Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
FA23

Is it wrong to note 100m winners are always black?

12 posts in this topic

Just saw this on the bbc website. discuss.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14679657

The conclusions that are drawn from black athletes dominating the 100m final go a long way to explaining attitudes in wider society, argues Matthew Syed.

_54957437_boltarms_getty.jpg

The 100m final at the World Athletics Championships this weekend will be won by a black athlete.

Every winner of the 100m since the inaugural event in 1983 has been black, as has every finalist from the last 10 championships with the solitary exception of Matic Osovnikar of Slovenia, who finished seventh in 2007.

Assuming that this success is driven by genes rather than environment, there is a rather obvious inference to make - black people are naturally better sprinters than white people. Indeed, it is an inference that seems obligatory, barring considerations of political correctness.

Logically flawed

But here's the thing. This inference is not merely false - it is logically flawed. And it has big implications not merely for athletics, but for the entire issue of race relations in the 21st Century.

To see how, let us examine success not in the sprints but in distance running, for this is also dominated by black athletes. Kenya has won an astonishing 63 medals at the Olympic Games in races of 800m and above, 21 of them gold, since 1968. Little wonder that one commentator once described distance running as "a Kenyan monopoly".

But it turns out that it is not Kenya as a whole that usually wins these medals, but individuals from a tiny region in the Rift Valley called Nandi. As one writer put it: "Most of Kenya's runners call Nandi home."

Florence Griffith-Joyner was hugely successful - but generalisations tell us little

Seen in this context, the notion that black people are naturally superior distance runners seems bizarre. Far from being a "black" phenomenon, or even a Kenyan phenomenon, distance running is actually a Nandi phenomenon. Or, to put it another way, "black" distance running success is focused on the tiniest of pinpricks on the map of Africa, with the vast majority of the continent underrepresented.

The same analysis applies to the sprints, where success is focused on Jamaicans and African-Americans. Africa, as a continent, has almost no success at all. Not even West Africans win much.

The combined forces of Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, the Republic of Guinea, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Togo, Niger, Benin, Mali, the Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Gabon, Senegal, Congo and Angola have not won a single sprinting medal at the Olympics or World Championships.

The fallacy, then, is simple. Just because some black people are good at something does not imply that black people in general will be good at it.

Labelled box

Imagine a similar argument using the Central African Bambuti, a black tribe more commonly known as Pygmies. With an average height of 4ft we could assert that the Bambuti are naturally better at walking under low doors. Would it be legitimate to extrapolate that black people in general have a natural advantage at walking under low doors?

Our tendency to generalise rests on a deeper fallacy - the idea that "black" refers to a genetic type. We put people of dark skin in a box labelled black and assume that a trait shared by some is shared by all.

The truth is rather different. There is far more genetic variation within racial groups (around 85%) than there is between racial groups (just 15%). Indeed, surface appearance is often a highly misleading way of assessing the genetic distance between populations.

“Our subconscious assumptions about race have more than merely sporting implications”

This evidence demonstrates how absurd it is to engage in racial generalisations - how crazy it is to witness a tiny group of black people winning at, say, the 10,000m and to infer that all people who share the same skin colour share an aptitude for 10,000m running.

But our subconscious assumptions about race have more than merely sporting implications.

Consider an experiment by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, two American economists. They drafted 5,000 CVs and placed archetypal "black" names such as Tyrone or Latoya on half of them and "white" names such as Brendan or Alison on the other half. They then divided the white CVs into high and low quality and did the same with the black CVs.

A few weeks later the offers came rolling in from employers, and guess what? The "black" candidates were 50% less likely to be invited to interview. Employers were using skin colour as a marker for employment potential, despite the fact that the candidates' CVs were identical.

But that's not all. The researchers also found that although high-quality "white" candidates were preferred to low-quality "white" candidates, the relative quality of "black" CVs made no difference whatsoever.

It was as if employers saw three categories - high-quality white, low-quality white and black candidates. To put it another way, the subliminal assumption that causes us to think that black people are all the same has powerful real-world consequences.

For many economists, this assumption, which gets under the radar of our conscious thought, explains why black people still lag behind white people in economic development more than four decades after the introduction of race-relations legislation.

Recognising that we have these biases is a good place to start in trying to combat them. And a good way of tracking progress is to watch a 100m final and see whether we fall into the trap, when seeing eight contestants with black skin, of inferring that black people are naturally better sprinters.

Matthew Syed is the author of Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stupidness tbh.

And to counteract the whole theres no sprinters in africa. There are its just nobody has invested in the training and nutrition out there. Athletics isnt a national sport that people aspire to. Just look at Harry A-A hes proof that someone with African (Ghanaian) genetics can make it to the top, same with guys like obikwelu. Obikwelu got spotted by a football scout at 14 and told he should try athletics. Imagine how much better he may have been if he'd been sprinting from earlier.

I have no doubt that if some top coaches opened sprinting clubs in africa and got the kids early. they would find people more than capable of winning medals. But because of how athletics works its not in their interests to do that unless they transport them to the UK/America half way through so they can claim them as their own.

I also think the other caribbean islands could produce more sprinters but there setups arent as good as Jamaica's and they have far less people

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^C/S

For some reason I knew the columnist was going to be Asian, their intellectuals always love to comment on race matters concerning black people.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew Syed yeah, snm.

C/s what M12 said though.

-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You lot should actually read his work, Matthew Syed's premise is that actually, black people's success in athletics has little to do with genetics & social conditioning.

Guys seeing his name is Syed & making assumptions on his stance.

:/

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

us black man that be stay we that winning

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in conclusion we should stop generalizing and stereotyping all black people and treat them as individuals. Tell me something new Brah.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

c/s most of the thread

syed is a g and is a former olympian i think

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as all of humankind descended from blacks, as a race they have the widest cross section of genome types. From Sprinters to Distance runners which are diametrically opposed physical disciplines which require completely different genetic make ups to excel in.

Whites, Asians and Orientals are all far narrower in their gene pool having descended from blacks anyway.

But tying it into some form of racial prejudice is a non-point. If a huge percentage of sprint champions, distance runners or even heavyweight boxing champions are black, then blacks are better at that discipline. The fact it is a certain genetic build from a certain region which is best suited to that discipline does not disprove the original point.

And I don't think anyone anywhere has ever said ALL blacks are good at sprinting.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes me realise how much of the world is populated by West African descendants

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0