioning genetics must be racist.
Why is that a bad time?
Yeah, sure. Everything is a work in progress. The key word there is progress. Some results are really tentative while some are pretty solid. You should be more suspicious about the idea that Olympic sprint medalists owe some of their talent to selection done by slavery than you should about the idea that a car obeys F=ma to a high degree when it drives down the road.
It’s always a bad time to popularize sloppy ideas about human biology! I guess the current political situation in Europe where pretty much every country has a far-right nationalist/fascist party with a considerable following is cause for more concern than would have been the case, say, 20 years ago.
But you don’t need to argue from the risk of outright fascism. I’m sure you’ve noticed that the world is full of normal mostly well-meaning people who wish for a simple theory to explain why humans are the way they are. If the BBC serves them a half-baked idea about black people some of these people are going to incorporate that into their world view and I don’t know what the effect of that will be, but I doubt that it will be positive.
You should be more suspicious about the idea that Olympic sprint medalists owe some of their talent to selection done by slavery than you should about the idea that a car obeys F=ma to a high degree when it drives down the road.
I should be, and I am. If I thought it were critical to or in conflict with my beliefs, I’d certainly want to consult the study results directly and find out more.
The fact is I don’t find this particularly surprising. I’m a little surprised slavery has been brought up as a possible factor, but since the idea seems scientifically plausible and appears to be endorsed by Johnson I don’t think it’s unreasonable to treat it as a plausible hypothesis that it may be a factor. I seriously doubt Johnson would be saying what he did unless he found the evidence pretty convincing, as it wasn’t what he wanted to hear. But I wish I could watch the programme to confirm that’s accurate.
It’s always a bad time to popularize sloppy ideas about human biology!
Please explain your use of the term sloppy in this particular case, because it appeared me to be based on some serious scientific research. If they have the facts wrong, I’d like to know where and what the real facts are. One badly written narrative does not invalidate the scientific conclusions. If it were really a ‘sloppy idea’ why didn’t Jackson, Johnson or Lewis call on it? They all accepted a genetic factor but emphasised that things are actually far more complex than that.
If your reference to far-right/fascist parties in our case refers to the BNP, I can only assure you I’ve never met anyone who openly supports them, nor do they get any significant votes that I know of. Not even people who disagree with our governments immigration/asylum policies. What supporters they do have are a dying minority in my (admittedly limited) experience. Yes it is worrying that they still exist, but for the most part they are disregarded as ignorant bigots.
I think you are wrong in suggesting people had no idea genetics might be involved and are likely to latch onto this as something new. In fact I think most people would probably already be wondering if there is a genetic explanation, and without the subject being brought up would be left to draw their own conclusions, which would often be based on ignorance. They attempted to cover the history and facts in a very short space of time when they had a captive audience.
You describe it as ‘half-baked’ but the evidence, arguments and conclusions presented by Jackson and Johnson seemed fairly clear and uncontested to me. Actual science has been done and specific genes have been identified. The data is effectively in, and Jackson gave a very sensible interpretation of it. Johnson has personally investigated the slavery connection – I’m not going to assume he’s wrong on that when the main objection appears to be that we all wish it were not the case.
What they definitely are guilty of is under allocating time to this. They surely could have spared a few more minutes to tie up the loose ends a bit better. If they were determined to cover it, they should have made sure there would be enough time to cover it properly. Unfortunately time was at a premium and they were soon distracted by Usain Bolt kissing his guns in front of the cameras during his warm up…
Again what natural selexction pressure makes white people have authority declare when something is or isn’t racist.
Btw attributing a black mans success to heritage rather than training is really really fucking racist…as much as denying acomplishments due to heritage.
I’m reminded of history class where we were taught th at at the time people attributed Frederik Douglas’s abilities to having white blood in him.
If anyone’s interested there’s an article here about the subject (also from the BBC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14679657
It doesn’t refer to the genetic findings so much as warn about over generalising and stereotyping. It never hurts to remind people of those problems, which I’m sure we are all guilty of to some extent.
I’m not sure that’s the case here, as nobody is claiming ‘blacks are better runners’ but that African-Americans are more likely to have a gene which appears to be beneficial in sprinting. It’s a specific claim which can be confirmed or disproven by evidence, not an assumption or generalisation.
Blacks are good at something? Quick look for a gene for it! It can’t at all be due to effort!
Again what natural selexction pressure makes white people have authority declare when something is or isn’t racist.
Having an honest discussion requires that people first agree on definitions. Once definitions are agreed upon, both sides must agree that if a particular action falls within the agreed definition of ‘racist’ then both sides should agree that action is ‘racist’.
I believe my use of the term is consistent with this guide: http://www.universities-scotland.ac.uk/raceequalitytoolkit/terminology.htm
Racism
Broadly used to refer to the ideology of superiority of a particular race over another. This notion of superiority is then applied to and embedded in structures, practices, attitudes, beliefs and processes of a social grouping which then serve to further perpetuate and transmit this ideology. Racism appears in several, often interrelated, forms, e.g. personal, cultural, and institutional.
If you disagree with the above definition that’s your prerogative, and if we were to continue the discussion I’d ask you to give a definition acceptable to you. But all my previous statements should assume the above definition, and if that’s unreasonable of me please educate me as to why.
Btw attributing a black mans success to heritage rather than training is really really fucking racist…as much as denying acomplishments due to heritage.
You seem to accept that some accomplishments can indeed be due to heritage, while others are not. Presumably you’d agree that many accomplishments are due to some combination of the two.
In this case, are you suggesting it is racist to even ask the question? Should we never enquire as to why some people are more successful than others at certain things?
As I see it, accomplishments or traits can be reasonably attributed to whatever the evidence shows to actually be the case. For example, would it be offensive to suggest that people with dark pigment are better at avoiding sunburn because of their genes? The evidence would quickly show that skin type is the main determining factor, and that skin type mostly depends on genes.
The video does not suggest that black sprinters were only successful because they were black, and to suggest it did is a straw man.
The presenters afterwards also made it very clear that training and dedication are the most important factors, not genetic makeup. The video didn’t claim it, and the presenters debunked it regardless. Again, context does matter.
What your parents survived doesn’t mean squat when their mates were selected for them, and they were bred at 15 or 16, before hard work killed off anyone. Thus, add Lamarckism to the list of the BBC’s mistakes.
Blacks are good at something? Quick look for a gene for it! It can’t at all be due to effort!
Just to be clear, I would personally thoroughly endorse a similar enquiry into why swimming (or any other white-dominated sport where no other obvious explanation seems apparent) is historically dominated by white people (assuming that’s the case). This works both ways, and in either case we may learn something worth knowing.
There may be some genetic factor there too (someone mentioned possible bone density earlier on) or it may turn out to be purely cultural. We could then go on to ask whether this is something that swimming associations might want to address with outreach programmes etc.
But we don’t know unless the question is asked, and answered honestly.
This is either deliberately misleading quotemining or Myers hasn’t bothered to check context, both pretty shameful.
The full segment can be found on the BBC’s iPlayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01lv65s/Olympics_London_2012_BBC_One_Day_13_19.0022.00/
As many others have pointed out, this was an intro piece that led to a short, and informative debate on the possible role of genetic differences between populations on relative sporting performance.
Aren’t skeptics supposed to look at context and assess evidence before reaching conclusions, rather than jerking their knees furiously? I know it’s easier, and perhaps more fun, to troll, but it’s not helpful in the long run.
FFS. Any fucking time a POC acomplishes something we have to talk that they’re a credit to their race.
White people succeding is presumbed to be merit
Blacks are presumed due to racial traits
Just like how a white matmatician is acomplished where a chinese mathmatician is just asian
@132
It seems the assumption in the US is that anything looking at this topic must be racistly assuming black people don’t work just as hard for their achievements. This false assumption just constructs a strawman.
This sort of reaction is surely exactly what Johnon is referring to when he said:
It’s a taboo subject in the States but it is what it is. Why shouldn’t we discuss it?’
Yes I know I keep reposting the same link, but apparently people don’t understand the point, or are inclined to ignore it.
Or is Johnson also worthy of condemnation for entertaining the idea? Should Colin Jackson have refused to be genetically tested? These are genuine questions, not rhetorical.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167064/London-2012-Olympics-Michael-Johnson-descendants-slaves-medals-sprint-finals.html#ixzz23Ft3HJvk
I should say, regarding some comments above, that it isn’t attributing a black man’s success in athletics to his heritage necessarily. Or if it is it’s a mistake. It’s that -All- top athletes can attribute some factor of their success to their heritage, I’m fairly confident.
Top level athleticism is elitist. It’s not to say that training isn’t essential for some people. It’s essential for all. But some people have body types more suited to certain events, are less susceptible to injury at key points in their life etc.
Athletics training is in part a process of fitting the athlete to the event. If it’s square peg-round hole you’re most likely out, or will never reach the dizzy heights no matter how keen you are or how many hours you put in.
If this process turns up more people from a certain group (or apparent group) it’s at least a place to start looking for something identifiable if it exists. We must of course be mindful of the latent stupidity surrounding the topic and not over do it. The argument that the video and the chat afterward, however well intentioned, don’t really help the spread of understanding about evolution and dispel old ignorance is probably fair though.
I told The Mrs. about this and she responded without hesitation in the vein of comment 27 above.
“Ok, what shall we breed for. Let’s do speed. DOH! What were we thinking?”
The story is stupid on so many levels that even as many above do with “ok, let’s accept a bunch of these premises just to see where it leads” the thing still falls apart on the basis of obvious internal inconsistencies. Doesn’t anybody proof read this stuff before taking it on the air, just a bit? Its almost Foxlike in its inanity.
@Muz
Riiiiiiight its just. A coincidence we used black people for this example rather than why white people dominate at hocky?
The bits of ‘bad science’ in the introductory video that would rile any evolutionary biologist were:
1) the conflation of ‘fitness’ in the evolutionary sense with ‘fitness’ in an athletic sense. “Fitness” is not generally seen as a helpful word by evolutionary biologists, and Darwin never used it in The Origin of Species.
2) The lack of any logic that selection by ability to survive a long sea journey in shackles is somehow selection for ability to run fast. You could make an equally plausible and equally trivial counter-hypothesis that that fast runners would have been more likely to evade the slavers in the first place.
3) The immediate leap to a bit of genetic determinism in the bit immediately following which suggested that a ‘gene for running fast’ had been discovered, when just about every time somebody claims some such thing it turns out to be massively more complicated than that.
That said, I don’t think that was a bad attempt to broach the subject by the BBC – and although they might have been light on the science, I don’t think PZ can complain too much about the history.
The comments above by Unity and others about the video being taken out of context, which was to prompt an excellent and well informed studio discussion by highly-respected black athletes are well-made.
These Olympic games are doing a great deal in GB to promote tolerance and multi-culturalism in the UK, whilst at the time avoiding jingoistic nationalism. There’s a joke doing the rounds at the moment:
~
“A ginger, a mixed-race woman and a Somali refugee walk into a bar.
…everyone buys them a drink :)”
– in reference to the three Brits who won the long-jump, the heptathlon and the 10,000 metres last week. Our image of ourselves is changing for the better, by becoming more diverse.
I watched this at the time as part of the programme, the history of it is indisputable isn’t it? The science was rather light, but it was in no way racist. Michael Johnson, Denise Lewis and Colin Jackson, all accomplished black athletes didn’t seem uncomfortable with it, and why should they? It was a starter for conversation.
Ing: Is that not a possibility? We’ve already established certain sports are fairly regional and access based and team sports offer all kinds of complexities. With sprinting at least we have something that is an individual event (or events) more widespread in competition that has washed out a fairly narrow range of body types. There’s a wider pool from a variety of different backgrounds, countries etc. If that then shows people of West African descent tending to appear more than other peoples, that seems worth a look on the face of it.
None of that is to say it’s a straightforward thing, there aren’t other variables to account for, or that historical intuitions and prejudices haven’t muddied the waters a lot (perhaps irreparably).
Ing, I think the reason why black athletes were chosen for this particular debate because it was the sprint finals at the Olympics where black athletes excel….
I don’t see what’s wrong with the video? Is it not possible that some races excel at some things for genetic reasons?
Why is that an unthinkable proposition? Because it just is?
That sounds like religious dogma to me.
@sweetsweetback
It is possible whites excel at hockey because we are genetically predisposed. It is stupid to propose that is the case based on flimsy nonsensical evidence and tortured logic
@sweetsweetback
It’s racist to claim that blacks are fast because they were enslaved. If you think that’s the only explanation, you’re the one ignoring obvious genetic factors (blacks and whites have different average body proportions even if you don’t factor in the descendents of slaves)
@norbury
The idea of selective breeding didn’t come after the theory of natural selection, so the BBC was at least implying a distorted view of history there.
sc_a669c25262ca45fe2256cfa7b31376ae:
I’m not against people ever discussing whether genetic differences influence performance in a wide range of fields. I’m pretty sure they do. I am against 1) such discussions being precipitated by sloppy science videos that are based on unfounded stereotypes or simplistic popular misunderstandings; 2) people pretending that science or discussions of science happen in an objective vacuum, not in the context of a society where discrimination is a real thing that hurts people, and biases exist.
It was a bad video in terms of science education. I’m not bashing the BBC just for the sake of it, in fact in general I’m in favour of government funded programming and I think the BBC usually does a great job (though I’m not British). Science programmes should be accessible to laypeople without being watered down to the point that they miseducate.
It gets off to a bad start, when we are told that after Darwin discovered evolution, scientists decided to try accelerating it. In actual fact, of course, humans have been selectively breeding for millenia, and cows, horses, dogs, fowl and plenty of other animals had been “evolutionarily accelerated” or eugenicised for milk yield, egg yield, running speed, obedience, etc. long before Darwin came along. It may sound like a minor nitpick, but it’s equivalent to saying, “After Einstein formulated E=mc^2, scientists discovered that they could kill things with bombs and began trying to develop weapons.”
The video states that elite sprinting is dominated by West African/Jamaican athletes and suggests that this is due to the harsh conditions of slavery. Black people were selected to be “more fit.” This is a claim that raises many difficulties. Is it West African genes or being a descendant of slaves that predisposes one to success in sprinting? Because most people of West African descent who actually live in Africa are not descendants of European slaves. Slaves lived in a variety of conditions, often with very poor nutrition, lack of sleep and physical abuse, which are not prime conditions for selecting athletic ability. So those proposing a connection between athletic ability and slavery should at least demonstrate some mechanisms for how this ability would have been selected. At the moment the hypothesis is as vague and fuzzy as that of Nordicist white supremacists who make some nebulous claim about how general “harsh, snowy, wintry” conditions in northern Europe somehow selected for toughness, fitness, intelligence and general superiority in northern Europeans, resulting in a master race.
Some commenters mentioned that one of the athletes involved in the discussion took part in a documentary and some related gene studies. I would really like a link or some more information because I’m genuinely interested in those studies. If they did show a strong link between slave ancestry, gene frequencies and sprint performance I would be willing to tentatively accept such a connection, but at the moment I’m deeply sceptical.
I had a cursory look and, while there are plenty of studies examining the success of West Africans in sprint events and East Africans in long distance running events, I was unable to find any studies seriously proposing or exploring a link between slave ancestry and performance in sprint-related events. I’ve never heard anyone propose such a connection before and on the face of it I find it scientifically questionable as well as ridiculous and offensive.
Here are some of the studies I found:
Deason, M., Scott, R., Irwin, L., Macaulay, V., Fuku, N., Tanaka, M., Irving, R., Charlton, V., Morrison, E., Austin, K. and Pitsiladis, Y. P. (2012), Importance of mitochondrial haplotypes and maternal lineage in sprint performance among individuals of West African ancestry. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 22: 217–223.:
This study examined the connection between sub-Saharan African mtDNA groups and performance in sprint athletics. It found no significant difference between Jamaican elite sprinters and ordinary Jamaicans. However, it did find a significant (21% vs. 8%) difference between African-American elite sprinters and ordinary African-Americans. Notice that the correlation is opposite of what we’d expect, i.e. top African-American sprinters have significantly less sub-Saharan mtDNA than ordinary African-Americans.
Genetics and the success of East African distance runners. & Genotypes and distance running – Clues from Africa Scott, R. A. & Pitsiladis, Y. P. INTERNATIONAL SPORTMED JOURNAL Volume: 7 Issue: 3 Pages: 172-186 Published: 2006
These studies found no genetic evidence for the hypothesis.
The ACTN3 R577X Polymorphism in East and West African Athletes. YANG, NAN1; MACARTHUR, DANIEL G.1; WOLDE, BEZABHE2; ONYWERA, VINCENT O.3; BOIT, MICHAEL K.3; LAU, SAU YIN MARY-ANN1; WILSON, RICHARD H.4; SCOTT, ROBERT A.4; PITSILADIS, YANNIS P.4; NORTH, KATHRYN1,5:
This study examined the link between one gene polymorphism and athletic performance. They found no connection for that particular gene.
So what we have here is a lot of speculation without research supporting it (yet). For those who think the video was flawed but it started a discussion, so it’s cool, let me explain why that’s the wrong way to look at it. We should hold our national broadcasters to higher standards. Suppose the BBC did a documentary suggesting that Jesus really rose from his tomb, or that Nessie is real, or that mermaids exist, or that aliens built the pyramids at Giza. Would anyone be saying, “Well, it was a bad video, but it started a discussion and they had experts to discuss it afterwards, so let’s not make a fuss about it. They were just asking questions. Isn’t that what scepticism is about?”
Some have said, “Well, Johnson and Jackson are fine with discussing this, so no one should have a problem with it.” Members of any minority group are individuals and won’t always agree that something is problematic. You can’t point to Paula Kirby and Mallorie Nasrallah, who think that organised atheism had no sexism problem, and then say, “Well, if these women don’t think there’s a problem, why are you complaining about it?” Johnson may not think the video was racist. Others including myself disagree with him.
Black people are not defined by slavery. Why jump to this explanation for athletic success, when it’s neither plausible nor supported by research? “Oh, but lots of people think it’s true.” So? Lots of people think homeopathy is true. Suppose the BBC ran a video suggesting homeopathy is true. Would you say, “Well, it started a discussion and raised a few questions, so what’s the problem?” The problem is that you’re not applying the same scepticism to race and our society’s racial biases that you are to religion, astrology or homeopathy.
Has the BBC or anyone else made videos suggesting that Scandivanians are better at sailing because of their Viking ancestors? Or that Germans are better at horseriding because Germanic tribesmen rode horses? Or that Anglo-Australians are tough because they’re descended from hardy convict stock? I don’t think so.
Black people are not defined by slavery. Why would a respected network jump to explaining the athl
Like several people have pointed out, the problem with the science bit in this segment and also in “Survival of the Fastest” is that they don’t raise the caveat that correlation does not imply causation.
What if descendants of slaves are faster than modern day Nigerians because they have better access to training facilities? There are lots of possibilities like that which have to be tested before you can begin to say that you know why.
I saw Survival of the Fastest and it certainly has it’s moments, and I understand that Johnson personally believes that there is something to the idea, but he only speaks to people who support the idea, or who appear to support it through clever editing. There are a couple of facepalm cuts in there, specifically one cut where Johnson is talking to a scientist while walking down the beach and you can tell that they’ve cut from a question to an answer to a different question, presumably to make it sound like the scientist is agreeing more than he actually was.
Alternatively – Most British people, who are ordinarily quite racist indeed, are willing to overlook race as an issue in cases where folk win medals for us at the Olympics, which in turn allows complacent middle class wine-sippers to pretend racism is on it’s way out.
I live in what can reasonably be described as a white working class area. Several people I know were more than happy to cheer Mo Farrah’s victories whilst still citing his relationship with a white British woman as evidence that black people are the reason young British lads aren’t getting married any more, because white British girls prefer black men and that’s oppression. Or something.
Not that I know of, however I’ve heard laypersons speculating that the British are good at both sailing and rowing because as a “race” we “evolved” on an island and thus required both skills to get around. Which is ridiculously wrong on so many levels that it makes me sad to type it out.
Nothing at all to do with the strong tradition of competetive rowing in British public schools. Nope.
There’s also a wide acceptance amongst Chinese athletics coaches that Chinese people (by which I’m assuming they mean Han Chinese, rather than any of the other ethnic groups which live in China) are genetically precluded from being world-class sprinters and so resources should instead be focused on events requiring “agility”, which take advantage of their small frames and natural flexibility.
So yeah; the genetic determinism bullshit does indeed go a lot deeper than the “African/ European” binary that is so prevalent in the West.
ethax: I agree that the bit about slavery is unsubstantiated.
You say that blacks and whites have genetic differences and that accounts for their performance differences? Did I read that right?
zentrout: hockey conveys no evolutionary advantage in the upper Paleolithic. Fast running does.
@Winterwind 144
Thanks for taking the time to give a properly explained response.
I don’t agree with everything you said, but they are mainly in the details and I don’t have time to unpack every minute detail.
I do now see why this video might reasonably be seen as racist by US viewers, where there seem to be different assumptions about the motives behind it, and the subject is generally considered taboo (according to Johnson, and responses here seem to confirm as much). I think it was a genuine effort by the BBC to squeeze a lot of controversial information into a very short segment, but that had to be done in order that the captive audience actually get to see it.
Why was it brought up when there wasn’t enough time to discuss it properly? I’m guessing here, but I can’t help feeling this was deliberately set up with Jackson and Johnson’s full knowledge and approval. Does that mean every black person should be OK with it? You’re right, it doesn’t, and the fact it was intended for a UK audience when clearly there is a difference in attitudes between our nations on this subject does not help matters. But the fact that some people find it offensive doesn’t mean Jackson and Johnson shouldn’t be allowed to discuss the facts of the matter and raise awareness of the issue if they feel they can do more good than harm. Personally, given my familiarity with UK audiences I think they will have accomplished that goal.
You say it’s neither plausible nor supported by research, but if that’s really the case then the BBC, Jackson and Johnson have all been fooled into thinking it’s the case. I can’t help but feel skeptical of that possibility too – the BBC is usually pretty reliable and Jackson and Johnson have both put a lot of thought, time and effort into this specific issue. I’m not a biologist but my science degree did include undergrad biology and evolution, and the hypothesis that heritage and even slavery may be minor contributing factors does seem plausible to me, despite my discomfort with the idea.
If you want to know exactly what Johnson and Jackson said, someone posted a transcript several posts up. I’ve posted the link to quotes from Johnson several times, and googling his documentary Survival of the Fastest also gives the article link.
I think it would really help if we could watch Johnson’s programme and see exactly where he’s coming from with this. Unfortunately it’s not available online so I have had to rely on quotes in the DMs online article. Which is not ideal I admit.
sc_a669c25262ca45fe2256cfa7b31376ae:
It is the context not the intent that matters. Whether you’re in the US or elsewhere, this video comes in a context where there is widespread racism where the difference of black people is assumed. Even ‘positive’ difference such as better sprinting fits with this racist narrative. Now if there is good science showing real differences we must acknowledge that, but to put forward such poorly thought out speculation has the effect of reinforcing the racist narrative.
Winterwind, thank you for laying out the argument with such devastating clarity.
Winterwind, it would seem from your comments that you haven’t seen the discussion that follows the video segment, and therefore are viewing it out of context.
The video segment was not a ‘documentary’ it was an attempt to set out in a couple of minutes the historical basis of a complex subject that has become taboo, to the extent there are clearly offended that it should be discussed at all, even by black athletes that have done research into the subject.
It’s hard to see how the video can be classed as ‘racist’ when it showed very positive footage of the first black athlete to win a race, then Jesse Owens, then an interview with Tommy Smith. Sure – there are things in it which might be gross simplifications if you;re a professional evolutionary biologist, as I have myself pointed out, but this wasn’t a Horizon programme – and the segment had just five minutes to cover the subject – rather less time than it took to read your post on this thread.
You asked for link of the ‘athlete who had done some gene studies’ The athlete in question is American Michael Johnson, winner four Olympic gold medals and current holder of the Olympic and World record for the 400 metres. He’s very popular here, I’m surprised you hadn’t heard of him.
He made a documentary about the hypothesis that there is a connection between slave ancestry, and the success of Afro-American sprinters for Channel 4 (not the BBC).
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/michael-johnson-survival-of-the-fastest/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1
The BBC segment on this – in the middle of general Olympic coverage in which Johnson is a leading presenter was almost certainly as a means to allow Johnson to discuss this with other knowledgeable black athletes for a BBC audience.
His conclusions weren’t racist by the way – he said that although people may have some genetic predispositions which might be helpful to them, at the end of the day these weren’t more important than training, effort, and the will to win; and in particular aspiring white athletes shouldn’t be put off by the statistics. That’s pretty good common sense, and what I’d assume is pretty much the mainstream view I would have thought.
When it suggests that those great athletes basically won because of their race that is fucking racist.
Again, a white’s success is due to hard work and merit…a black’s is due to ancestry.
It reminds me of my time at art school in Wallonia. We were told that Flemings were bad at mathematics and used very vibrant colours in their paintings because there is so much fog in Flanders.
As a Fleming, I was obviously not very artistic because I didn’t buy into such profound science.
@118
Bone density. Could be bullshit of course, but it’s an idea that goes around.
Nah, it’s class. In the US swimming is more of a country club pursuit. In Aus, being a 90% coastal population, swimming and swimming lessons have been a big part of the culture for 80 years or so.
Good job Winterwind on the research anyway. Although I wouldn’t worry about the supposed slavery driven evolution angle. I think most people think that’s pretty bogus.
The old Radiolab episode on this subject is cool too:
http://www.radiolab.org/2008/dec/15/
Thanks Winterwind @144 for bringing some science into this thing.
Someone above mentioned a youtube piece, which I viewed and liked breaking this down in a lot of detail relative to population genetics and finding that a miniscule amount could be attributable to special genetic attributes if any.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVmj8dDx9yY&feature=results_video
One funny aside was pointing out a study showing that the Jamaican runner athletes do tend to have a higher percentage of European ancestry than the population of Jamaica as a whole. Assumptions and “obvious logical conclusions” really take a beating in the face of scientific evidence.
It is the context not the intent that matters. Whether you’re in the US or elsewhere, this video comes in a context where there is widespread racism where the difference of black people is assumed.
Well perhaps this is the difference – I don’t think there is that assumption, and i don’t think the video implies it. That’s seems to me like an assumption made about the attitudes of people in different countries.
Crommunist defines racism as “the attribution of personal traits to an individual, or group of individuals, based on ethnic background.” https://proxy.freethought.online/crommunist/2010/05/17/racism-a-definition/
The video does not generalise and attribute traits to black people in general e.g. All black people are natural runners. I agree that would be racist. It nowhere states or even implies that hard work and training are not necessary. I agree that would be racist too.
What it does do is notice that the majority of people who most definitely have a certain ability (ability to run fast) and notice a pattern. It introduces the idea that slavery may have had something to do with that – and I agree this isn’t very well supported, as it’s only given about 15 seconds, but it’s certainly something Johnson has researched, believes in, and appears to be actively promoting awareness of.
Then it tells us the latest research suggests elite sprinters essentially require the non-mutant ACTN-3 gene. (Which Jackson later explains is present in both white and african-american populations, albeit with different frequency).
It’s a fair question to ask “Why sprinting and not swimming?”. The implication being that someone is thinking “Wow blacks are dominating sprinting – there must be a genetic reason for that!”. And I agree, that type of thinking would be racist.
I already said that I think it would be interesting to ask that question too, because we might learn an interesting scientific fact about human biology, or we might learn that swimming clubs ought to revise their policies and encourage diversity and accessibility (this is almost certainly the case in some places, regardless what genetic studies show). Bone density has been suggested as a possible scientific explanation but nobody’s really evidenced the idea.
But that still doesn’t explain why there is such emphasis on sprinting. I think it’s twofold. Firstly, it’s a relatively simple sport which does not require any specialist training equipment (e.g. swimming pool, bicycle) so it’s highly accessible to everyone, all over the world. Secondly there are less complex techniques in sprinting than in swimming and many other sports. I’m not saying there’s no technique involved, clearly there is and at elite level this becomes important. But technically it’s about as simple as sports relying on physical fitness get. So it’s a sport which appears to allow the simplest performance comparison with the least unknown variables.
Even ‘positive’ difference such as better sprinting fits with this racist narrative.
I agree – I would indeed consider it racist if it were asserting that all African-Americans have an advantage. I just don’t think it does say that – that seems to me to be an assumption on the part of some viewers which is not stated in the video. But I’d agree the video itself did not attempt to dispell this idea – that was left for the athletes to discuss afterwards.
Now if there is good science showing real differences we must acknowledge that, but to put forward such poorly thought out speculation has the effect of reinforcing the racist narrative.
I don’t think it is “poorly thought out speculation”. The two black athletes co-presenting the programme both agreed there is a genetic factor in sprinting. They had taken part in the research themselves. Now I agree it’s possible they may be wrong, but as respected, admired, elite black athletes who many thousands of athletes of all ethnicities look up to, the idea that they would perpetuate non-scientific assumptions about race seems incredibly unlikely.
Note that neither of them endorse the idea that the genetic factor is the dominant factor – it’s a single factor among many, with cultural influences and training having much more impact than genetics.
In other words, to reach the pinnacle of excellence in sprinting (as with most physical sports) requires a whole lot of hard work and dedicated training no matter what genes you have. Genes can make a difference, but black athletes do not have the monopoly on the genes they think are partially responsible – Jackson stated that white Europeans had the gene too, just in a lower frequency (80% as opposed to 97-98% in African-Americans).
I believe the gene Jackson is referring to (which I think is also the same one referred to in the video) is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTN3
Several reports are cited, which do not make very easy reading but which definitely seem to suggest the gene is relevant to elite sprinters a well as other strength events.
Again – Jackson does state that White Europeans can have this particular gene also, so they are not excluded and stereotyping is not warranted by this discovery. There are way too many other variables.
@Mirror 155
Thanks for sharing – great video which dispels a lot of myths and misconceptions, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
However I think you are misrepresenting its conclusion somewhat. Note his conclusion:
“it is in the interaction between the raw genetic potential and the cultural and environmental factors that champions are forged”
In other words, genetics do play a part in determining potential. This potential will appear amplified in elite sportsmen. But it’s important to realise that no particular group has a monopoly even on the genes which have been identified as relevant. I don’t find this to be in conflict with the BBCs presentation as a whole – it’s almost exactly what Johnson and Jackson said.
It’s an interesting topic, and I agree it needs to be handled sensitively and with care. I think I would now be inclined to think the BBC is guilty of not allocating sufficient time to deal with it properly, and of trying to cover way too many different complex and sensitive ideas in the video, which suffered as a result.
The topics of eugenics, genetic engineering and slavery should have been left well alone, and they should have concentrated on whether there actually is a genetic factor and if so how strong it is. The cause of any genetic difference there might be is a different topic, and I can’t help thinking it wouldn’t have come up if it weren’t for Johnson’s interest in it.
I’m glad we can discuss this sensibly without accusations of racism. I’m still not convinced the term ‘racist’ is appropriate in this case, at least according to my understanding of the definition of the word. But the discussion has certainly forced me to do some research and careful self examination.
The video wasn’t a propaganda piece, which made the point you claim and left it at that. It set up a question which was then very ably answered in a studio discussion by knowledgeable Black British and American athletes. Their conclusion was not that Jesse Owens et al won because of their race, and that the factors such as hard work and passion to win are more important.
Maybe we’re mature enough in the UK to be able to countenance discussion of such matters. We don’t have quite the cultural baggage that you have, and we actively fought to atone for our sins by abolishing and fighting against the slave trade and slavery long before your civil war. I’d say it’s a good thing to discuss such matters openly – if the subject was to stay off-limits in polite society then you simply leave the floor open to the real racists.
Incidentally Most of human genetic diversity is still to be found in Africa. If the Olympic search for exceptional human beings in the gene pool continues, then it’s not unreasonable to suppose that given increased opportunity for Africans to compete in sports they are effectively excluded from (such as rowing and cycling) eventually the proportion of African Olympic winners will mirror their contribution to the gene pool. In which case people of all other races will likely be in a minority.
And yes – I know we’re all Africans, but you know what I mean.
To be fair to the BBC it’s quite remarkable that they attempted to address the subject as part of sports coverage at all. In doing so they probably reached way beyond geeks like us that watch science documentaries to a far greater audience. OK maybe scientists like PZ would have made a different video, but I think the fact that the studio coverage featuring three smart and well informed black athletes did a lot more to break down racial stereotypes than a tweaking of the introductory video would. I think the BBC did their best in the time available, and considering the studio discussion went out live and was watched by a huge audience, I’d say that was pretty brave on their part.
I wonder how American sports channels would cover the same issue, or would it be simpler and safer just to ignore it?
sc_a669..
I don’t know why think this. They are not scientists. Their colour doesn’t make the scientific argument stronger. At least one person of colour here has strongly asserted that it is racist. There are women who don’t believe in gender equality, and there are minorities who buy into the dominant agenda.
Also, what is wrong with arguing that these ideas are racist? It is a legitimate argument, and very likely considering how many biological arguments about race have been so wrong and destructive. Also, it is not calling someone evil to say their arguments are racist. We live in a very racist world and we would have to be hermits not to have picked up some racism in our world view. Stop congratulating people for not mentioning racism.
Racism isn’t just saying negative things about a group of people, nor is it saying that every person in the group has a particular trait. It can be just something like looking for genetic reasons for the talents of black athlete, while never doing that for white athletes. Yes, I know you say now you would be interested in why white people are good at swimming, but that’s never the conversation, is it? And when you think about looking for the genes for whites superior swimming it does seem silly, doesn’t it?
@159 deanmorrison
I didn’t mean to imply the BBC shouldn’t have attempted to cover it. But I do think they could have done a better job.
I think they stretched a bit too far in scope, and would have been better to concentrate on a single issue, and they certainly could and should have given Johnson, Jackson & Lewis more time to discuss it rather than cutting to Bolt showing off in front of the camera.
Of course they were obviously aware of not spending too long on it, hence Inverdale’s comment about not boring people with biology.
@160 debraobrien,
Firstly, other sports have been investigated for genetic patterns, including distance running and, yes you guessed it, swimming:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1353q7dfcpx9ud5a/
So beneficial genes have also been identified in swimming, again with a distance dependence.
New Scientist has quite a number of articles on the subject of genetics and sports:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528746.300-olympic-extremes-a-winning-genome.html?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4092-gene-variant-linked-to-athletic-performance.html
Obviously its a complex subject, and in time it may be proven wrong. And whether the genes are more frequent in different ethnic groups is a separate question of course.
So no – nothing about this seems ‘silly’ at all. It’s legitimate science.
debraobrien, as deanmorrison says, it’s important to understand this video was intended to be shown to a UK audience who don’t have the same cultural baggage as the US. You cannot claim it is racist without understanding the wider context, both of the video (it is mystifying why Myers only showed this clip and not the full segment) and of the nuances of UK historical and contemporary attitudes to race.
Just to briefly illustrate how even the language is different – describing somebody who is african, asian, or of general non-european origin as ‘coloured’ ‘of colour’ would be considered at best clumsy, but more usually racist.
More generally, it is deeply weird not to accept that genetic differences between populations will have the potential to affect to distribution of a given trait. There is a large amount of literature on different responses to medication, calorific excess or diet (e.g. lactose intolerance) between populations and it is absolutely accepted that some differences in risk of disease between populations can be attributed to genetic factors. It is perfectly rational, evidence based and scientific to propose the hypothesis that some differences in athletic performance between populations may have a genetic basis.
I don’t know why think this. They are not scientists. Their colour doesn’t make the scientific argument stronger.
Why do I trust their opinons?
Jackson is an expert on athletics and athletics coaching. Athletics coaching does require at least a basic understanding of sports science. He has also spent time investigating his heritage and been involved in relevant studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Jackson#Post-retirement_career
If his opinion doesn’t count, who’s does?
Johnson is an elite athlete who knows a lot about athletics and what makes people successful, and has researched this exact subject for his TV programme where he did speak to qualified persons i.e. geneticists and sports trainers.
Of course being black does not make them correct, but it does give them a different perspective which in many people’s eyes make their opinions more credible.
So if we shouldn’t believe them, who should we believe? Random people on the internet? Or do we all need to have PHDs in genetics and sports science before formulating an opinion? To whom should the UK public turn to get a valuable unbiased opinion on this subject?
This website looks fairly authoritative on issues related to genetics, and has a page on Johnson’s programme:
http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=6300
Although they don’t clearly declare that he’s wrong, they do say:
Moreover, the suggestion that the subsequent conditions of slavery had some kind of epigenetic effect that made people of West African descent faster is more than a little lacking in scientific evidence.
If that’s the case then the skeptical approach is certainly to assume it’s false, and therefore something the BBC shouldn’t be pushing as factual. I’m still curious exactly what has convinced Johnson strongly enough to give the idea so much publicity. Perhaps he just prefers that it be openly discussed and explored scientifically rather than remain a subject of behind-doors speculation.
Ffs white people please stop trying to dictate what is or isn’t fucking eacist to everyone else.
Also can we stop lying that UK culture lacks the racist baggage of America? While its different it still is a fucking racist culture and context. You’re bullshitting with the race blind brit card
A white athlete is a skilled professonal and acomplished olympian
A black athlete is a credit to his race
Steady on Ing, you can’t shut down debate by shouting racist or accusing people of lying without proof.
I didn’t say Britain was race blind either, I said that it doesn’t have the same cultural baggage as the USA.
Are you going to address the points made about genetic differences between populations?
Ing, that’s a mighty straw man – nobody has said that.
Amphiox #49:
Forget that nonsense. I say the more the merrier and don’t look down on anyone trying to join in. If it grew to sixteen elite teams, I’d be ecstatic.
You’re only as good as your competition, and the more good countries there are, the more it means when you win. The money and effort spent in recent decades spent by countries to improve their talent pools is a good thing.
—————————————-
Regarding the dozens of posts on genetics, I don’t buy it. I suspect we’re all similar enough that the variety of genes isn’t wide enough to make a difference (re: the “population bottleneck”, and when humans migrated out of Africa).
Not to harp on it again, but the ethnicities and nationalities of the best marathon and ultramarathon runners is so wide, from all over the globe, that no genetic trait makes any real difference. Willpower and training are common to all of the best runners, and those can appear or be taught anywhere, in any country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon#World_or_national-record_holding_or_world-championship-winning_ultramarathon_runners
The points were already made and were shown to be invalid…as everyone said.
And I’m not shutting down discussion by calling racism I’m telling you you’re a fucking asshole for insisting that it’s not racist to your white ass therefore everyone is over blowing it.
I’m pointing out that people do not fucking make a white person’s achievements about race, but they do a black persons. Enough black people, even though it’s a racial construct more diverse than white’, succeed is taken as proof that there’s something about the race. It is the “Asians are good at math” bullshit. It is the default to presume that white succeed based on effort but POC have racial qualities. A white athlete is an athlete, a black athlete is one of a set of blacks.
And you used that to imply that the intent wasn’t racist or wasn’t in a racist context. You’re bullshitting.
Where did I accuse anyone of lying?
And again to reiterate: White people do not get to fucking decide what is or isn’t racist, especially when they’re refusing to acknowledge a very racist narrative.
Ing, calm down. Being abusive isn’t helping your argument. It’s a matter of established fact that there are genetic differences between different populations – the debate is simply over whether or not these differences can account for some of the difference in athletic performance. Nobody has claimed that genetics are solely responsible, just that genes may act, in combination with environment, to produce a phenotype more common in one population than another.
That’s not exactly racist – it’s simply population genetics. It’s true that genetics has been misused to support racist conclusions but this does not mean that differences cannot exist.
Besides, even if there were differences, it shouldn’t matter. We’re all human and are all considered to have the same rights in a fair society. It’s absurd to consider one person less human because they are less intelligent, or less good looking than another, and it’s equally absurd to consider athletic performance as a determinant of their worth as a human.
Ing, you’re right. It’s an unfair dichotomy. So let’s be clear: white achievements are because of race, too.
@Gimpy
Look you fucking idiot. Do you not understand at all the point that both white and black ‘races’ are incredibly diverse heterogeneous groups, yet people start questioning genetic traits when enough blacks succeed but not white? White people dominating a field is natural, blacks is something that needs an explanation. THAT is what is racist. The idea that blacks being over represented in a field requires an explanation, where it does not for whites because that’s considered normal. I am pointing out that the line of questioning arises due to endemic racist views of a white dominate narrative/culture.
Being a condescending cracker isn’t helping yours.
Well yes but not necessarily genetics. The fact that we look at ‘what makes black athletes good’ instead of ‘what makes athletes good’ is due to background racism. Since athletes are outliers on a bell curve it would be far saner too look at start athletes as a whole and look for possible genetic markers that correlate with such performance. By looking at it as a question of race you are narrowing the field too much and introducing too many assumptions that you are very likely excluding any possible useful data or introducing artifacts.
Look you fucking idiot. Do you not understand at all the point that both white and black ‘races’ are incredibly diverse heterogeneous groups, yet people start questioning genetic traits when enough blacks succeed but not white? White people dominating a field is natural, blacks is something that needs an explanation. THAT is what is racist.
On the contrary, what has interest some people within the field of sports science is what appears to be an outlier – out of 82 men who’ve officially broken 10 seconds for the 100m only four are not of West African descent. No one here is talking in terms of white and black ‘races’ – except you – the question is whether there may be something in the genome of a particular West African sub-population that may account for this outlier nor is the interest purely a matter of West African vs White European as the question applies equally to other sub populations. For the record, of the four men not of West African descent, one was European, two were from Southern Africa and one was an Austraian and of indigenous descent.
Nor, indeed, is the interest confined to sprinters – there’s a fairly recent study of Ethopia distance runners which found that just under three quarters of all elite Ethopia marathon runners come from just two regions of Ethopia one of which – the smallest distinct region of the country – accounts for almost 40% of the country’s elite marathon runners. That study also found that even within these regions, the majority of elite marathon runners came from a couple of distinct ethnic groups within the local, and national, population.
It may well be that genetic lines of inquiry lead nowhere be even allowing for heterogeneity it may also be the case that even small variations in the distribution of beneficial genetic traits within particular sub-populations may be enough to tip the balance simply by effecting a small increase in the size of the talent pool that can be drawn upon, and – of course – a wide range of other environmental. socio-economic and cultural factors may also exert an influence to, possibily, a much greater degree than any genetic influence, if such influences exist.
These are all perfectly valid lines of inquiry and as the margin between success and failure in elite sports is so small, they will be followed by sports scientists because they provide clues which help to identify more individuals with natural abilities that can be nurtured to produce more elite athletes. In fact, that’s already happening as one thing that the UK did after it was awarded the Olympics was actively go out and talent spot individuals with the right kinds of physical attributes for particular sports in the hope of nurturing some of the them to become Olympians – and one product of that particular programme won a rowing gold medal at this year’s games.
I think Inverdale’s introduction is also relevant – the real topic here is ‘nature vs nurture’ which is a massive area of scientific research in general, across a broad spectrum of sciences from genetics to sociology to psychology.
If there is indeed a significant ‘nature’ i.e. genetic factor then this is something talent scouts and sports coaches want to know about so they can effectively spot talent, and so that individuals can opt to have a genetic test done before devoting their lives to a particular sporting discipline, if they so wish. There are ethical considerations here, and I think that’s why eugenics and genetic manipulation were mentioned. The eugenics being a terrifying reminder of why we should be wary.
The sprinting is focused on because: 1. It seems like a significant statistical anomaly. 2. It’s popular across the globe. 3. There are fewer unknown variables. 4. Its the area where the most research has been done. 5. Its an area which the co-presenters were most familiar with.
It could be argued that it shouldn’t be considered a ‘statistical anomaly’ but from a UK perspective, it just is. The UK is ~85% ‘white’ so in the complete absence of genetic and cultural factors, one would expect approximately the same representation in all sports at all levels. Yet our best short distance athletes are almost exclusively people of colour. This may still be just a cultural or social effect, but that’s for the research to decide.
It’s certainly the case there are sports in the UK which are under represented by ethnic minorities too. In those cases the relevant associations should make, and hopefully are making, efforts to identify whether that’s a problem, and if so how it might be addressed.
Progress can be made which should benefit everyone in the long run, but the subject needs to be removed from the taboo list first.
That’s all true at an individual level, but when we start equating innate abilities or traits to different “races” (which is not a legitimate scientific category) then that is scientific racism. The genetic mixing of all groups of people make it difficult to substantiate any notions of racial differences, but still we try. Over the centuries we keep coming up against a brick wall of “lack of evidence” of racial difference but that only makes us try harder.
Do not think that these kind of assertions are value-free. They are not. Assertions of a value-free science of racial athletic ability is another attempt to prove that race has inherited permanent biological characteristics that produce social hierarchies and is part of a a longer history of `racial science’. To those who don’t understand the emotional reaction of others, it’s simple. When I’m told by some evo-psych fanatic that my gender is naturally more caring, and that it is a legitimate scientific claim, I know that it isn’t value-free. It’s a way of pushing women into unpaid caring roles, and shaping women into selfless characters that can be exploited. And it infuriates me.
I know what can be done by “harmless” questions that are rarely proven but linger in the minds of people who use it to stereotype and oppress people. The people who are angry at these assertions probably have good reason to fear this kind of talk. This doesn’t mean that the science is good, but we are being too PC to allow it. No, the science is continually crap on scientific racism and sexism, and it’s offensive as well.
Making a claim that the argument could be racist is not putting it on a taboo list. Unless we can never claim that something is racist in spite of the fact that we live in a racist world.
Is it taboo to mention racism?
If you’re saying it’s not taboo for you, that’s good. But the reactions and attitudes displayed on this blog seem to indicate otherwise. Because if bringing up a subject immediately gets you labelled as racist or ignorant, or if you’re just told to shut up because you’ve no right to have an opinion on the matter, it quickly becomes taboo – whether that’s the intent or not doesn’t matter.
Making the claim that ‘the argument could be racist’ seems incredibly nebulous to me. It either fits within the definition of racist or it doesn’t, and if it’s somewhere close then we should discuss it sensibly and hopefully learn something from each other, and perhaps about ourselves or our cultural differences/similarities. Some people may interpret the intent differently, and that does affect whether they consider it racist or not.
I just discussed this with my work colleague who is a sports coach and is black, so I thought he might have a valuable perspective, and hopefully explain to me what I’m missing. I at least know he’s being honest with me, because he’s very outspoken on most matters and not remotely scared to speak his mind. He didn’t find it the idea the slightest bit surprising or racist, and found the subject to be both interesting and valid for genuine examination. I think societal context comes into play here – it’s possible to read implications on behalf of the film makers or the society to which the film is being presented, which do not actually exist in reality.
Now I would agree that if the video were more explicit and/or thorough in presenting clear facts, there would not be room for this interpretation. I’ve already said I think it’s a shame they couldn’t do a bit better. No doubt the reason is simply time allocation, which is unfortunate.
The video got a very different reception to that portrayed on this blog when it was presented in a different context other than shock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmvtwjqYZcY
Of course some people may find it condescending to be presented in that way, but the like/dislike ratio suggests otherwise. Of course it may be the case that people are just blind to the racism unless someone specifically points it out. But it seems some of us, including someone who is being honest and open to argument and evidence like myself, are blind to it even when it is pointed out.
Or perhaps, when taken in the context of the rest of the programme and its intended audience, it actually isn’t racist.
blow me
It’s been taken a bit out of context. I saw this when it was shown live during the BBC coverage and while I was slightly uncomfortable at first when the pre-recorded segment started as I wasn’t sure where they were going with it, the 10/15mins of discussion afterwards was very good and it’s a shame that’s not been included. Michael Johnson mentioned he had done a program on the topic recently and went into a lot more detail of some of the studies that have been done [as well as naming the actual gene] and there was very open and frank discussion rather then the normally PC’ing tip toeing around topics that you often see. He made the point that having that gene and being built better for a certain sport just meant you had a small advantage over someone who didn’t but at the end of the day good genes would be of marginal help as it all came down to hard work and training.
Someone earlier said Michael Johnson and Denise Lewis looked horrified but that simply wasn’t the case. There was nothing racial about it, stating fact that 82 of the 83 men who’ve run under 10 secs have been black but they discussed how other factors were far more at play like economics for African Americas – they are more likely to be able to afford college if they can get a scholarship so will lean towards sports were they see more african americans already taking part but we are starting to see a shift away from that with more diversity in sports such as gymnastics and swimming in recent years and Denise Lewis made the valid point that Jamaica produces sprinters because kids idolise the likes of Bolt and want to be like him and a country with limited sports budgets will spend it on sports were they get medals. It’s the same way Ireland spends money on boxing because the sport has proven successful for Ireland rather then the stereotype that Irish people like to fight [though one Australian newspaper did try and make that connection]
Yes I agree, people keep refusing to see the greater racist context.
Fuck you too
debraobrien,
I haven’t talked about races, which I agree is a dubious classification, I talked about populations, which isn’t. Different populations have different frequencies of alleles, and some alleles are specific to certain populations and there has not been sufficient admixture, nor is there likely to be, to create a world where these differences do not exist. It is naive to pretend they don’t to satisfy a yearning for a world without discrimination.
Yes, genetic differences can be used to promote division between ethnic groups, whether in the US, or elsewhere, but this does not then mean we should refuse to accept in principle that they exist. You rightly point out that it is wrong to think a woman must display certain behaviours, but equally it would be wrong not to acknowledge that there exist genuine behavioural and physiological differences between men and women, albeit of far more significance than the differences between populations as a whole.
Perhaps what we need to do is put politics to one side when considering scientific questions?
No, you’re right Ing, because that has never, ever happened has it? ;)
Although the black athletes on the BBC programme under discussion came to the conclusion that sporting achievement was certainly not a simple matter of genetics, and by setting up the discussion with that video the BBC allowed them to explain why racist explanations of sporting success were unfounded.
Go look up the word ‘dialectic’:
“The word dialectic originated in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with reasoned arguments.”
A bit late to the party, but here’s a wee piece about the superiority of black athletes http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-black-athletic-superiority.html
Oh no! Not gene doping. Will couch potatoes be subjected to dope doping?