Michael Johnson - Why the progeny of slaves will strike gold at the Olympics

First topic message reminder :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167996/Why-progeny-slaves-strike-gold-Olympics.html

MJ Not afraid to face controversey it would appear

Ironically, Azania and I disagree on many things but not this is not one.

Michael Johnson's synopsis was dangerous. As I pointed out, he was scathing about Nazism, which expoused an interpretation of eugenics that painted him in a negative light but was infavour of his theory, that interpretted eugenics in a positive light for him. That is, the Nazis said anybody but Ayrians had inferior genes but Michael said decendents of slaves had superior genes.

Lets be logical about this. This concept comes from evolutional theory and animal breeding, where selectional conditions are imposed, continually. Not for a single or 5 generations. This may have happened with isolated human populations but now with slaves.

And, to use my example, the "biggest" slaving state was actually Brazil and that hasn't a glut of sprinters.

You have to accept that there is a societal/cultural issue. New Zealand has been a huge rugby nation (even though it has mixed genetics) and the West Indies were amazing in cricket until about the 90's. Fashion, culture, etc. are the drivers.

What Michael Johnson said was racist. Deeply racist.

My issue with Azania is he often makes acception for black racists but condemns white racists and patronises us whiteys by saying his family are married to whites ;-) That's a joke Azania! ;-)

'What Michael Johnson said was racist. Deeply racist'

No it wasn't! You've just chosen to interpret it that way

If West Africans don't have a genetic advantage how is that they can't win anything but sprints? As the former world record holder and olympic champion suggests the descendents of west african slaves do have superior genes. Why would he say something fairly controversial like that if he wasn't personally convinced?
And with respect to you I imagine he has a full grasp of the situation as opposed to the sadly predictable knee-jerk reaction of 'racism' from certain quarters whenever this sort of question is raised.

Engish Osprey - Because it suits MJs ego. As Nazism suited the Naziz.

As I pointed out. World economics, science and culture has been dictated by european cultures over the last 1000 or so years. Does that mean that the rest of the world is inferior? Before that, Egypt (a north african culture) dominated... its part of lifes cycle.

Human egotism means we all want to justify why we are "superior". MJ just did that. He ignored the Nazi "logic" that the aryan's were superior because they ruled the world but, accepted his eugenic "logic" because it reinforced his view he was superior specimen.

There are those who try to say Europeans are intellectually superior. There are those who have tried to say that long distance runners come from E Africa and sprinters from W Africa. But tonight we saw Mo win and an american come second in the 10,000m.

Don't try to interpret small snap shots in history to fit your agenda.

History is long. You can chose your period in history to validate your point.

bizarre
. I'm no MJ fan but to describe him as a nazi strikes me as a harsh

You do know that Mo is originally Somalian don't you?
You know that Somalia is in east africa?

east africans have won 16 out of 18 available olympic 10000m medals in the last 20 years
no west african has ever won an olympic 10000m
no east african has ever won an olympic sprint medal

'There are those who have tried to say that long distance runners come from E Africa and sprinters from W Africa.'

This is why people say it - because its true

And as to the rest of your drivel, who's claiming european culture is superior? Who's claiming europeans are more intelligent?
The answer is nobody!

The simple truth is in front of your eyes. Every finalist in the 100m was of west african origin. How can you possibly claim that they don't totally dominate world sprinting?

The only question is why?

And the only conclusion is a genetic advantage.

Well, I live in South Africa, in a place with lots of immigrants, both African & otherwise. So I can only comment on what I see at my school. I go to an Afrikaans/English school. and all sorts of kids are here. The rich white kids, the poor black kids, the rich black kids, the poor white kids, the first generation immigrants, the Bulgarians and the South American exchange students. In our athletics teams, the majority of sprinters were indeed, black. despite black people accounting for maybe 20% of the school. Even me, a black kid who was fat for all but the last 3 years of my life decided to try out the 100m as Im a senior, & ran 100m in 10.7. The white kids dominate field, and the Indians watch from the sidelines. This goes with the theory of genetic dominance, right? well, its in other sports where the theory gets a little hazy. our u-16 rugby team has an almost all-black forward pack, our first cricket team has a black captain, and a bulgarian vice-captain. While our tennis team also has a black captain. Meanwhile the Indians still just sit on the stands. To me, this implies that its more nurture than it is nature. Am I suggesting that the Indians at school are somehow inferior? Yes! They try out for everything, but arent good enough. Am I suggesting that all Indians are genetically inferior athletes? No! I have access to a tv which proves otherwise. The issue of genetics is much more complicated than we can ever imagine. That said however, I think the West INDIES GIVES US SOME SERIOUS INSIGHT INTO THE MATTER. For instance, only the best West African slaves were transportedd there, and of those 'best', only the genetic best survived the harsh trip to the Carribean, änd of those, only those with the greatest work ethic survived the working conditions. Its almost a complete lab experiment on its own.

Hi Kingraf
some interesting stuff. Agree with your survival of the fittesr idea

I'm not suggesting for a moment that black athletes are superior at sport or inferior even per se. What I am suggesting is that west africans dominate world sprinting almost to the exclusion of the rest of the world and east africans dominate middle/long distance running almost to the same extent.
Neither incidentally are much good at the other ones speciality. Ie easts can't sprint particularly well and wests cant run long distance. Why?


genetic advantage appears to be the only answer

kingraf wrote:Well, I live in South Africa, in a place with lots of immigrants, both African & otherwise. So I can only comment on what I see at my school. I go to an Afrikaans/English school. and all sorts of kids are here. The rich white kids, the poor black kids, the rich black kids, the poor white kids, the first generation immigrants, the Bulgarians and the South American exchange students. In our athletics teams, the majority of sprinters were indeed, black. despite black people accounting for maybe 20% of the school. Even me, a black kid who was fat for all but the last 3 years of my life decided to try out the 100m as Im a senior, & ran 100m in 10.7. The white kids dominate field, and the Indians watch from the sidelines. This goes with the theory of genetic dominance, right? well, its in other sports where the theory gets a little hazy. our u-16 rugby team has an almost all-black forward pack, our first cricket team has a black captain, and a bulgarian vice-captain. While our tennis team also has a black captain. Meanwhile the Indians still just sit on the stands. To me, this implies that its more nurture than it is nature. Am I suggesting that the Indians at school are somehow inferior? Yes! They try out for everything, but arent good enough. Am I suggesting that all Indians are genetically inferior athletes? No! I have access to a tv which proves otherwise. The issue of genetics is much more complicated than we can ever imagine. That said however, I think the West INDIES GIVES US SOME SERIOUS INSIGHT INTO THE MATTER. For instance, only the best West African slaves were transportedd there, and of those 'best', only the genetic best survived the harsh trip to the Carribean, änd of those, only those with the greatest work ethic survived the working conditions. Its almost a complete lab experiment on its own.

Even though I think that Michael Johnson theory is silly and easily debunkable, I think that you are totally missing the point by taking South Africa as an example. Johnson didn't talk about Blacks in  sport in general, he specifically singled out West Africans, particularly those living in the New World in the field of sprinting ( Are Kenyans good sprinters ??). Last time I checked, the very large majority of Blacks living in South Africa are not West Africans, let alone coming from North America.

Secondly saying that the fittest slaves were transported in the Windies is totally wrong...
As it has been said before , the majority of West African slaves ended up in Brazil,and as far as I know, Portuguese brought them there because they thought that Amerindians couldn't do the "job". So they had to be sure that their slaves would be capable resisting physical endeavour that was imposed. It is also the country that practised slavery longer in the "New World"( I think that Brits even had to stop Portuguese slave raiders after they abolished it). Yet Brazil hasn't produced any kind of decent sprinter. An other example being Cuba, it is by far the most succesful Caribbean island in olympics (the only one to have ever finished top 10 in the medal table), yet they haven't produced any decent sprinter in years. Care to explain the difference. The Caribbean is not limited to Jamaica & Trinidad

Maybe I didnt explain my point articulately. What Im saying, is'nt that all blacks are genetically made to run, what Im saying is that in South Africa, with our unbelievable range of people, you get a better idea as to how big a role genes play. I.e the Afrikaners who are 6`3 95kg of muscle before the age of 15, the 2nd generation Indians who are far taller than their parents. The black kids who wake up one day and run randomly run 100m in sub-11 seconds.

English Osprey - he may not be sporting a stupid tash or be speaking German but yes, MJ was expousing the same type of theories based on the same weak evidence as the Nazis. Why, because it suited his/their ego.

Why did you selectively choose Mo Farah and not the white american in second that debunked your theory? Is it because you are just trying to prove an agenda?

Its about real or percieved oppotunities and avenues. There was a time that poor Jamaicans got out of poverty by playing cricket. Now they run.

Barbario restates my point from earlier. Its a few Caribbean islands not even all of them.

Again, Kingraf, its only in the last 20 ish years the decendents of slaves have dominated the sprinting events etc. White Europeans have pretty much dominated world economics, sciences and politics for the last millenia and it looks like Asians are going to for the next. Does his mean that they must be genetically better at economics, politics, sciences etc.? Why did the ANC bother? If you can take a meer 20 year trend and transpose that to genetics then why can you postulate that a millenia dominance might have been due to "selective" genes. This was what the Nazis tried to theorise. Their evidence was greater than yours or MJs... now, do you discount Nazism cos it doesn't suit you and accept MJs version because it does?

But why, given the limitless resources of 'white' countries, are they quite so unsuccessful at sprinting?

Even in the UK the all-time rankings are dominated by a relatively small population, despite the fact that the vast number of young athletes that take up sprinting are white. One or two outliers doesn't 'debunk the theory' at all.

Any explanation besides the nonsense of 'black people work harder' or 'black people need it more' that I've heard already?

dj - until the last 20 years they weren't. I remember Alan Wells winning gold etc.

Yes, one or two outliers. Like choosing 20 years of contempory history doesn't prove anything. Don't select historic results and they make accusations of selectivity.

China are at the top of the medals table. GB cycling is dominated by white people and are you suggesting that its less power or sprint orientated?

Stop focussing on the sprint events over the last 20 years and you may get some perspective on life, the world. Or are you just trying to prove a weak point?

I refer back to Bert Sugar's observations of boxing in the US. He said it always refects immigration and poverty and he neatly illustrated that with periods of high profile Jewish, Irish, Italian, Russian and Hispanic representation. Always evident was African American but, that also was linked to poverty and avenues out of it.

African Americans still suffer from issues of poverty and academic under achievement (ironically, recent black immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa don't). So, is it a surprise they look for avenues where they can achieve? Similar in Jamaica. In Barbados, Dominican Republic and most significantly, Haiti and Brazil, have we seen anything similar? The latter possessing the largest number of slaves and the second to last being the scene of the first slave uprising and independent nation...

Sorry, I should point out not only has Brazil got the largest number of slave decendents it also has the longest and most sustained period of slavery. If that isn't a filter to prove your point, what is? But it doesn't.

BRAZIL- 5 FIFA world championships, a few beach volleyball achievements, dont think they done to bad, did they? Look, football is the national sport there, why would you expect them to produce sprinters like Jamaica? Thats the reason I spoke about these 6'3 95kg 15-year-old Afrikaans kids. Rugby is what they have been conditioned to play, and therefore they play it with aplomb, despite being descendants of Germans, French, and Dutchmen (no offence), countries which dominate (well, for the sake of the argument) football. This is the same reason why Brazil has so few 100m sprinters. The fact that the playing field has been for a great part, levelled. If you look at the average Brazilian, and then look at the average Carribean the guy from the West Indies is normally larger. Is this because WI slaves were from W africa, while PORTUGALS TRADITIONAL ports were on the other side? If like someone suggested earlier, WI & Brazil were not getting their slaves from the same area, then its not an apples with apples comparison is it? By comparison, Americans got quite a few W Africa slaves, look at their sprinters. If you think It`s merely a case of desire, tell me, how many black High jumpers have you seen succeed? How many black shot-putters have you seen prosper?

'Why did you selectively choose Mo Farah and not the white american in second that debunked your theory? Is it because you are just trying to prove an agenda?'

Because it appeared you didn't know Mo was somalian
the american is the first white man to win a 10k medal in the last 20 years so it doesn't debunk anything. East africans have still won 16 of 18 available medals. Why's that?
East africans have won 0 of 157 in the 100/200m since 1896. Why's that?

also, more importantly your feeble boxing analogy and the disappearance of azania suggests to me that you and he are the same person. surely you don't want to trawl over this same ground YET AGAIN

kingraf wrote:. Is this because WI slaves were from W africa, while PORTUGALS TRADITIONAL ports were on the other side? If like someone suggested earlier, WI & Brazil were not getting their slaves from the same area, then its not an apples with apples comparison is it? By comparison, Americans got quite a few W Africa slaves, look at their sprinters. If you think It`s merely a case of desire, tell me, how many black High jumpers have you seen succeed? How many black shot-putters have you seen prosper?

I think that you should review your history a little bit, A very large number of slaves in Brazil came from West Africa even tough some of them came from former portuguese colony of Angola and Mozambique, but there were very little slave trade between east Africa and the new world (east Africa was more or less related to the Arab slave trade). Portuguese were major players in the ATLANTIC (ie: gulf of guinea)slave trade! In fact, Brazil got 6 times more slaves than the U.S (roughly 35 % of all West African slaves end up in Brazil). Anyway there are nowadays in Brazil roughly 100 million people with partial African descent which contrast sharply with the 2 million Jamaicans, yet Brazil has yet to produce any sub 10s sprinters. I could also point out Colombia, Venezuela or many other Latin American countries which all have a sizable population of WA descent.

If you look at the average Brazilian, and then look at the average Carribean the guy from the West Indies is normally larger

Unless you're judjing the average caribbean through Usain Bolt, no.

Kingraf - you start of saying its about tradition in a sport (which I agree about) but then try to say its about genetics... Its a case of percieved or real avenues to succeed. If your poor and black, being a doctor is less likely. If you're white and middle class it does. If you are from a country that venerates sprinting, it is natural that you should aspire to that.

Futher, your history and geography are poor. Portugal were shipping slaves out of W Africa in huge quantities. Just because Mozambique is next to SA doesn't mean it was the only Portuguese settlement in Africa.

Thanks Barbario for giving a more comprehensive response to our friend's ignorance of the slave trade and African geography ;-)

English Osprey - Of course I knew he was Somalian. Its hardly a secret. So, for only 16 years... not long at all. And before that there were lots of white 10k winners and very few, if any black. I remember the upsurge in E African long distance runners and it was only recent. Then they started to win shorter distances. I listened to one of the school coaches of the area most of the Kenyan runners comes from and he didn't attribute it to genetics either as he pointed out the Rudisha is not from that arean, he is a Masai. Which is unusual.

You make no point what so ever with your poor, limited statistics. There had never been a black golfer till Tiger or US president till Obama.

OK, just for you. I'll humour you some more. NZ have won something like 80% of their RU games ever! This is over 100+ years and are by far the most successful RU country ever. Given the squad is multi ethnic, what is your theories on that?

When I grew up, the WI dominated cricket, then the poor of the WI realised they could make more out of basketball and sprinting and now WI cricket is average to poor. So, until 1990's you could have argued slave genes made the WI great cricketers... which requires hand eye coordination etc and not fast reflex muscles.... but they aren't any more.. but dominating sprinting. Only more speciifically, its Jamaicans dominating sprinting. The other slave nations aren't... so, you have no coherent theory.

And no Azania and I are not the same. You should see the arguments he and I have had over just this same issue as he is an Ali apologist. He says we should ignore the fact Ali courted the KKK on behalf of the NoI. I say you cannot condemn one racist and then deify another who, by his own admisssions, shared similar views.

Re the NZ rugby question, all the power and pace guys for the All Blacks now are of Island descent. Clearly part of the reason they do so well is becasue the game is by far their national sport and they have a superb coaching system from basically toddler level, but they players from their islands have. Thats why they like to make sure so many of them play for them.
Its also the case that in English rugby you are getting a lot of black guys coming into the side despite the fact that its not a game traditionally played by low income blacks, or indeed many black guys at all. So why are they doing so well ?
It seems to me that whenever anyone throws up an argument to say that there is no gentic influence on succes you can make an equally good case with that same argument to say well yes there is. Then again it also seems to be the case the other way round. Tricky one really.

Diggers wrote:Re the NZ rugby question, all the power and pace guys for the All Blacks now are of Island descent. Clearly part of the reason they do so well is becasue the game is by far their national sport and they have a superb coaching system from basically toddler level, but they players from their islands have. Thats why they like to make sure so many of them play for them.
Its also the case that in English rugby you are getting a lot of black guys coming into the side despite the fact that its not a game traditionally played by low income blacks, or indeed many black guys at all. So why are they doing so well ?
It seems to me that whenever anyone throws up an argument to say that there is no gentic influence on succes you can make an equally good case with that same argument to say well yes there is. Then again it also seems to be the case the other way round. Tricky one really.

You will find that most of england's black players (Guscott and Armitage brothers the exception) are all West African and public school educated (mainly Nigerian).

As I have said, there is no evidence save for some dubious science, to suggest that West African have a special gene that makes many of them predisposed to sprinting.

Its serious gonads bordering on the racist. No surprise EO believes it though. Anyone who does better than Anglo Saxons is either cheating or is genetically predisposed towards it.

english_osprey wrote:'What Michael Johnson said was racist. Deeply racist'

No it wasn't! You've just chosen to interpret it that way

If West Africans don't have a genetic advantage how is that they can't win anything but sprints? As the former world record holder and olympic champion suggests the descendents of west african slaves do have superior genes. Why would he say something fairly controversial like that if he wasn't personally convinced?
And with respect to you I imagine he has a full grasp of the situation as opposed to the sadly predictable knee-jerk reaction of 'racism' from certain quarters whenever this sort of question is raised.

Have you seen a Senegalese, Ivorian, Gambian, Burkino Fassoan, Cameroonian, Beninious, Liberian, Sierra Leonian et al run under 10 seconds?

What we are seeing is mainly people from English speaking Caribbean nations. No cubans, Dom Reps are running under 10 seconds.

Yet Brazil which has the largest number of black people outside of Nigeria has not produced any sub 10 runners, but has a production line of classy and skillful footballers. Columbia with its massive black population has none. Ditto Equador and Venezuela.

Add Peurto Rico which has produced many brilliant boxers but no sprinters under 10. Are they genetically predisposed to fight?

What you are forgetting is the culture of the country and their national identity and sport. Find me a Nigerian who makes a mint and becomes a national hero for running the 10k and I will show you hundreds of young nigerians out jogging the very next day.

John Inverdale asked the question that I put here and was criticised for. Young white sprinters who believe this gene superiority have lost even before they even start. Thank goodness that Lemaitre didn't believe it.

azania wrote:

Diggers wrote:Re the NZ rugby question, all the power and pace guys for the All Blacks now are of Island descent. Clearly part of the reason they do so well is becasue the game is by far their national sport and they have a superb coaching system from basically toddler level, but they players from their islands have. Thats why they like to make sure so many of them play for them.
Its also the case that in English rugby you are getting a lot of black guys coming into the side despite the fact that its not a game traditionally played by low income blacks, or indeed many black guys at all. So why are they doing so well ?
It seems to me that whenever anyone throws up an argument to say that there is no gentic influence on succes you can make an equally good case with that same argument to say well yes there is. Then again it also seems to be the case the other way round. Tricky one really.

You will find that most of england's black players (Guscott and Armitage brothers the exception) are all West African and public school educated (mainly Nigerian).

As I have said, there is no evidence save for some dubious science, to suggest that West African have a special gene that makes many of them predisposed to sprinting.

Its serious gonads bordering on the racist. No surprise EO believes it though. Anyone who does better than Anglo Saxons is either cheating or is genetically predisposed towards it.

Exactly, public school educated..therefore no need or desire to train harder, just the same background as the white guys. So why, when there are so few of them, do they manage do achieve ?

Diggers wrote:

azania wrote:

Diggers wrote:Re the NZ rugby question, all the power and pace guys for the All Blacks now are of Island descent. Clearly part of the reason they do so well is becasue the game is by far their national sport and they have a superb coaching system from basically toddler level, but they players from their islands have. Thats why they like to make sure so many of them play for them.
Its also the case that in English rugby you are getting a lot of black guys coming into the side despite the fact that its not a game traditionally played by low income blacks, or indeed many black guys at all. So why are they doing so well ?
It seems to me that whenever anyone throws up an argument to say that there is no gentic influence on succes you can make an equally good case with that same argument to say well yes there is. Then again it also seems to be the case the other way round. Tricky one really.

You will find that most of england's black players (Guscott and Armitage brothers the exception) are all West African and public school educated (mainly Nigerian).

As I have said, there is no evidence save for some dubious science, to suggest that West African have a special gene that makes many of them predisposed to sprinting.

Its serious gonads bordering on the racist. No surprise EO believes it though. Anyone who does better than Anglo Saxons is either cheating or is genetically predisposed towards it.

Exactly, public school educated..therefore no need or desire to train harder, just the same background as the white guys. So why, when there are so few of them, do they manage do achieve ?

Rugby isn't all about pace. I dont recall Victor Obugu running particularly fast. Harrison was a bullet fast runner but poor handling skills. So was Chris Oti. Sackey was good defensively but poor attacking. No genetics needed if you can't catch a ball or tackle.

Actually for his build Obugu was exactly about pace and power. You still havent answered the question, why have so many been so successful from a small pool. Or do you think they are just inherently good at ball handling..maybe thats a gene as well ?

Diggers wrote:Actually for his build Obugu was exactly about pace and power. You still havent answered the question, why have so many been so successful from a small pool. Or do you think they are just inherently good at ball handling..maybe thats a gene as well ?

There haven't been many who are successful. Moreover middle class Nigerians play rugby in Nigeria and obviously in public schools here where most rugby players hail from.

Also the advent of professionalism will mean more black rugby players from lower income households.....Money.

I dont see how that explains anything. Its still a large success rate from a small pool of talent whether they went to public school or not. How many middle class Nigerian kids are at public schools compared to middle class white kids ?
The advent of professionalism means exactly the same for lower income white guys.
So no answers as far as I can see.

Diggers wrote:I dont see how that explains anything. Its still a large success rate from a small pool of talent whether they went to public school or not. How many middle class Nigerian kids are at public schools compared to middle class white kids ?
The advent of professionalism means exactly the same for lower income white guys.
So no answers as far as I can see.

In schools, black kids are pushed into sports and many asusmptions are made regarding their sporting prowess. The same is not applied to many white kids regardless of backgrounds. I have had many battles with my son's school about pushing him to do more sports often at the expense of his studies.

Shame really. He loved football but I preferred he got very good A level grades.

Im sorry but thats just a gross generalisation based on your own experience. I can say exactly the same thing from my own background as working class in the north east.
You get sporting families and you get non sporting families. Ive met plenty of black guys who dont have the remotest interest in sport of any kind.
Its hardly something you can use as imperical evidence, its just your own theory and you are happy to debunk plenty of other peoples theories.

Ha. The funny thing is that if I said the same to any black household, they would be nodding in agreement and call it a shared experience. A white peson doesn't want to acknowledge it unles there is emperical evidence. There is loads of evidence and massive research carried out. What I said is 100% verifiable unfortunately.

Diggers I fear we are diverting the thread but I will show you research carried out on this subject.

Anyway back to the myth of sprinting and black/west african propensity to run fast......which seems to be mainly anglo speaking blacks and ignored the biggest slave trading nation on early.....Brazil.

Its funny how you are happy to state what would happen in a black household and yet seem to have no experience as to what would happen in a white household. Are families in the north east sports mad, yes, they love it.
Im more than happy to acknowledge that black families want kids to do sports, its just hardly uniqiue in any way shape or form. Am happy to see your research though if you post some links. I suspect it amounts to very little though.
Must admit all I can see is that you have clutched at straws all the way though my questions without coming up with a single decent explanation. No wonder you want to move on.

I'm not talking about households but schools who push black kids more to sports at the expense of academic studies. As I said there are loads of documentary evidence to support my claim.

Why are you happy to acknowledge that black families are more than happy to push their kids into sports? All parents want to have their kids do well in sports. But schools have been known to push black kids towards sports at the expense of ecucation. Joseph Rowntree Foundation has done some reports on it. The Runnymede Trust (not 100%). Look up the Education section at London Metro Uni. They carried out a research work on tis very same subject and I repeated their findings.

Care to move on or should I find the various reports that are readily available on line?

So the question is, if its true as you havent shown any of the evidence you keep saying exists, why do schools push black kids into sports ? Why did that start to happen...maybe becasue for some reason they were good at it ?

Also we are talking about kids who are going to fee paying schools here. I dont for one second believe that these kids are treated any differently, a high standard of education is taken as a given otherwise they wouldnt get the pupils through the doors.

azania wrote:

english_osprey wrote:'What Michael Johnson said was racist. Deeply racist'

No it wasn't! You've just chosen to interpret it that way

If West Africans don't have a genetic advantage how is that they can't win anything but sprints? As the former world record holder and olympic champion suggests the descendents of west african slaves do have superior genes. Why would he say something fairly controversial like that if he wasn't personally convinced?
And with respect to you I imagine he has a full grasp of the situation as opposed to the sadly predictable knee-jerk reaction of 'racism' from certain quarters whenever this sort of question is raised.

Have you seen a Senegalese, Ivorian, Gambian, Burkino Fassoan, Cameroonian, Beninious, Liberian, Sierra Leonian et al run under 10 seconds?

What we are seeing is mainly people from English speaking Caribbean nations. No cubans, Dom Reps are running under 10 seconds.

Yet Brazil which has the largest number of black people outside of Nigeria has not produced any sub 10 runners, but has a production line of classy and skillful footballers. Columbia with its massive black population has none. Ditto Equador and Venezuela.

Well, it depends, do you consider Ndure Gambian or Norwegian ?
But then again it is true that most of the sub 10s sprinters come from English speaking nations even in Africa (Nigeria, Ghana...)
It is true that in the West Indies ,Anglo Caribbean are dominating the sprints but it has not always been the case ! The first Caribbean to ever run the 100m under 10s is a Cuban, Sylvio Leonard back in the 1970s. He still holds the Cuban record today. Up until the beginning of the 2000s, there were more sprinters born in Africa that has run under 10s than in the Caribbean. Then the Jamaicans came and haven't stopped since. Now we're used to see 3 Jamaicans in the male 100m final, but it hasn't always been the case. Up until Beijing, I don't think that there were more than one Jamaican in any Olympic final. I can't remember , by example, seeing any in Sidney 2000. Then you have the Brazil argument, which indeed question the validity of Michael Johnson argument. Even though Track is a minor sport there, why haven't they been more successful ? I gives a strong argument to the cultural cause...
BTW, you got most or your demonyms wrong...

Am I getting this right. Are we saying speaking English makes you run faster... I should have picked on a lot more non English speakers when I was younger! ;-)

Ironically, I would find the E African argument as more compelling. I am sure the highlands of Kenya and Ethiopia have cultivated fairly isolated communities who have "adapted" to their surroundings over many centuries. However, the dominance of E Africans doesn't just come from the highlands, although it is predominantly from there. Further, their "dominance" has been relatively short lived. Only 10-20yrs and there are signs others are catching up, as I pointed out with a US silver in the 10k.

But the slave argument is so badly thought out. Not only were slaves predominantly picked from a huge variety of W African tribes and cultures, it could be argued the "stronger" tribes were left behind as they were the ones gathering the slaves up i.e. the winners/strongest. Then you have the genetic mixing both during and the 200yrs since the end of slavery in the English speaking world and the Brazil exception and you don't have a coherent theory at all. Just people trying to score racial points by cherry picking an argument and painting an over simplified narrative. And we haven't even got onto the fact most Africans are from the West due to the Bantu migrations!

Happytravelling wrote:Ironically, I would find the E African argument as more compelling. I am sure the highlands of Kenya and Ethiopia have cultivated fairly isolated communities who have "adapted" to their surroundings over many centuries. However, the dominance of E Africans doesn't just come from the highlands, although it is predominantly from there. Further, their "dominance" has been relatively short lived. Only 10-20yrs and there are signs others are catching up, as I pointed out with a US silver in the 10k.

But the slave argument is so badly thought out. Not only were slaves predominantly picked from a huge variety of W African tribes and cultures, it could be argued the "stronger" tribes were left behind as they were the ones gathering the slaves up i.e. the winners/strongest. Then you have the genetic mixing both during and the 200yrs since the end of slavery in the English speaking world and the Brazil exception and you don't have a coherent theory at all. Just people trying to score racial points by cherry picking an argument and painting an over simplified narrative. And we haven't even got onto the fact most Africans are from the West due to the Bantu migrations!

To be honest, while I agree with you in most part, saying that most Sub-Saharan Africans come from the West because of the Bantu migrations is not exactly true. The Bantu expansion originated from present day Cameroon about 3000 years ago. And indeed, Cameroon is considered to be the limit between Bantu and non-Bantu speakers in Africa and is generally not put as a West African country (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa)but Central African. The fact that Bantu (which is a very broad term) languages are spoken from Cameroon to Central Africa to East Africa to South Africa but not in the countries that make present day West Africa makes this assumption debatable. But then again this is off-topic.

Can someone explain why Brazil which has 20 times the number of people of west african origin that all the caribbean Islands has not ever produced a world class sprinter? They are sports mad also. They can produce footballers like a production line.

Ditto Columbia and Venezuela. But Columbia and Venezuela can find bassball players who can throw a bullet fastball and can smack the ball into the atmosphere. But no sprinters. Also sports mad countries.

Dom Rep, ditto, Guadeloupe and Martinique, both parts of France but to my knowledge not one french runner (Poignon and Vicault) originating from there have broken 10 seconds.

Are they missing that fast gene? Is it only English speaking Americas that produce these fast gene running black men?

Happytravelling wrote:Ironically, I would find the E African argument as more compelling. I am sure the highlands of Kenya and Ethiopia have cultivated fairly isolated communities who have "adapted" to their surroundings over many centuries. However, the dominance of E Africans doesn't just come from the highlands, although it is predominantly from there. Further, their "dominance" has been relatively short lived. Only 10-20yrs and there are signs others are catching up, as I pointed out with a US silver in the 10k.

True - middle distance running in the 60s was largely dominated by New Zealand, until the rest of the world figured out coach Arthur Lydiard's base training techniques. When you consider that in recent times most of NZ's Olympic medals have come from the sitting-down sports (rowing, sailing, kayaking, equestrian and (partially sitting-down) triathlon) the turnaround has been massive.

Happytravelling wrote:
But the slave argument is so badly thought out. Not only were slaves predominantly picked from a huge variety of W African tribes and cultures, it could be argued the "stronger" tribes were left behind as they were the ones gathering the slaves up i.e. the winners/strongest. Then you have the genetic mixing both during and the 200yrs since the end of slavery in the English speaking world and the Brazil exception and you don't have a coherent theory at all. Just people trying to score racial points by cherry picking an argument and painting an over simplified narrative. And we haven't even got onto the fact most Africans are from the West due to the Bantu migrations!

True. Plus the whole "plantation breeding" theory assumes that the slaveowners actually knew what they were doing wrt genetics. And often the scum picked the most attractive female slaves for their own beds, then gave foremen their pick, etc ...

azania wrote:Can someone explain why Brazil which has 20 times the number of people of west african origin that all the caribbean Islands has not ever produced a world class sprinter? They are sports mad also. They can produce footballers like a production line.

Ditto Columbia and Venezuela. But Columbia and Venezuela can find bassball players who can throw a bullet fastball and can smack the ball into the atmosphere. But no sprinters. Also sports mad countries.

Dom Rep, ditto, Guadeloupe and Martinique, both parts of France but to my knowledge not one french runner (Poignon and Vicault) originating from there have broken 10 seconds.

Are they missing that fast gene? Is it only English speaking Americas that produce these fast gene running black men?

Good arguments about Latin speaking Americans which are even more numerous than their English speaking brethren and come from the same part of the World, yet have little success in this field of athletics (even though Pognon did actually run sub-10s and Vicaut just turned 20 this year).

I don't think Vicault or Poingnon originate from Guadeloupe or Martinique.

[quote="Babario"]

kingraf wrote:
As it has been said before , the majority of West African slaves ended up in Brazil,and as far as I know, Portuguese brought them there because they thought that Amerindians couldn't do the "job".

Latest research from examing grave yards in Brazil is that slaves came from all over Africa. Your theory that most West African slaves ended up in Brazil is questionable. It would be more logical to say (but not proven) that most came from former Portuguese colonies in South West and South East Africa.

Pognon was born in Martinique.

[quote="teassoc"]

Babario wrote:

kingraf wrote:
As it has been said before , the majority of West African slaves ended up in Brazil,and as far as I know, Portuguese brought them there because they thought that Amerindians couldn't do the "job".

Latest research from examing grave yards in Brazil is that slaves came from all over Africa. Your theory that most West African slaves ended up in Brazil is questionable. It would be more logical to say (but not proven) that most came from former Portuguese colonies in South West and South East Africa.

Getting slaves to the Americas from SE Africa would have been futile. Most of the slaves would have died getting to Luanda or whatever port was used. Most slaves in the Americas came from west coast africa. Most in east Africa went to the middle east.

[quote="azania"]

teassoc wrote:

Babario wrote:

kingraf wrote:
As it has been said before , the majority of West African slaves ended up in Brazil,and as far as I know, Portuguese brought them there because they thought that Amerindians couldn't do the "job".

Latest research from examing grave yards in Brazil is that slaves came from all over Africa. Your theory that most West African slaves ended up in Brazil is questionable. It would be more logical to say (but not proven) that most came from former Portuguese colonies in South West and South East Africa.

Getting slaves to the Americas from SE Africa would have been futile. Most of the slaves would have died getting to Luanda or whatever port was used. Most slaves in the Americas came from west coast africa. Most in east Africa went to the middle east.

Latest research doesn't support your statement. Slaves in Brazil came from all over Africa.

I hate to lower the tone of this disucssuion but does anyone else think Allyson Felix is hot?

I've started searching the net for countless images of her. I know it's not right.

No - she looks like a rat

Leryn Franco the Paraguay Javelin thrower is far better.

http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-07-26/the-15-hottest-female-olympians/

Babario - I appreciatemy comments were broad generalisaions and the "Bantu" migration is extremely contentious. Being 3,000 years ago from an illiterate culture, narrowing it down to Cameroon is over egging the point. I understood, the western region of Africa, south nigeria etc. was the best most historians would claim. Then the questions of assimillaiton or extermination comes into question.

Teassoc - Brazilian slave traders managed to get all the way to where Peru is (defining the country) through inpenetrable rain forest. It has been long thought that west coast slaving tribes managed to get slaves from as far as east africa. Your stat is questionable evidence that East africa was the "source". The cape was a significant barrier for much of the slave period. Few got across the atlantic let alone round the cape. They may have been gathered from the East but unlikely to have come from there. The vast majority came from the West. Portugal had slaving ports all along the West. And Brazil after it....

Sorry, I should have said, E Africans might have been gathered but not left from E Africa.

Happytravelling wrote:Teassoc - Brazilian slave traders managed to get all the way to where Peru is (defining the country) through inpenetrable rain forest. It has been long thought that west coast slaving tribes managed to get slaves from as far as east africa. Your stat is questionable evidence that East africa was the "source". The cape was a significant barrier for much of the slave period. Few got across the atlantic let alone round the cape. They may have been gathered from the East but unlikely to have come from there. The vast majority came from the West. Portugal had slaving ports all along the West. And Brazil after it....

What a horrible business this was.

However I didn't say the East was the source. All I said was that latest research (from digging up old graveyards) showed they came from all over Africa. This was refuting the claim made that Brazil's slaves originated from mainly West Africa.