|
|
Post by slamer on Apr 2, 2010 13:08:21 GMT -5
Nonsense, pmac... Why do you think all the top 20/30 at World Cross are dominated by East Africans? And, perhaps not coincidentally, some of the best non-African performances are being achieved by athletes with some east-African heritage. Do you really believe this is a coincidence, or lack of will or attitude by others? How about the west-African descendants who are dominating sprinting, whether they are currently from USA, Jamaica, Great Britain, Canada, or wherever? Another coincidence? Please... Time for a reality check... Thanks to Ron for backing me up, I've been travelling for a few days and didn't have a chance to respond. I'm not one for long winded debates but don't mind starting them. I will add one bit of info for those who still have their head in the sand. There has been a lot of talk lately about who will finally break the Drayton's Canadian marathon best of 2:10:09....Last year according to the IAAF rankings 68... yes 68! Kenyan's ran faster than that in 2009 alone...As Ron says..Reality check... nothing wrong with admitting it. I will again point to Canadian Hockey as an example of why this is nonsense. Frankly I find it offensive (as someone from East Africa) that it's "genetics" that is the reason East AFrican's achieve greatness instead of hardwork, attitude and determination. I can tell you that attitudes among those from East Africa (ethiopia, eritrea etc) including my own -- is very different. Ask any runner from any of these countries and they will tell you circumstance, work ethic and determination are the most important things. 72% of all NHL players come from US & Canada (with Canada at 54%), why don't we talk about genetics there? Why is there never any discussion about the genetics of "swimming", or "cross country skiing". Finally to prove Oldster's point, if you took Seb Coe, with his exact same times, he would still be the world champion most years in the 800 (with only Wilson possibly beating him). Wasn't he white? |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Apr 2, 2010 13:19:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Crowley on Apr 2, 2010 13:37:58 GMT -5
Other than nice little summations like yours, there has yet be be a single study to validate your point in anyway. Put differently, why is 54% of the NHL Canadian? Is there some kind of "hockey" gene? country of birth--------------number of players --------------percent of total Canada-------------------------516-------------------53.6 USA------------------------------178-------------------18.5 Czech Republic-------------------66-------------------6.9 Sweden-------------------------45------------------------- 4.7 Russia------------------------- 41------------------------- 4.3 Finland------------------------- 39 ------------------------- 4.1 Slovakia ------------------------- 31 ------------------------- 3.2 Germany ------------------------- 8 ------------------------- 0.8 Ukraine ------------------------- 7------------------------- 0.7 Kazakhstan ------------------------- 6 ------------------------- 0.6 Latvia ------------------------- 3 ------------------------- 0.3 Belarus ------------------------- 3 ------------------------- 0.3 Austria ------------------------- 3 ------------------------- 0.3 Poland ------------------------- 3------------------------- 0.3 All others ------------------------- 13------------------------- 1.4 total ------------------------- 962 Souce: www.thephysicsofhockey.com/documents/country.pdfThose Canadian genes! I wonder how Orr/Gretzky/Lemiux's genetic gift helped them. Canada and the USA provide environments which are more suitable to hockey. Canada does not provide a place where you can excel at anything (you said this earlier Slamer). You cannot easily become a pro cricket player here. Canada directs a lot of funding towards hockey. There are leagues set up everywhere at every level across Canada. Kids here play hockey because they have access to it, not because they're genetically inclined to do so. Even if we are better at hockey, that comes from countries in Europe since "true Canadians" would be native. How many natives are in the NHL? Notice Africans are made to survive in conditions unlike anything anywhere else in the world. Altitude, heat, and humidity are prevalent across many of the countries. You'd have to be foolish to say that genetics would not be influenced by these conditions. Moreover, how much of the population across Africa have vehicles or access to vehicles. How do they get around? Look at Geb. He got around running every day (I'm sure everyone has heard about why he runs like he's carrying something). This has been so for generations, running around, soccer perhaps, but never sitting in one place. If it has been going on for this long, genetics certainly come into play. I don't see how someone can argue that people from different places wouldn't be better at certain disciplines. There's only so far you can go just from training. PS. Trace Lemieux's family back to France PPS. Gretzky's Father immigrated from Russia (pretty far away from France and Canada) |
|
|
|
Post by oncearunner on Apr 2, 2010 13:55:14 GMT -5
I totally agree that circumstance, work ethic and determination play a big part in the Kenyan success but genetic make up does account for something as well.
Quoted from Toby Tanser's book "Train hard, win easy"
"While the vast majority of Kenyans share these circimstances, the runners with very few exceptions come from just four of the country's 40 tribes: the Kikuyu, the Kamba, the Kisii and the Kalenjin. In fact about THREE-FOURTHS of Kenya's best runners come from just one of these tribes, the Kalenjin, who make up a little more than 10% of the population."
|
|
ess92
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by ess92 on Apr 2, 2010 14:08:08 GMT -5
This whole idea of East Africans being genetically superior is ridiculous.
Here's why:
I would be willingly to bet that there are 10x the number of runners in Kenya, ethiopia, etc. versus Canada, the States, etc.
Thats reason 1)
1) Larger talent pool
That area of the world is very poor and running is a lucrative way to get your family out of poverty
2) They have the drive and the dedication
Because that area is poor, most people walk or run everywhere
3) Large amount of physical activity (not necessarily structured) when young
4) Walk into a school cafeteria (elementary or high school) and you'll understand reason #4
5) I think many people are confusing talent with genetic superiority. I have a friend who runs a sub 8:45 3km and runs about the same mileage as I do, does the same workouts as me, and has a similar lifestyle. You would all think I'm nuts if I said he was genetically superior.
6) Also remember that we are seeing the best of the best at international competitions. It definitely doesn't mean that they are all like that.
Any notion of genetics would be way down the list here at #7) if it exists at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by oncearunner on Apr 2, 2010 14:25:20 GMT -5
5) I think many people are confusing talent with genetic superiority. I have a friend who runs a sub 8:45 3km and runs about the same mileage as I do, does the same workouts as me, and has a similar lifestyle. You would all think I'm nuts if I said he was genetically superior. I think you just answered your own question, isn't talent determined by your genetic makeup. You both do the same workouts and train just as hard but I'm assuming he runs much better times than you. Training can only improve your God given ability by x% wether you call it talent or genetic make up. |
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Apr 2, 2010 14:27:57 GMT -5
I once know genetically identical twins who both ran track (I knew more than one pair). Except one pair had this weird dichotomy where one sister was significantly faster than the other.
By a lot. Yet the slower one (the one I knew) insisted that they both were "just as active" as kids. And ess92 has it right on, I'm not saying genetic have zero to do with it, but that it is far from the most significant thing.
And if you don't like the hockey example, look at the Seb Coe issue that oldster brought up. He would still dominate the 800, and he was around close to 30 years ago. Or how does Jeremy Warner get so fast and dominant? Isn't he white too? Or that Chinese 110 hurdler... he wasn't "west african descent".
Finally, let's look at the women, if it is genetic, why is it that they dominance we see in East africa/West African "descent" in the men is not there for the women? I believe the only distance records held by africans is the 5000m (I could be wrong here). Shouldn't we see the same dominance in the women too is it was largely genetic?
|
|
|
|
Post by oncearunner on Apr 2, 2010 14:43:43 GMT -5
As for the women, at World cross there where no non-Africans in the top 10 in either race and the first non-African in each race was more than a minute behind the winner
|
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Apr 2, 2010 15:57:00 GMT -5
Thanks to Ron for backing me up, I've been travelling for a few days and didn't have a chance to respond. I'm not one for long winded debates but don't mind starting them. I will add one bit of info for those who still have their head in the sand. There has been a lot of talk lately about who will finally break the Drayton's Canadian marathon best of 2:10:09....Last year according to the IAAF rankings 68... yes 68! Kenyan's ran faster than that in 2009 alone...As Ron says..Reality check... nothing wrong with admitting it. I will again point to Canadian Hockey as an example of why this is nonsense. Frankly I find it offensive (as someone from East Africa) that it's "genetics" that is the reason East AFrican's achieve greatness instead of hardwork, attitude and determination. I can tell you that attitudes among those from East Africa (ethiopia, eritrea etc) including my own -- is very different. Ask any runner from any of these countries and they will tell you circumstance, work ethic and determination are the most important things. 72% of all NHL players come from US & Canada (with Canada at 54%), why don't we talk about genetics there? Why is there never any discussion about the genetics of "swimming", or "cross country skiing". Finally to prove Oldster's point, if you took Seb Coe, with his exact same times, he would still be the world champion most years in the 800 (with only Wilson possibly beating him). Wasn't he white? slamer, Not that it matters but seb's background is somewhat more blended then you may think. www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1235341/Lord-Coe-Punjabi-Playboy.htmlAt the end of the day we are likely all africans in a round about way. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 2, 2010 16:55:28 GMT -5
This whole idea of East Africans being genetically superior is ridiculous. Here's why: I would be willingly to bet that there are 10x the number of runners in Kenya, ethiopia, etc. versus Canada, the States, etc. Thats reason 1) 1) Larger talent pool That area of the world is very poor and running is a lucrative way to get your family out of poverty 2) They have the drive and the dedication Because that area is poor, most people walk or run everywhere 3) Large amount of physical activity (not necessarily structured) when young 4) Walk into a school cafeteria (elementary or high school) and you'll understand reason #4 5) I think many people are confusing talent with genetic superiority. I have a friend who runs a sub 8:45 3km and runs about the same mileage as I do, does the same workouts as me, and has a similar lifestyle. You would all think I'm nuts if I said he was genetically superior. 6) Also remember that we are seeing the best of the best at international competitions. It definitely doesn't mean that they are all like that. Any notion of genetics would be way down the list here at #7) if it exists at all. You are right, there are plenty of factors to consider, but the notion of genetics comes in at #5, only you call it talent. Talent, whatever that is, is made up of a few things, not just genetics, which is why twins don't automatically tie every race they run, but that is where we'd have to include it. It just seems foolish to say that genetics has NOTHING to do with it. It also seems foolish to say genetics has EVERYTHING to do with it. I guess if we admitted that there are no black or white (no pun intended) answers, there would not be much discussion, would there? |
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Apr 2, 2010 22:33:08 GMT -5
This whole idea of East Africans being genetically superior is ridiculous. Here's why: I would be willingly to bet that there are 10x the number of runners in Kenya, ethiopia, etc. versus Canada, the States, etc. Thats reason 1) 1) Larger talent pool That area of the world is very poor and running is a lucrative way to get your family out of poverty 2) They have the drive and the dedication Because that area is poor, most people walk or run everywhere 3) Large amount of physical activity (not necessarily structured) when young 4) Walk into a school cafeteria (elementary or high school) and you'll understand reason #4 5) I think many people are confusing talent with genetic superiority. I have a friend who runs a sub 8:45 3km and runs about the same mileage as I do, does the same workouts as me, and has a similar lifestyle. You would all think I'm nuts if I said he was genetically superior. 6) Also remember that we are seeing the best of the best at international competitions. It definitely doesn't mean that they are all like that. Any notion of genetics would be way down the list here at #7) if it exists at all. You are right, there are plenty of factors to consider, but the notion of genetics comes in at #5, only you call it talent. Talent, whatever that is, is made up of a few things, not just genetics, which is why twins don't automatically tie every race they run, but that is where we'd have to include it. It just seems foolish to say that genetics has NOTHING to do with it. It also seems foolish to say genetics has EVERYTHING to do with it. I guess if we admitted that there are no black or white (no pun intended) answers, there would not be much discussion, would there? no one claim genes have nothing to do with it, but my problem with this whole discussion is that it's a lame excuse to dismiss the hard work that a lot of athletes put in by simply attributing a majority of their success to "genes". People forget anyone that runs under 15 minutes in a 5000 already has some genetic advantage. Point is most of those in track and certainly all those competing at the National level have some advantage over the average person. My frank assessment is that "white" athletes have dropped the ball and want an easy cope out. |
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Apr 2, 2010 22:55:51 GMT -5
My frank assessment is that "white" athletes have dropped the ball and want an easy cope out. I have a feeling Walker, Maree, Elliot, Moorcroft, Flynn, Falcon, Cram, Coe, Ovett, Spivey, Scott, Coughlan, and a number of others would be inclined to agree. Fortunately the Kenyans weren't too caught up with obvious genetic advantages these men had as each ran sub-3:50 over the mile in the '80s, and instead started training as hard as them. For the record, Coe's Indian ancestry makes his accomplishments even more impressive, given the history of lacklustre Indian performances at the Olympics. Somebody must have neglected mentioning to him that his genes were against him. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 2, 2010 23:10:15 GMT -5
More nonsense - total crap, as a matter of fact. Without pissing away my time reviewing all the posts on this thread, I doubt that anyone has tried to claim that genetics are everything.
Nor that race, or skin colour even matter in this discussion. If you wish to offer a frank assessment, learn to spell "cop", and not "cope". It's not that difficult, really...
If you have not been around long enough to have observed the trends in World Level distance running over the past several decades, then you are forgiven. If you have been around long enough, and still aren't taking some sort of reality check, then you are delusional, to phrase it politely...Genetics, life situation, life circumstance, opportunity, motivation, etc., etc... Call it what you will, but the REALITY is that the bigger World of distance running has evolved and changed, and isn't going to change back. Even with Nike money, and full time athletes and coaches, and the newest technologies being applied, it is very difficult to compete with the dozens of young Kenyans who can run sub 29 for 10K, before they even start training. Which has nothing to do with the fact that individual Canadians can and should be striving to be the best they can be.... Unfortunately the "Own the Podium" mentality, is not supportive of that vision --- quite the opposite, actually...
We are facing the reality that being in the Top 20 in the World in our sport is basically viewed as a failure, in terms of our National Governing Body, and funding agencies, and those of you who are supporting the position that we just need to "believe and try harder", are fundamentally in the same camp as the idiots that think this is our best National sport policy...
|
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Apr 2, 2010 23:20:47 GMT -5
As for the women, at World cross there where no non-Africans in the top 10 in either race and the first non-African in each race was more than a minute behind the winner Paula. |
|
|
|
Post by francisccm on Apr 2, 2010 23:51:01 GMT -5
Wish that I had weighed in here earlier. Sorry but tests have been done to show that inherently africans are no different than white europeans in genetic advantage lung capacity etc but if they go and live in europe and lose work ethic they gain weight and get slower.
Yes some people here are saying the childhood circumstances effect genetic makeup, why not just think the childhood circumstances without genetics are the overriding factor in talent then. The way they live as children gives them talent. If they were to grow up differently from birth things would be different there would be no doubt in my mind. If they lived a western lifestyle until age 18 then tried to run , where would the genetics be then... It wouldnt happen. Culture far far overrides genetics. It has been a common occurrence that the tougher the lifestyle of the athlete as a child the further they develop as a runner.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 3, 2010 9:33:26 GMT -5
no one claim genes have nothing to do with it, but my problem with this whole discussion is that it's a lame excuse to dismiss the hard work that a lot of athletes put in by simply attributing a majority of their success to "genes" Yeah that's probably true. I just think that some people are pushing either extreme. I don't know if it is a cop out or an excuse or what. Genetics will get you no where without hard work, that is for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by maser on Apr 3, 2010 19:06:11 GMT -5
I had the opportunity to hang with good African athletes. Most of the guys train extremely hard. They have a tremendous work ethic and family values. You can get into all the genetic "bs" you want but they do work hard to achieve their goals. If you want to compete at the level they run at you have to work at it.
KM
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 3, 2010 21:09:05 GMT -5
I, for one, wouldn't mind a little clarity regarding what it even means to say that a human group might have "genetic" advantage when it comes to something as complex as as a sport, particularly in light of what we know about how mixed up the human gene pool has become following millennia of human migration. (Paging Dr. Hutch).
Like I said, if there were really a gene or set of genes to explain African domination, it/they shouldn't be hard to isolate. It seems to me science has already had a good crack at isolating the obvious possibilities-- such as factors related to oxygen transport and gross physiology-- and have come up empty in terms of identifying basic differences, never mind their "genetic" roots. Genetics is a branch of science, and a new and complicated one at that. It seems to me we shouldn't be throwing the word "genetics" around loosely when most of us (probably all of us) have very little idea what we're talking about.
Here's the nub of the issue for me: Until the rest of the non-African world has concentrations of athletes really trying to make a go of it in this sport (such as we saw, for example, within the European club system throughout a good part of the post-war period), then it is WAY premature to be resorting to some immutable factor like genetics to explain why East Africans-- who, let's keep in mind, now have a strong sporting tradition (particularly within some small sub-groups), significant financial incentives, a demographic profile, and a basic lifestyle and environment to support excellence in distance running-- are dominating this sport. Until we're really trying to compete with the Africans in a serious way (and we may never care enough again as a society to attempt to) then we should shut up about genetics and just give credit where it is due.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 3, 2010 21:26:08 GMT -5
P.S. I think it's vaguely racist (at the very least unconsciously so) that it even occurs to us to explain African running excellence in terms of "genetics", particularly when our own standards have fallen so sharply. After all, about the only thing that really differentiates the best Africans of all-time from the best non-Africans is the speed and skin colour of the former. The non-African world, after all, has always had tons of naturally small and/or skinny people. So, what makes so many non-Africans so quick to look for "genetic" explanations when they see fast Africans? What would make us think that Africans were "genetically" different from us in the first place, other than their speed and dark skin? I don't recall any mention of "genetics" when it was the Kiwis, Finns, or Brits who were cleaning up.
Cue the indignant outrage. After all, no non-African has EVER had racist misconceptions about Africans. It's a known fact!
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Apr 3, 2010 22:56:32 GMT -5
P.S. I think it's vaguely racist (at the very least unconsciously so) that it even occurs to us to explain African running excellence in terms of "genetics", particularly when our own standards have fallen so sharply. After all, about the only thing that really differentiates the best Africans of all-time from the best non-Africans is the speed and skin colour of the former. The non-African world, after all, has always had tons of naturally small and/or skinny people. So, what makes so many non-Africans so quick to look for "genetic" explanations when they see fast Africans? What would make us think that Africans were "genetically" different from us in the first place, other than their speed and dark skin? I don't recall any mention of "genetics" when it was the Kiwis, Finns, or Brits who were cleaning up. Cue the indignant outrage. After all, no non-African has EVER had racist misconceptions about Africans. It's a known fact! oldster -- i like you  |
|
davidson
Full Member
"only the struggle makes it worth it, only the pain makes it sweet and only victory is the answer"
Posts: 131
|
Post by davidson on Apr 4, 2010 7:55:38 GMT -5
I, for one, wouldn't mind a little clarity regarding what it even means to say that a human group might have "genetic" advantage when it comes to something as complex as as a sport, particularly in light of what we know about how mixed up the human gene pool has become following millennia of human migration. (Paging Dr. Hutch). Like I said, if there were really a gene or set of genes to explain African domination, it/they shouldn't be hard to isolate. It seems to me science has already had a good crack at isolating the obvious possibilities-- such as factors related to oxygen transport and gross physiology-- and have come up empty in terms of identifying basic differences, never mind their "genetic" roots. Genetics is a branch of science, and a new and complicated one at that. It seems to me we shouldn't be throwing the word "genetics" around loosely when most of us (probably all of us) have very little idea what we're talking about. Here's the nub of the issue for me: Until the rest of the non-African world has concentrations of athletes really trying to make a go of it in this sport (such as we saw, for example, within the European club system throughout a good part of the post-war period), then it is WAY premature to be resorting to some immutable factor like genetics to explain why East Africans-- who, let's keep in mind, now have a strong sporting tradition (particularly within some small sub-groups), significant financial incentives, a demographic profile, and a basic lifestyle and environment to support excellence in distance running-- are dominating this sport. Until we're really trying to compete with the Africans in a serious way (and we may never care enough again as a society to attempt to) then we should shut up about genetics and just give credit where it is due. You're right, genetics is an extremely complicated topic and even our brightest minds don't know everything (though some do know quite a bit). I think there is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread about what a genetic advantage might be. To say that all East Africans have an advantage is not accurate and not what a lot of people are saying. Within every isolated population (whether geographically or just because they choose to breed only with themselves) there tends to become some similarities in the genes of its members. For example, go almost anywhere in Asia and you'll really only see certain hair and eye colours, BUT they won't be exactly the same. The idea that East Africans may have some advantage really means that someone born into their groups is MORE LIKELY to have the correct combinations of genes needed to succeed in distance running. This doesn't mean they'll get out of the womb and drop a sub 29 minute 10k, but it means they have the potential to do that in however many years it takes them to reach their peak. No one is going to run that fast without some outside influence (training, running to school, etc.). I don't think people are trying to make that point. It should probably also be noted that often the variance within a group (say East Africans - though that's not really correct since there are literally hundreds of tribes living in an area that has extremely variable living conditions) is more than the variance between groups. For example the difference between the tallest man and the shortest man is much more than the difference between the average man and the average woman. It also likely that these East African outliers (the ones with the greater genetic makeup) are given more opportunities to get fitter and faster than the outliers in Canada. It's also possible that some of our outliers get fat from sitting around all day and watching TV (and extreme example). I do understand how some people can be resistant to the genetics idea (or call it innate talent if you want), but it is not the way a lot of posters are making it out to be. Just because you have the talent doesn't mean you can be lazy and still realize your potential. As for the racism... well, the very fact that you (we) view them as a different group is technically racism. To say the only differences between the best Africans and best non-Africans is skin colour and speed is also not really accurate. It is rather doubtful that they were otherwise identical. Within groups (as I alluded to above) there is a great deal of variation in most aspects (this is pretty much the driving force behind evolution). None of us are the same as each other. Even look at the friends in your life. Even the people you'd consider "white" have slightly different skin tones, hair types, eye colour body shape, etc. Racism is an extremely complicated thing and what sometimes sounds racist isn't and what doesn't sound racist is. Not to mention the fact that there are not really any clearly defined races. As for not saying anything about the Finns, Brits, Kiwis, etc.... well I'm sure some people did. It's good that you brought that up because I think a lot of people are uneasy about talking about things like this and tend to tip toe around, trying not to say something racist (e.g. "all Africans are better runners") when they really want to say something that is less offensive - and true (e.g. "certain populations within Africa have a greater tendency to have genetics that, when combined with a lot of hard training, allow them to run really fast"). The difference really is in the unwritten things. If you group all Africans together, that is vaguely racist. However, that doesn't mean it has to be. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 4, 2010 9:39:13 GMT -5
It's funny to me how far the PC pendulum has swung over the nearly 45 years of my existence, to the point where we deny the possibility there might be genetic differences between sub-populations because the idea might be perceived as being racist.
There are, clearly, physical differences between the average, or typical, characteristics of different human sub-groups. The easiest to see are things like skin colour, facial features, height, musculature and the like.
Is it really that much of a stretch to think that some sub-groups might be blessed with, on average, better aerobic engines?
I think it's naive to expect that we're all born with the same likelihood of being blessed with the ability to run a sub-27 10k, regardless of whether we hail from the Rift Valley of Kenya or Calcutta.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 4, 2010 15:28:16 GMT -5
It's funny to me how far the PC pendulum has swung over the nearly 45 years of my existence, to the point where we deny the possibility there might be genetic differences between sub-populations because the idea might be perceived as being racist. There are, clearly, physical differences between the average, or typical, characteristics of different human sub-groups. The easiest to see are things like skin colour, facial features, height, musculature and the like. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that some sub-groups might be blessed with, on average, better aerobic engines? I think it's naive to expect that we're all born with the same likelihood of being blessed with the ability to run a sub-27 10k, regardless of whether we hail from the Rift Valley of Kenya or Calcutta. This has nothing to do with "political correctness". Mine was a plea for a little scientific correctness, insofar as it's possible in a forum like this. And, clearly, there is a "genetic" or "natural" component when it comes to athletic ability of all types. The whiff of racism happens when we are attracted to "racialist" (i.e. "genetic") explanations for concentrations of athletic talent: 1. In the absence of any hard evidence for such a thing, or even for the very categories we're using, and without really even understanding what we might be saying; and 2. When there are ample simpler, non-immutable and non-reductive explanations for these concentrations. Why, for instance, would we think there are greater "genetic" similarities between, say, the Kenyan groups out of which great runners come and the Ethiopian groups out of which they come than between non-African groups and either group-- i.e. if not for 19th Century concepts linking skin colour and physiognomy with "race" (i.e. genetics)? And I understand the argument about possible concentrations of "genetic potential" (I think); but then I think if there were such a clear genetic explanation it would be very easy to isolate with existing technology, and it has not. In the end, I'm much more interested in what attracts non-Africans to the "genetics" argument when all most of us really know about these groups of people is that they look similar (to us), and that they come from what we (quite arbitrarily) see as a particular region with rough boundaries. Take one example: Much is made of the fact that so many top Africans hail from a couple of Kenya tribes; yet, "tribes" are largely a colonial construct with very likely no long term "genetic" underpinnings (meaning that you would never be able to tell one tribe from another via genetic testing). Many non-Africans are immediately attracted to the idea that the concentrations of running talent in these tribes has a genetic explanation, even when there is quite likely no scientific grounding for such an explanation, and when the concept of "sporting traditions" within tribes (as well as possible inter-tribal discrimination and inequality in the distribution of basic resources) is probably a better explanation for the phenomenon in question. Think, for instance, about the important of "sporting tradition" in the rise (or rather, the very near failure to rise) of an athlete like Haile Gebresellasie. If Gebresellasie had been a more obedient son, he might never have taken up running in the first place, and might never have helped paved the way for other farm boys and girls (whose parents also probably thought running was a waste of time.) The lack of a strong and deep "sporting tradition" in distance running in rural Ethiopia made Haile's running seem like a waste of time to people like his father. The fact that some groups of East Africans now have a strong tradition of excellence is more than enough-- along with lifestyle, cultural, and demographic factors-- to explain their extreme success in the sport-- rather like Finnish javelin throwers, or Japanese marathoners, for those who follow the sport of track and field. And yet the idea of "genetic superiority", even down to the tribal level, remains a more preferred explanation outside of Africa, even among those who know next to nothing about genetics. We cannot escape the fact that non-Africans have a very long and deeply ingrained history of thinking about Africa in racialized (i.e. "genetic") terms. Even as we disavow open racial discrimination, racism comes very easily and naturally to us where Africa is concerned, and this is yet one more example. |
|
davidson
Full Member
"only the struggle makes it worth it, only the pain makes it sweet and only victory is the answer"
Posts: 131
|
Post by davidson on Apr 4, 2010 19:02:45 GMT -5
It's funny to me how far the PC pendulum has swung over the nearly 45 years of my existence, to the point where we deny the possibility there might be genetic differences between sub-populations because the idea might be perceived as being racist. There are, clearly, physical differences between the average, or typical, characteristics of different human sub-groups. The easiest to see are things like skin colour, facial features, height, musculature and the like. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that some sub-groups might be blessed with, on average, better aerobic engines? I think it's naive to expect that we're all born with the same likelihood of being blessed with the ability to run a sub-27 10k, regardless of whether we hail from the Rift Valley of Kenya or Calcutta. This has nothing to do with "political correctness". Mine was a plea for a little scientific correctness, insofar as it's possible in a forum like this. And, clearly, there is a "genetic" or "natural" component when it comes to athletic ability of all types. The whiff of racism happens when we are attracted to "racialist" (i.e. "genetic") explanations for concentrations of athletic talent: 1. In the absence of any hard evidence for such a thing, or even for the very categories we're using, and without really even understanding what we might be saying; and 2. When there are ample simpler, non-immutable and non-reductive explanations for these concentrations. Why, for instance, would we think there are greater "genetic" similarities between, say, the Kenyan groups out of which great runners come and the Ethiopian groups out of which they come than between non-African groups and either group-- i.e. if not for 19th Century concepts linking skin colour and physiognomy with "race" (i.e. genetics)? And I understand the argument about possible concentrations of "genetic potential" (I think); but then I think if there were such a clear genetic explanation it would be very easy to isolate with existing technology, and it has not. In the end, I'm much more interested in what attracts non-Africans to the "genetics" argument when all most of us really know about these groups of people is that they look similar (to us), and that they come from what we (quite arbitrarily) see as a particular region with rough boundaries. Take one example: Much is made of the fact that so many top Africans hail from a couple of Kenya tribes; yet, "tribes" are largely a colonial construct with very likely no long term "genetic" underpinnings (meaning that you would never be able to tell one tribe from another via genetic testing). Many non-Africans are immediately attracted to the idea that the concentrations of running talent in these tribes has a genetic explanation, even when there is quite likely no scientific grounding for such an explanation, and when the concept of "sporting traditions" within tribes (as well as possible inter-tribal discrimination and inequality in the distribution of basic resources) is probably a better explanation for the phenomenon in question. Think, for instance, about the important of "sporting tradition" in the rise (or rather, the very near failure to rise) of an athlete like Haile Gebresellasie. If Gebresellasie had been a more obedient son, he might never have taken up running in the first place, and might never have helped paved the way for other farm boys and girls (whose parents also probably thought running was a waste of time.) The lack of a strong and deep "sporting tradition" in distance running in rural Ethiopia made Haile's running seem like a waste of time to people like his father. The fact that some groups of East Africans now have a strong tradition of excellence is more than enough-- along with lifestyle, cultural, and demographic factors-- to explain their extreme success in the sport-- rather like Finnish javelin throwers, or Japanese marathoners, for those who follow the sport of track and field. And yet the idea of "genetic superiority", even down to the tribal level, remains a more preferred explanation outside of Africa, even among those who know next to nothing about genetics. We cannot escape the fact that non-Africans have a very long and deeply ingrained history of thinking about Africa in racialized (i.e. "genetic") terms. Even as we disavow open racial discrimination, racism comes very easily and naturally to us where Africa is concerned, and this is yet one more example. You bring up some interesting points. I was under the impression that most tribes in Africa predate colonialism and there has been many migrations over the last few thousand years. In my time there (2 and a half months in Tanzania, and about 2 weeks travelling through Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya) there were several distinctive tribes (the Masai probably being the most famous, but I met many others who identified strongly with their tribal roots). It's not an issue I fully understand, but I'm pretty sure that the groups were pretty much coherent before the Europeans (or more accurately, the Arabs) arrived. You may be thinking of Rwanda where the colonial powers exploited the divisions (which in that particular case were not completely obvious). Likely in recent history there has been more intermarriage between tribes, but I imagine there are still distinctions. That's not to say that all Masai or Hutus are all the same as each other, but that they share a variety of characteristics, some of which may be their likelihood of having the correct genes to excel at running. Also, our (human) knowledge of genetics is not as complete as what some newspaper articles would have you believe. Though the genome has been mapped, there is still a lot to be learned about which genes do what. I'm not really an expert (maybe someone on here is) but it was my understanding that very little is actually known about genes. Also, I don't think that those working on cutting edge genetics are concerned with which genes predispose someone to being a good endurance athlete (which is probably an extremely complicated mix of genes as it is). Just because our scientists haven't discovered such a gene does not mean it doesn't exist. Furthermore, the amount of knowledge with regards to hereditary behaviours is probably not complete either and many of the other factors required to be a high-level runner could potential be the result of genes. It's a very complicated bunch of factors and I'm pretty sure our understanding of them all is very basic. The argument about Geb doesn't necessarily mean that there was not a high concentration of genetically gifted (with regards to running) people in the area beforehand. Perhaps the stigma against running was just too much before Geb did well. Perhaps they didn't even know how valuable their skills could be. I'm sure there are more explanations for this that I haven't thought of. I think, however, that we can agree that it's either nature, nurture or a combination of the two that is the reason for their success. They are good runners because of who they are and where they come from. Let me turn the argument on it's head then. Why are there not a ton of world-class runners coming out of other areas of Africa that lead very similar lifestyles? I'm sure this would be a good topic for a third Freakonomics book (they could find some stats to figure this all out). I'm still not sure how racism plays into this. I don't think anyone is trying to suggest they don't work incredibly hard to get where they are. I think racism comes in to play when someone says: "oh, he's from Africa so he's fast." or "he's fast because he's from Africa." If someone were to try and say that all Africans are better runners they'd be full of it. There is a big difference to what is being discussed now. |
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Apr 4, 2010 19:24:27 GMT -5
Oldster, I agree 99% with everything you say. I do, however, want to point out that your assertion regarding the ease with which a gene providing running excellence can be isolated is probably not true.
Genetics is far from my field of expertise (unless I inherited some from my father). I do, however, have a more than causal understanding of the research required to isolate genes for even 'simple things'. To make a long story short:
1) even if such a gene exists, it may be very difficult to identify.
2) I am not convinced that many credible scientists have put resources towards finding this gene.
3) The absence of a single gene contributing to distance running excellence does not preclude a large or predominantly genetic component.
I do not want this to lead to a full blown discrediting of your arguments-- the rest are rock solid.
MM
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 4, 2010 19:34:22 GMT -5
Please google up .... distance running, and then Rift Valley, after that Kalenjin, and after that Nandi, and eventually Arsi...
With no regards to continents or nations or race or colour, the results will be striking...
For those who are trying to represent this as a "racial" or African discussion, perhaps we can envision a dual meet (track events, only) between Nigeria and Kenya. And then we can dismiss all the Nigerians who couldn't run long enough, and the Kenyans who couldn't run fast enough, as just not trying or believing or whatever other nonsense terms we wish to use... Remember, if we just set our qualifying standards high enough, then our athletes will automatically run faster....It's the same point that OTP is trying to make, just framed differently...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 4, 2010 19:52:21 GMT -5
Thanks, guys (Davidson and Mattmc, anyway). These points are all well taken. My main beef is with the ease and confidence with which people refer to some African's "genetic"advantage without having a clue what they're talking about-- either in terms of genetics or the history/sociology of the places their referring to-- and without acknowledging the extent to which non-African stagnation has played a part in African domination of this sport. Not being an expert, my sense is that any "natural" advantage so-called "East Africans" may possess is bound to be very complex, difficult to isolate, and almost certainly present in other human groups who do not excel at distance running.
And African "tribes" certainly predate colonialism, but it is highly unlikely that they have ever been genetically sealed off from one another; they are far from primordial. More importantly, however, tribal systems have all been manipulated by colonialism in ways that would have drastically effected their relative likelihood of becoming involved in serious sports. And my Gebresellasie example shows that simply having a tradition of sporting excellence within a given group-- something which does not necessarily develop or fail to develop because of "genetics"-- is probably a better basis for explaining the continued success of some groups over others even within the same region and "gene pool". This further reinforces the importance of a sporting tradition for the region as a whole vis a vis the outside world.
In the end, there is more than enough of a non-"genetic" nature to explain the recent dominance of Kenyans, Ethiopians, Moroccans, Algerians in this sport-- including and especially the precipitous decline of the sport in the non-African world over the past 15-20 years-- without resorting to talk of genetics. So, I wonder why the "genetics" argument is always among the first thing on people's lips when this topic comes up.
|
|
|
|
Post by eight-hundred on Apr 4, 2010 20:19:31 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with the whole "genetics" argument but on a side note an interesting article in Yahoo sports about Kenyan defections. I always considered it a positive thing because it means the competition on the world stage is that much better, but Wilfred Bungei suggests that it will kill long distance running. any opinions? uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/02042010/58/bungei-defections-kill-athletics.html |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Apr 4, 2010 20:20:10 GMT -5
Oldster,
Perhaps you can refer to those who think it is ALL about "genetics"...
I don't see or hear anyone making that specific point.
As to the non-African "stagnation", I think that is a fascinating discussion point, and I have my own opinions on that discussion.
|
|
Roy
Junior Member
Posts: 75 
|
Post by Roy on Apr 4, 2010 21:00:28 GMT -5
Oldster, with the lifestyle/cultural factors being far less significant in sprinting, do you believe there is any genetic advantage when it comes to the 100m?
|
|
