Black Slaves Make better Athletes

[OMEGA]

According to Michail Johnson
He basically is commenting on genetic natural selection during enslavement, but of course the media wont really focus on that despite it being possibly true...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,7290180.story

[MattyH7688]

Just imagine if a white Michael Phelps said this.. he would lose all his sponsors, have Jesse Jackson protesting the pool, and it would make national news easily.

[Curt James]

Michael Johnson competing

[Curt James]

The First Take panel discuss former Olympian Michael Johnson's comments about receiving a genetic benefit from slavery.



Published on Jul 5, 2012 by ESPN

[Hydroshake]

not true imo. native africans have just as good genetics, they just don't have a reason or the resources to take their bodies to the elite athletic level.

[Curt James]

Michael Johnson Survival of the Fastest



Published on Jul 7, 2012 by loungezinger
A documentary examining the extreme athletic success of the descendants of afro-american and afro-caribean slaves. Michael Johnson stars and narrates.

[Curt James]

not true imo. native africans have just as good genetics, they just don't have a reason or the resources to take their bodies to the elite athletic level.

I agree.

The one ESPN reporter also commented that he believes it would be true of all African Americans, clearly not his experience.

[MattyH7688]

The First Take panel discuss former Olympian Michael Johnson's comments about receiving a genetic benefit from slavery.



Published on Jul 5, 2012 by ESPN

Very very ignorant statements from these guys.. Saying its solely hardwork is almost insulting, implying white people don't work as hard as black people. There is a reason in sports like running, football, basketball, etc.. even though blacks are a minority here, they make up a great majority in these leagues. I am not saying its from slavery, nor am I saying they don't work hard, but there is obviously something genetically in multiple african americans that does separate them in certain athletics. It comes down to genetics in MOST pro sports, yea the work needs to be put in there.. but I could KILL myself every single day for the rest of my life and I would NEVER run a 4.2 40 or have a 45inch vertical jump. We all knew kids in high school or college who didn't work hard at all, white or black, that absolutely dominated every thing they did. Genetics make up a MAJOR role in all pro sports, whether you are white, black, asian, etc..Anyone who bodybuilds knows this too.

[GDavis]

According to Michail Johnson
He basically is commenting on genetic natural selection during enslavement, but of course the media wont really focus on that despite it being possibly true...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/occurred/la-na-nn-michael-johnson-slave-descendants-make-better-athletes-20120705,0,7290180.story

This argument is not really viable. Slavery in North America occurred for a very short time period to expect long term genetic alterations. Their is a host of problems with this type of "scientiific/logical" thinking.

[ypmm5]

Very very ignorant statements from these guys.. Saying its solely hardwork is almost insulting, implying white people don't work as hard as black people. There is a reason in sports like running, football, basketball, etc.. even though blacks are a minority here, they make up a great majority in these leagues. I am not saying its from slavery, nor am I saying they don't work hard, but there is obviously something genetically in multiple african americans that does separate them in certain athletics. It comes down to genetics in MOST pro sports, yea the work needs to be put in there.. but I could KILL myself every single day for the rest of my life and I would NEVER run a 4.2 40 or have a 45inch vertical jump. We all knew kids in high school or college who didn't work hard at all, white or black, that absolutely dominated every thing they did. Genetics make up a MAJOR role in all pro sports, whether you are white, black, asian, etc..Anyone who bodybuilds knows this too.

Well said. I'm Black and agree. I can train my calves off and I'll never have calves like Vince Taylor, Chris Dickerson, Mike Matarazo, Dorian Yates, etc. because their genetics. The same goes if an Anglo Male does not have that genetic blue print. Micheal Johnson had some valid points. I think it is his chosen words and phrase that is causing the controversy. I would not like to ever thing any form of slavery as anything positive.

[Waylon]

"White Women Make better Sandwiches"

[CDJack]

This argument is not really viable. Slavery in North America occurred for a very short time period to expect long term genetic alterations. Their is a host of problems with this type of "scientiific/logical" thinking.

Actually, the argument is very viable. I did a paper on this subject in college and spent quite a long time and effort researching this subject. Here are some snippets from the paper that I think may be helpful. I have removed references but can provide them upon request.

"In the studies he cited, blacks were found to be superior for power and speed for a variety of reasons, some of which included longer arms and legs, narrower hips, wider bones, and lower body fat percentages. Some studies even show that black men have higher levels of testosterone than white men. Kane also cited a number of studies that showed black children and boys outperformed whites on a variety of speed, agility, and strength tests. His basic conclusion was that African-Americans’ bodies are better designed for sports requiring short and powerful bursts of speed and energy because of a better power-to-weight ratio."


"According to Snyder and other supporters of this theory, the extremely harsh conditions of the slave trade and slavery in general, combined with selective breeding for big and strong slaves, could very well have caused evolution to occur at an extraordinarily rapid pace through a bottleneck effect. Snyder claimed that this breeding resulted in blacks today having bigger thighs, and thus an advantage is athletics. Strangely enough, he also said white athletes were lazy and practiced less than blacks, which is not quite consistent with any genetic argument. This so called “breeder theory” was articulated quite well in 1939 by a black anthropologist named William Montagne Cobb. According to Cobb, “No other group of Americans in such large numbers has had to pass such rigorous tests of survival as has the Negro. From this standpoint he is the most highly selected stock in America... physically strong, showing great endurance at strenuous labor under severe climactic and nutritional hardships and producing a disproportionately large number of champions in representative fields of athletics.”


"Based on the findings of this paper, it seems that the mystique of the genetically superior black athlete, whether it’s true or not, is channeling a disproportionate number of black youth into athletics and away from other pursuits where the probability of success greater. The effects seem to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which the black athlete is much more vulnerable to committing himself to a self few sports and closing doors to other more reasonable opportunities."

[Johnny Bravo]

not true imo. native africans have just as good genetics, they just don't have a reason or the resources to take their bodies to the elite athletic level.

Exactly, genetics takes alot longer to alter than a few hundred years.
What an idiot.

[Matt Meinrod]

I'm not a genius on genetics, but if I'm 6'6'' and have kids with a woman who's 5'11''...our kid likely going to be tall. If that tall kid breeds with another tall person their kid is going to be tall (if not taller). This is taking place in a time span of 25-40 years. I don't see why it's far fetched to think in 200-400 years of slavery that it can't be done.

[CDJack]

Exactly, genetics takes alot longer to alter than a few hundred years.
What an idiot.

Actually, no they don't. That's very myopic, as you are only thinking about evolution by natural selection. However, if you read more into Darwinian evolution, there are plenty of examples of very rapid divergent evolution due to a number of different potential forces, i.e. selective breeding, natural disasters, and other bottlenecking events. Slavery existed for around 200 years in the United States, which could have been anywhere from 3-5 "generations" of people. Though it isn't a massive effect, it very well could be enough to give a statistically significant physical advantage to current day blacks who are descendants of slaves (who obviously survived to reproduce for one reason or another--maybe because of physical ability, maybe because they were smart).

[CDJack]

I'm not a genius on genetics, but if I'm 6'6'' and have kids with a woman who's 5'11''...our kid likely going to be tall. If that tall kid breeds with another tall person their kid is going to be tall (if not taller). This is taking place in a time span of 25-40 years. I don't see why it's far fetched to think in 200-400 years of slavery that it can't be done.

This is CORRECT. Because you example is basically selectively breeding for height. So yes, it can happen in only a few generations. Obviously, the more generations you breed for, the stronger the effect would be.

Let me be clear though, the issue of blacks in sports is very very very complex. Yes, there very well may be a genetic predisposition, though these is no 100% proof of this, just a number of studies that strongly suggest it plays a role, but there's also social factors at play here that build upon and compound any genetic factors. Even if there weren't genetic factors, if people believe they exist, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, with young black men and women disproportionately pursuing sports that they believe they would excel at due to their strength and speed. THis is why we see black people pursuing sports like track and field, basketball, football, etc. They also pursue certain sports because they are easier to play if, let's say, you don't have a lot of money (running and basketball can be done anywhere without really any money).

[LSMUSCL81a]

actually had a dicussion like this with some co-workers a while ago....i think its true to an extent..slaves were bought, sold and traded like cattle..those that apeared weak were disposed of while the more pysically able were put to work until they became useless and were disposed of, there would have to be some kind of trickle down effect imo...and now are the times its surfacing i believe

[Baldiewonkanobi]

Jimmy the Greek was fired from the media decades ago for stating slave owners "bred" the stongest men and women African slaves to procuce superior slaves resulting in the amazing athletes we have today. Conventional wisdom at that time also prevailed that "House Negros" were chosen to work inside the Masters home based on a more European body and facial structure. Their proximity resulted in mixed race off spring with skin color and facial/bone features not seen on the African continent except for around Ethiopia and Somalia where Alexanders army impregnated the population.

Baldie

[Ryan Bracewell]

Great athletes are both born and made. You will never be an elite athlete if you don't have the genetics AND work ethic. To ignore the genetic factor, and ignore the fact that white slave owners purposely breed their slaves to create "super slaves" is ignorant. They breed their slaves just like they do prize winning pig or bulls. Anyone that tries to deny this is either ignorant to how genetics work or is simply to chicken shit to speak their mind.

[BigJD69]

Just imagine if a white Michael Phelps said this.. he would lose all his sponsors, have Jesse Jackson protesting the pool, and it would make national news easily.

So true but sad. This day in age a white man making those statements would be considered a racist, like Baldie mentioned Jimmy the Greek was fired for this basic point. I TOTALLY AGREE with Michael Johnson coming out and making these statements; IMO it is fact. I have American Indian heritage on my side of the family and my wife's side. My son played his first season of Lacrosse this year. His coach played @ Cornell and said that he couldn't believe this was his first year because he was so good. Is this a coincidence or does the fact that he has American Indian bloodline on both sides of the family come into play???

[LookImDancinCrazy!]

Exactly, genetics takes alot longer to alter than a few hundred years.
What an idiot.

that would be about 4 human generations given the life span of the indviduals being selectively bred. Animal husbandry has proven that's definitely sufficient time to successsfully select for desirable physical traits.

[GDavis]

Actually, the argument is very viable. I did a paper on this subject in college and spent quite a long time and effort researching this subject. Here are some snippets from the paper that I think may be helpful. I have removed references but can provide them upon request.

"In the studies he cited, blacks were found to be superior for power and speed for a variety of reasons, some of which included longer arms and legs, narrower hips, wider bones, and lower body fat percentages. Some studies even show that black men have higher levels of testosterone than white men. Kane also cited a number of studies that showed black children and boys outperformed whites on a variety of speed, agility, and strength tests. His basic conclusion was that African-Americans’ bodies are better designed for sports requiring short and powerful bursts of speed and energy because of a better power-to-weight ratio."


"According to Snyder and other supporters of this theory, the extremely harsh conditions of the slave trade and slavery in general, combined with selective breeding for big and strong slaves, could very well have caused evolution to occur at an extraordinarily rapid pace through a bottleneck effect. Snyder claimed that this breeding resulted in blacks today having bigger thighs, and thus an advantage is athletics. Strangely enough, he also said white athletes were lazy and practiced less than blacks, which is not quite consistent with any genetic argument. This so called “breeder theory” was articulated quite well in 1939 by a black anthropologist named William Montagne Cobb. According to Cobb, “No other group of Americans in such large numbers has had to pass such rigorous tests of survival as has the Negro. From this standpoint he is the most highly selected stock in America... physically strong, showing great endurance at strenuous labor under severe climactic and nutritional hardships and producing a disproportionately large number of champions in representative fields of athletics.”


"Based on the findings of this paper, it seems that the mystique of the genetically superior black athlete, whether it’s true or not, is channeling a disproportionate number of black youth into athletics and away from other pursuits where the probability of success greater. The effects seem to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which the black athlete is much more vulnerable to committing himself to a self few sports and closing doors to other more reasonable opportunities."

I enjoyed reading your post in this thread. I the intellectual diversity you bring to the thread. However I have some problems with the way the argument has been framed and presented. Much of it is rooted simply in logic. I have a lot of problems with the Snyder case study that you cite. Now with that side I have not looked at the abstract or footnotes, I am only responding to what you have posted. What did his control group look like? How did he determine what "white" and "black" is? Is this study conclusive based on race or on predisposed skill-sets or natural abilities of the particular children. I taken concern with these types of "racial" studies. I have some problems with this "slave breeding" as you and other posters refer to never happened on a wide enough scale and for a long enough time to have this widespread and long lasting effect. "Slave breeding" as you are referring to did not become more common till the banning of Atlantic Slave trade and slave prices skyrocketing 1807-1820. You talking essentially a 50 year period. In addition, as I am sure you are aware many (most) Africans of this time period were captured by the larger and more aggressive Ashanti tribes, most slaves in America came from weaker and non violent tribes such as the Yoruba and were simply "traded" for guns. In addition any "benefits" of this bottlenecking effect of 50 or so years would have been negated over the next 160 years. As I am sure you are aware many African Americans have more mixed blood lines as a result of the master plying his trade, which occurred through the length of slavery and was widespread as I am sure you are aware. I am not sure how his theory fits in with the fact that obesity and diabetes in the African American community far outpaces their white counterparts.

[machine]

Great athletes are both born and made. You will never be an elite athlete if you don't have the genetics AND work ethic. To ignore the genetic factor, and ignore the fact that white slave owners purposely breed their slaves to create "super slaves" is ignorant. They breed their slaves just like they do prize winning pig or bulls. Anyone that tries to deny this is either ignorant to how genetics work or is simply to chicken shit to speak their mind.

Exactly Ryan, well said. The first time i ever heard this mentioned was from my High school teacher, who also happened to be black. He basically said, you breed the biggest and strongest for a generation or two and you end up with superheros lol

[CDJack]

I don't want to get into a long discussion, but you make good points. If you or anyone else in this thread want me to email you the full paper (it's almost 20 pages long--it was my term paper), I'd be happy to send it over, just post your email or PM it to me. It gives a much more complete picture than these snippets I pasted.

I enjoyed reading your post in this thread. I the intellectual diversity you bring to the thread. However I have some problems with the way the argument has been framed and presented. Much of it is rooted simply in logic. I have a lot of problems with the Snyder case study that you cite. Now with that side I have not looked at the abstract or footnotes, I am only responding to what you have posted. What did his control group look like? How did he determine what "white" and "black" is? Is this study conclusive based on race or on predisposed skill-sets or natural abilities of the particular children. I taken concern with these types of "racial" studies. I have some problems with this "slave breeding" as you and other posters refer to never happened on a wide enough scale and for a long enough time to have this widespread and long lasting effect. "Slave breeding" as you are referring to did not become more common till the banning of Atlantic Slave trade and slave prices skyrocketing 1807-1820. You talking essentially a 50 year period. In addition, as I am sure you are aware many (most) Africans of this time period were captured by the larger and more aggressive Ashanti tribes, most slaves in America came from weaker and non violent tribes such as the Yoruba and were simply "traded" for guns. In addition any "benefits" of this bottlenecking effect of 50 or so years would have been negated over the next 160 years. As I am sure you are aware many African Americans have more mixed blood lines as a result of the master plying his trade, which occurred through the length of slavery and was widespread as I am sure you are aware. I am not sure how his theory fits in with the fact that obesity and diabetes in the African American community far outpaces their white counterparts.

[Perplexed]

Exactly, genetics takes alot longer to alter than a few hundred years.
What an idiot.

You should really avoid stating your opinion as fact and calling people an idiot when you're wrong. Perhaps you're confusing natural selection with selective breeding?

To put it in more simple terms that you might actually understand, take a Labrador and breed it with a Poodle, then breed that offspring with another Poodle, then once more. That grandchild doesn't look much like a Lab, does it?

Now take all your strongest, most athletic slaves and kill off all the weakest. Those that were too weak to survive the journey over from Africa are dead anyway. Only breed those. Do you expect their descendants to be stronger or weaker on average compared with the original population?

[nsp]

not true imo. native africans have just as good genetics, they just don't have a reason or the resources to take their bodies to the elite athletic level.

Yep, same as for hattians. Not so sure though about how much of an influence the "super breeding" that happened generations ago would have on today's day in age. Seems to me that it would be negligible.

[Curt James]

Slavery existed for around 200 years in the United States, which could have been anywhere from 3-5 "generations" of people. Though it isn't a massive effect, it very well could be enough to give a statistically significant physical advantage to current day blacks who are descendants of slaves (who obviously survived to reproduce for one reason or another--maybe because of physical ability, maybe because they were smart).

That would explain or answer the one newscaster's sarcastic comment -- "Where did we go wrong? Like, we are sitting here right now, sitting across this table talking about it, when we have a super gene that would allow us to go out right now and beat everybody running."

Whatever "super gene" wouldn't necessarily display in strength or speed. Or not all descendants survived due to better or superior genes at all. I suspect some people survive life by sheer luck.

Fwiw, I don't believe Michael Johnson is dismissing his dedication and hard work.

Any comments related to slavery will seem controversial to many. There's a concern - and rightfully so - that people will be viewed as racist. :-(

[Curt James]

I am not sure how his theory fits in with the fact that obesity and diabetes in the African American community far outpaces their white counterparts.

Probably for a similar reason whites don't display sickle cell trait anywhere near the levels of other races.

Sickle cell trait occurs in approximately 1 in 12 African Americans; 1 in 1400 Hispanics, and nearly 1 in 100,000 Whites.

For the record, I'm no scientist and I'm definitely not calling anyone an idiot.

[LookImDancinCrazy!]

You should really avoid stating your opinion as fact and calling people an idiot when you're wrong. Perhaps you're confusing natural selection with selective breeding?

I think someone already said this.

[GDavis]

Probably for a similar reason whites don't display sickle cell trait anywhere near the levels of other races.

Sickle cell trait occurs in approximately 1 in 12 African Americans; 1 in 1400 Hispanics, and nearly 1 in 100,000 Whites.

For the record, I'm no scientist and I'm definitely not calling anyone an idiot.

I am not following you Curt. Wasn't the original argument was about the African American population having superior genetics? The point of my post on this thread was nothing more than to point that their are a host of problems/factors that make it a difficult claim to prove.

[Curt James]

I am not following you Curt.

You're a wise man. lol

Wasn't the original argument was about the African American population having superior genetics?

Michael Johnson has been quoted as saying he believes slave descendants make superior athletes.

His quote:

"All my life I believed I became an athlete through my own determination, but it's impossible to think that being descended from slaves hasn't left an imprint through the generations. Difficult as it was to hear, slavery has benefited descendants like me -- I believe there is a superior athletic gene in us."

The point of my post on this thread was nothing more than to point that their are a host of problems/factors that make it a difficult claim to prove.

I agree. There are. I was simply commenting on that one piece of your post -- "I am not sure how his theory fits in with the fact that obesity and diabetes in the African American community far outpaces their white counterparts."

Wasn't disagreeing with you. It's interesting to consider what advantages and disadvantages people possess and why.

Like Ryan Bracewell said, "Great athletes are both born and made. You will never be an elite athlete if you don't have the genetics AND work ethic."

[GDavis]

Could not agree more Curt. I guess I still wont follow you but I will look for your tracks on the path as a good indicator.

[Aditya]

not true imo. native africans have just as good genetics, they just don't have a reason or the resources to take their bodies to the elite athletic level.

but black american athletes destroys any non-slave history african decendant athlete.
this considering that top level national athletes all have equal drive and resources

This argument is not really viable. Slavery in North America occurred for a very short time period to expect long term genetic alterations. Their is a host of problems with this type of "scientiific/logical" thinking.

there are no genetic alterations.
americans just have better gene pool as a result of slave picking.

[s2h]

So true but sad. This day in age a white man making those statements would be considered a racist, like Baldie mentioned Jimmy the Greek was fired for this basic point. I TOTALLY AGREE with Michael Johnson coming out and making these statements; IMO it is fact. I have American Indian heritage on my side of the family and my wife's side. My son played his first season of Lacrosse this year. His coach played @ Cornell and said that he couldn't believe this was his first year because he was so good. Is this a coincidence or does the fact that he has American Indian bloodline on both sides of the family come into play???

what does being american indian.have to do with lacrosse??...im being serious....im curious since im not famaliar with the.connection??

[s2h]

Im german....my wife is jewish.......our kids drink cheap beer....gotta he genetics...

[CDJack]

but black american athletes destroys any non-slave history african decendant athlete.
this considering that top level national athletes all have equal drive and resources


there are no genetic alterations.
americans just have better gene pool as a result of slave picking.

In your first point, i think you are referring to west african vs. other areas of africa (east african for example). Most slaves came from west africa.

And of course there were genetic alterations. That's what was selected for (whether naturally or by purposeful selection). Those slaves from West Africa who had genetic variations that benefitted them physically were more likely to survive. You are thinking too "Hollywood"...like a genetic variation must be the result of some obvious mutation. That is usually not how evolution works. Yes, sometimes an extreme genetic mutation occcurs that is selected for or against, but usually it is just small genetic differences that become amplified over time. Your use of the phrase "genetic alteration" has no real scientific meaning.

Lastly, people in this thread seem to be making the point very strongly that blacks were bred for traits by slaveowners. Someone else stated this, but I want to confirm it--this was not very common, and it didn't happen over many years. It's much more likely that the physical traits were selected for by accident, out of the nature of the conditions...although not in all cases.

[OMEGA]

do I not make the best threads?

[D_T]

Stupidest.thread.ever. Nothing posted has shown the physical advantage was developed during slavery. Not to mention many of today's black athletes come from families that emigrated from Africa in the last 30 years and were never enslaved.

[OMEGA]

Stupidest.thread.ever. Nothing posted has shown the physical advantage was developed during slavery. Not to mention many of today's black athletes come from families that emigrated from Africa in the last 30 years and were never enslaved.

I think its important that we do more research and realize that there is possibly a narrow subset of Blaques that DO qualify under the statements that MJ made. There is NO doubt UN-natural selection by humans in Dog populations can literally create a NEW breed with Unique traits in a handful of Generations........the same could have happened to some of the older generations of Blaques in the country via generations of Enslavement.

To say it could not happen is simply false...........we need to narrow the range is all of WHOM we are speaking of in the analysis

I am the Darth Vader of Logic

[MattyH7688]

Stupidest.thread.ever. Nothing posted has shown the physical advantage was developed during slavery. Not to mention many of today's black athletes come from families that emigrated from Africa in the last 30 years and were never enslaved.

LOL what top athletes had their families come here 30 years ago?????

[lilarnold]

guess he doesnt watch swimming, or gymnastics...or soccer...etc, etc......