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

Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia and vast swathes of Latin America were denuded of their population even before the transatlantic slave trade was instituted to fill the gap. In Potosi silver mine alone the estimated death toll starts at 8million, predominantly latin american, later African.... Sadly Africa, in particular, has a long history of slavery. Althought the transatlantic slave trade provides some of the more extreme horror stories, the majority of it had nothing to do with the transatlantic slave trade. The Hausa, Ashanti etc utilised slaves extensively. Malinese boys are still enslaved to pick cocoa etc. So, the chocolate you eat is possibly produced by slavery. Anyway, I digress.

I still think you'll find the majority of slaves were from the West of Africa, if for no other reason than logistics.

I found this beautifully detailed account of the transatlantic slave trade but unfortunately no reference to the data except the name of the blogger:

"The Atlantic slave trade, also known as the transatlantic slave trade, was the trade of African people supplied to the colonies of the "New World" that occurred in and around the Atlantic Ocean. It lasted from the 16th century to the 19th century. Most slaves were shipped from West Africa and Central Africa and taken to the New World (primarily Brazil. Generally slaves were obtained through coastal trading with Africans, though some were captured by European slave traders through raids and kidnapping. Most contemporary historians estimate that between 9.4 and 12 million[Africans arrived in the New World, although the number of people taken from their homestead is considerably higher. The slave-trade is sometimes called the Maafa by African and African-American scholars, meaning "holocaust" or "great disaster" in Swahili. The slaves were one element of a three-part economic cycle—the Triangular Trade and its Middle Passage—which ultimately involved four continents, four centuries and millions of people.

African slaves arrived in the Americas from the following regions in the following proportions
* Senegambia (Senegal and The Gambia): 4.8%
* Upper Guinea (Guinea-Bissau, Guinea and Sierra Leone): 4.1%
* Windward Coast (Liberia and Cote d' Ivoire): 1.8%
* Gold Coast (Ghana): 10.4%
* Bight of Benin (Togo, Benin and Nigeria west of the Niger Delta): 20.2%
* Bight of Biafra (Nigeria east of the Niger Delta, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon): 14.6%
* West Central Africa (Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola): 39.4%
* Southeastern Africa (Mozambique and Madagascar): 4.7%

29 nation states by country that actively or passively participated in the Atlantic Slave Trade:
* Senegal: Denanke Kingdom, Kingdom of Fouta Tooro, Jolof Empire, Kingdom of Khasso and Kingdom of Saalum
* Guinea-Bissau: Kaabu Empire
* Guinea: Kingdom of Fouta Djallon
* Sierra Leone: Koya Temne
* Cote d'Ivoire: Kong Empire and Gyaaman Kingdom
* Ghana: Asante Confederacy and Mankessim Kingdom
* Benin: Kingdom of Dahomey
* Nigeria: Oyo Empire, Benin Empire and Aro Confederacy
* Cameroon: Bamun and Mandara Kingdom
* Gabon: Kingdom of Orungu
* Republic of Congo: Kingdom of Loango and Kingdom of Tio
* Angola: Kingdom of Kongo, Kingdom of Ndongo and Matamba

Over 45 distinct ethnic groups were taken to the Americas during the trade. Of the 45, the ten most prominent according to slave documentation of the era are listed below.
1. The Gbe speakers of Togo, Ghana and Benin (Adja, Mina, Ewe, Fon)
2. The Akan of Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire
3. The Mbundu of Angola (includes Ovimbundu)
4. The BaKongo of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola
5. The Igbo of Nigeria
6. The Yoruba of Nigeria
7. The Mandé speakers of Upper Guinea
8. The Wolof of Senegal
9. The Chamba of Cameroon
10. The Makua of Mozambique"

Its also worth pointing out that it is estimated ~1million Europeans were captured for slavery and shipped to (N) Africa. The entire town/village of Baltimore, Ireland was taken.....

Sorry to post even more but I was scouring the internet and found this:

"Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more"

Not sure how substantiated that stat is, but if true puts another texture on the debate.

Just a question, how are those (unsourced) posts related to the topic ? Looks like you also have a political agenda like those who agree with Michael Johnson .

Do you have a political agenda to deny them? Surely, if they are wrong, contest them and not give a subjective rebuttal?

Michael Johnson's entire point was about selective breeding of West Coast Africans. Argument was made that they weren't all W Coast. The main post dealt with that. It provided their source, in some detail. Showing, the majority were from the W.

Somebody also said how terrible the slave trade was. It is pertinent to point out that 10's of millions of latin american's died in slavery in Latin America and that African's suffered in Africa, not just it was a transatlantic industry. Even more pertinent to point out slavery exists in Africa and SE Asia today.

The last couple of posts, as acknowledged, was just for interest.

P.S I did find the source of the main post. It was an african slavery database but can't remember the name. I saw the stats quoted on a Uni website.

Nothing on here has proven the essential point that most of Brazil's slaves came from West Coast tribes. Latest research that I quoted earlier shows the opposite.

teassoc - sorry, the main article above was a global statistic and it showed only 4.7% came from the East. I assume you're saying that although they came from the W doesn't mean that is where they originated? I did find a number of articles that answered where US slaves came from. They all concluded predominantly the W of Africa. As, indeed, MJ showed he was. I understand the stats above were derived from slave logs etc. and will apply to Brazil as well as the US. I can't think why slave traders would have deliberately selected W Africans to go to the US and E Africans to Brazil.

I have not seen your latest research as you have just paraphrased it. But, unless it has been rigourous and undertaken a full survey it could have just been selective.

Sorry, the comments about world slavery were for you as you said what a terrible trade it was. I thought it worth highlighting the plight of indiginous Latin Americans and current African's and SE Asians as they are forgotten in debates because they are largely still impoverished.

teassoc wrote:

azania wrote:Not really EO. Many slaves in Brazil came from all over west africa also. A main slave port sending slaves to Brazil left from Equatorial Guinea and Guinea Bissau which are west african nations.

Interesting reading on this subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/20/rio-cemetery-of-the-new-blacks-brazil

Reports that slaves in Brazil came from all over Africa.

We certainly have a shameful history.

Happytravelling this was my earlier contribution.

The further information you shared on other victims makes further shameful reading.

Happytravelling wrote:Do you have a political agenda to deny them? Surely, if they are wrong, contest them and not give a subjective rebuttal?

Michael Johnson's entire point was about selective breeding of West Coast Africans. Argument was made that they weren't all W Coast. The main post dealt with that. It provided their source, in some detail. Showing, the majority were from the W.

Somebody also said how terrible the slave trade was. It is pertinent to point out that 10's of millions of latin american's died in slavery in Latin America and that African's suffered in Africa, not just it was a transatlantic industry. Even more pertinent to point out slavery exists in Africa and SE Asia today.

The last couple of posts, as acknowledged, was just for interest.

P.S I did find the source of the main post. It was an african slavery database but can't remember the name. I saw the stats quoted on a Uni website.

Contesting what ? Unsourced data from an anonymous forumer ? You're aware that these kind of arguments often lead to trolls and never-ending threads (BTW, I was especially speaking about the last couple of posts , not that I'm contesting them , but when one puts off-topic(ish) quotes,it is always better to "source" them ).

So, what haven't Brazil, Columbia, Equador, Venezuela, Uruguay and Chile produced any super fast sprinters? Add Surinam, Guyana and French Guyana?

Not enough yams or chicken nuggets in their diets or is sprinting not really part of their sporting culture.

Many of those countries can find super fast bassball pitchers though.

azania wrote:So, what haven't Brazil, Columbia, Equador, Venezuela, Uruguay and Chile produced any super fast sprinters? Add Surinam, Guyana and French Guyana?

Not enough yams or chicken nuggets in their diets or is sprinting not really part of their sporting culture.

Many of those countries can find super fast bassball pitchers though.

Michael Johnson's theory probably only works if the bulk of slaves originating from West Africa went to the carribean and North America. Some logic in that as England and France were the major colonial powers in both those parts of the World, whilst Portugal and Spain were not.

Your other reference I assume is to baseball? The pitchers you refer to are mainly from the carribean countries (notably Cuba, Dominican Republic and Venezuela). Not many I suspect from Brazil and other parts of South America, where football is King.

Portugal and Spain were major slave traders. The Portuguese built Elmina Castle in Ghana. Spain also were major slavers and transported millions out of west africa. Just because GB became the colonial masters doesn't mean the others weren't involved in a major way. Probably the Portuguese were bigger slavers than the Brits.

Your second paragraph makes my point. I was referring to baseball. It is the national sport in those countries. Similarly sprinting is the national sport in Jamaica. I don't see many great pitchers from Jamaica or the other English speaking Caribbean nations.

Are you simply trying to prove that culture in a sport is an important factor in a countries success?

I don't think anyone has ever argued the opposite, but if it makes you feel better.

Of your list, by the way, only Venezuela has any history in baseball.

What I am saying is that it is nurture and not nature.

In Dom Rep and Cuba, baseball is the main sport. Diamonds are everywhere in both countries.

You didn't mention Dom Rep or Cuba though, you stated that many of the countries you mentioned produced great baseball players when in fact there is only one.

I know what you're saying but that doesn't explain the fact that Afro-Carribbean sprinters dominate the rankings in nations with only small Afro-Carribbean populations. Huge athletics culture in Germany - no sub 10.

Your only explanation for this is the superior work ethic of black people and the fact that white people don't believe in themselves. Crazy.

Nit picking again I see.

Not just Caribbean sprinters, but in particular Jamaican and American sprinters. Man "Afro" Caribbean sprinters in other caribbean countries who do not have a culture of sprinting do didly squat.

As for the work ethic.I defer to Lemaitre and his trainer who said that possibly many white sprinters think like you do and will therefore always fail.

You call it crazy yet believe a crazy theory which would not be out of place in 1930s Germany. I wonder who is the crazy one. Lemaitre and his trainer or you?

An inferiority complex doesn't explain the lack of great sprinters from Germany.

It's pretty insulting to be honest.

Your obsession with 'getting one over on white people' makes you impossible to talk to on this discussion. You have severe problems.

Hahaha. Are you directing it at me or also Lemaitre and his coach? They saud exactly what I said.

What I find insulting is the neo nazi ideology propagated here and by Johnson.

As for the "getting one over on white people" again it was said by a Jamaican kid on the programme Johnson made. I was simply repeating what is a common thought. Thankfully the kid backed me up also.

Severe problems. Get help.

Oh dear dj. I said a few things prior to the programme which were confirmed by people on the programme. I said that in many cases black athletes love beating white athletes because of the old issues. A kid on the programme said exactly that.

I also said that perhaps white athletes have issues because they believe that black athletes have a genetic advantage and as such are at a disadvantage. Lemaitre and his coach said exactly the same thing.

You have not addressed that point yet still bang the same drum relentlessely (whilst throwing the odd insult in). You have totally ignored the issue of a massive sporting nation live Brazil who have hardly produced any sprinters who have broken 10 seconds. But focus on Jamaica, whose national sport is sprinting. You have failed miserably to note that differing Caribbean nations tend to excell at different sports according to their culture and sporting heritage.

100m blacks in Brazil. For argument's sake lets assume 20% are of west african heritage. That's 20m. Yet none have broken 10s. That fast twitch must have passed them by it seems.

Cuba, Dom Rep. Both with bigger populations haven't produced sprinters of note.

Must be that speaking English makes you run faster then given that the spanish speaking caribbean nations haven't produced anything. Or is it eating chicken nuggets, yams, dashin, green banana and ackee and saltfish?

Is this still going? I am reminded of a quote from a (IMO great, and I don't use that word often) movie about an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

I do want to clarify the following:

azania wrote:What I am saying is that it is nurture and not nature.

Are you arguing the Matt Syed line, i.e. (to summarise and oversimplify) that everyone is born with the same natural ability and can become a world leader if only they put in this 100,000 hours of practice?

If so, then fair enough, but I respectfully disagree.

I don't think its as simple as Syed claims, but he is on the right path imo. There are people who will be naturally faster than others. The issue here is whether people from West Africa or west african heritage have a genetic propensity to run faster more so than others?

I do not support that theory. As Powell has proven time and time again; sprinting is almost as much mental as it is physical when you reach a certain level. Believing that you are at a disadvantage and in particularly in an area you cannot train in, you will be psychologically damaged compared to your opponent who may believe that he has a genetic advantage.

Regardless of who supports the fast track evoluton theory, I reckon it is neo nazi like and plain wrong.

The irony is that if a white person had said what Johnson supports, there would be uproar. Just because a black person says so doesn't make it better.

Hard work and the right mentality is what makes a fast runner faster.

while the Powell example is interesting, it also needs to be remembered that while he's never performed to his best in finals, he's still been running around 9.9 in them (dating back to Athens in 04 basically) which until very recently was quite a bit quicker than a "white" man had ever run. So yes, there is a large amount of "mental" in sprinting, but equally you can't do it without the "physical" predisposition (as Az says, "there are people who will naturally be faster than others").

I tend myself personally to side with the "a bit of both" side of things: I believe there are genes that make people pre-disposed to running faster, and that those genes are more common in people of West African origin or heritage (there's reasonable research backing this) but equally that those genes are quite common in "white" people too. However, for cultural reasons (and because of what history seems to show) these people tend not to go into running so much.

Mike, the whole "unstoppable force vs immovable object" probably has its roots in an old Greek myth where an animal whose prey never escaped him was chasing one who could never be caught. Zeus tended turning both of them to stone, which is rather what I'd like to do at times here

"but equally that those genes are quite common in "white" people too. However, for cultural reasons (and because of what history seems to show) these people tend not to go into running so much."

It doesn't make any sense though. You just have to look down the rankings for the UK over the last 25 years to see that they are skewed heavily in favour of black athletes despite the relatively tiny population and the fact that far far more white kids go into sprinting than black kids in this country.

Black kids are equally likely to go into football as white kids (which is the major talent sink in this country), so it's not as if all the talented black kids run and white kids choose other sports.

I need the reasons for this explained to me without resorting to the whole 'every white sprinter in history besides Lemaitre was mentally weak' rubbish.

Azania, thank you for clarifying your position.

I haven't got anything sensible to add beyond what I said at the start, so won't repeat myself. We are merely going over ground which is no so much well-trodden, but trampled, dug up, and now needs relaying.

I'd be interested in some figures to back up "far far more white kids go into sprinting than black kids in this country" if you have them. I had always felt that this was far from the truth (certainly in France - where I live - I believe it isn't the case, white kids go more in for tennis, swimming, judo, possibly rugby, etc.)

Not a snipe, genuine interest that may force me to revise my position.

dj
Pretty sure no-one ever accused Alan Wells or Valeriy Borzov as mentally weak.

For me, the fact that the Soviets and East Germans didn't manage to find a sub 10.0s sprinter despite the abundance of PEDs they were prepared to force-feed their athletes does seem to support the idea that there is a (maybe slight) physiological / genetic advantage in the west African / Afro-Carribean population with regard to the absolute fastest sprinters.

I was less persuaded by the suggestion that slavery and 'survival of the fittest' in that context played a significant part - while there appeared at first sight to be some logic in that only the strongest would survive the journey from Africa to America, it is more likely that the survivors were those who were more resistant to disease (especially those diseases that affected Europeans but were unknown in Africa at the time) than the physically strongest, and once in America it seems unlikely there was much thought given to 'selective' or 'preferential' breeding of slaves based on their physical prowess.

However, clearly both opportunity (especially the faciilties for track and field that are available in US schools by comparison with Nigeria / Senegal) and aspiration / nurture (sprinting being a big thing in Jamaica and elsewhere in the Carribean) add to the likelihood of these areas producing world leading sprinters.

djlovesyou wrote:"but equally that those genes are quite common in "white" people too. However, for cultural reasons (and because of what history seems to show) these people tend not to go into running so much."

It doesn't make any sense though. You just have to look down the rankings for the UK over the last 25 years to see that they are skewed heavily in favour of black athletes despite the relatively tiny population and the fact that far far more white kids go into sprinting than black kids in this country.

Black kids are equally likely to go into football as white kids (which is the major talent sink in this country), so it's not as if all the talented black kids run and white kids choose other sports.

I need the reasons for this explained to me without resorting to the whole 'every white sprinter in history besides Lemaitre was mentally weak' rubbish.

I don't know why you continue making stuff up and passing it as something I have said.

The reason has been explained by myself and Happytraveller several times. You simple glaze over it and refuse to acknowledge it. Ironically the same argument you level at myself.

dummy_half wrote:dj

However, clearly both opportunity (especially the faciilties for track and field that are available in US schools by comparison with Nigeria / Senegal) and aspiration / nurture (sprinting being a big thing in Jamaica and elsewhere in the Carribean) add to the likelihood of these areas producing world leading sprinters.

That's the thing, nobody on the thread has said this is not true. I've explicitly said that this is completely true.

My issue is that when people say that these are the only reasons (along with wanting it more/working harder/mental strength) that cause black athletes to be almost universally dominant in a sport with such a tiny skill factor.

dummy_half wrote:dj
Pretty sure no-one ever accused Alan Wells or Valeriy Borzov as mentally weak.

For me, the fact that the Soviets and East Germans didn't manage to find a sub 10.0s sprinter despite the abundance of PEDs they were prepared to force-feed their athletes does seem to support the idea that there is a (maybe slight) physiological / genetic advantage in the west African / Afro-Carribean population with regard to the absolute fastest sprinters.

I was less persuaded by the suggestion that slavery and 'survival of the fittest' in that context played a significant part - while there appeared at first sight to be some logic in that only the strongest would survive the journey from Africa to America, it is more likely that the survivors were those who were more resistant to disease (especially those diseases that affected Europeans but were unknown in Africa at the time) than the physically strongest, and once in America it seems unlikely there was much thought given to 'selective' or 'preferential' breeding of slaves based on their physical prowess.

However, clearly both opportunity (especially the faciilties for track and field that are available in US schools by comparison with Nigeria / Senegal) and aspiration / nurture (sprinting being a big thing in Jamaica and elsewhere in the Carribean) add to the likelihood of these areas producing world leading sprinters.

When Borzov was winning 100m races, hardly any sprinters were breaking the 10s barrier. Moreover much has changed in sprinting over the past 20 years. Track surfaces are often harder making for faster surfaces. Spikes are also different. Training regimes have altered. All to ensure people run faster. Also the sport is professional now. Linford Christie gave up his full time job and focussed on training over the winder season. he ran 10.03 as a result. The rest is history.

As for the theory that a certain gene is more prevalent in west africans than others and the evidence is there for all to see because of sprinting being dominated by black athletes from the Americas. Well a closer look at that is required. It is dominated by blacks mainly from the english speaking world, where sprinting is extremely popular and where many sports requiring speed is essestial (gridiron wide recievers and running backs). A closer look will show that it is Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, Bahamas who produce most sub 10 sprinters. Cuba with a much larger population doesn't. They produce good boxers and baseball players. Why? It is the sport most revered there. More kids go into it. Ditto Dom Rep.

Taking it further afield. Brazil has more people of west african that all the caribbean combined. Yet not a single sub 10 sprinter that I know of. Sports mad nation also. Just the wrong sport to produce sub 10 runners. Football rules so they produce good footballers. Don't those of west african heritage in Brazil have that special speed gene? Did it stop in Jamaica? Or is it more cultural?

Yes. Culture in a sport is very important. Nobody has ever said otherwise. Countries like Brazil, Dominican Republic, etc don't have that history and culture for sprinting. You've said it before, nobody has disagreed with you.

Now explain those countries with massive athletics culture (Russia, Germany, etc) and explain their lack of impact on the world scene of sprinting without saying that all white people from these countries lack mental strength and belief, because that's just ridiculous.

What about China and their huge government involvement into winning Olympic medals since the 90s? They've managed to believe in themselves in many other sports they were once not too good at, why not sprinting?

djlovesyou wrote:Yes. Culture in a sport is very important. Nobody has ever said otherwise. Countries like Brazil, Dominican Republic, etc don't have that history and culture for sprinting. You've said it before, nobody has disagreed with you.

Now explain those countries with massive athletics culture (Russia, Germany, etc) and explain their lack of impact on the world scene of sprinting without saying that all white people from these countries lack mental strength and belief, because that's just ridiculous.
What about China and their huge government involvement into winning Olympic medals since the 90s? They've managed to believe in themselves in many other sports they were once not too good at, why not sprinting?

I have never said. Quit lying and engage in debate. I will address your more salient point when you apologise.

You won't address any points no matter what anyone says to you.

Your reasoning for the relative lack of success of countries with predominantly white people (and white people in general) has always come down to (throughout this thread) self-belief and the will to win.

Did I hurt your feelings by the way? Do you always act like this when you feel you're behind in a discussion?

Having visited a number of Caribbean countries, I know that the local populations differ quite considerably in many respects. Local islanders told me that this was because the original slave populations were typically from the same tribes, on an island by island basis.

Consequently you'd have to look at the gene pools in each of the former colonies to understand why performances varied to such a degree.

But clearly genetic differences are only part of the story when considering why certain countries have more success than others.

djlovesyou wrote:You won't address any points no matter what anyone says to you.

Your reasoning for the relative lack of success of countries with predominantly white people (and white people in general) has always come down to (throughout this thread) self-belief and the will to win.

Did I hurt your feelings by the way? Do you always act like this when you feel you're behind in a discussion?

You haven't hurt my feelings I'm happy to say. Your second para is simply a lie or a total lack of understanding of the written word. I have supported everything I have said and written. Indeed after I wrote my beliefs, up comes Lemaitre and his coach to corroborate what I wrote.

Behind in a discussion? I always believe when someone claims to be winning a discussion, it to hide the fact that they haven't a clue what is being discussed.

Anyway, you asked earlier why eastern euro nations were drugging up their athletes and not breaking 10s. Look at it this way, the americans were also drugging up their sprinters and in that era, very few broke 10s. Up until the end of communism, breaking 10 was a major achievement. Many factors have contributed to this. B far the most important has been track development, nutrition, training technique aided by modern technology (computers etc to analyze every facet of the runner in every stage of sprinting.

If all these was available when the soviet bloc were drugging people up, many would have broken 10s. In any event, Marian Woronin did actually break 10s, but by a 1000th of a second so it doesn't count.
I will add that during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the only sprinters I am very confident was clean are that Jamaican born Canadian (9.86 world record) and Bruny Surin, Mel Lattenay and Calvin Smith. All the Santa Monica sprinters are tainted as far`as I am concerned.

Donovan Bailey

teassoc wrote:Having visited a number of Caribbean countries, I know that the local populations differ quite considerably in many respects. Local islanders told me that this was because the original slave populations were typically from the same tribes, on an island by island basis.

Consequently you'd have to look at the gene pools in each of the former colonies to understand why performances varied to such a degree.

But clearly genetic differences are only part of the story when considering why certain countries have more success than others.

teasoc

You couldn't be more wrong. Or rather the locals you spoke to couldn't be more wrong. One of the features of the caribbean is that is was used as a breaking ground for slaves before they were sent to USA. Slaves from the same tribe were deliberately kept apart in order for them not to have an familiarity to communicate freely so as not to plan any uprising. A good point of reference would be Walter Rodne and in particular Chancellor Williams together with Eluada Equiano (spelling)who goes into great detail about slavery in the Caribbean.

So why, with these advancements in technology, are athletics mad (and very advanced) nations like Germany not making any impact?

Why, with all the millions invested, are China not even getting close?

Why do so few white British athletes get close?

Why is it only Carribbean and black athletes from the USA taking advantage of all these advancements in technology?

Why aren't the current drug tainted nations like some in Eastern Europe producing great (albeit doped) sprinters?

Why is it you have zero interest in athletics generally, but only get excited when the subject of race is discussed?

djlovesyou wrote:So why, with these advancements in technology, are athletics mad (and very advanced) nations like Germany not making any impact?

Why, with all the millions invested, are China not even getting close?

Why do so few white British athletes get close?

Why is it only Carribbean and black athletes from the USA taking advantage of all these advancements in technology?

Why aren't the current drug tainted nations like some in Eastern Europe producing great (albeit doped) sprinters?

Why is it you have zero interest in athletics generally, but only get excited when the subject of race is discussed?

Why, why, why. All we have are theories and no facts. You believe one race is genetically pre-disposed to sprinting. I don't support that neo nazi like theory. I believe its nurture over nature. By taking a visual example which you are doing is to close your eyes from all else that are definite factors. I believe it is nurture over nature. If other non west african heritage sprinters listen to you and your ilk, they will always be lagging behind.

As for China, they have only been investing in sprinting for a decade or so. They already have one outstanding sprint hurdler.\More will follow.

As for zero interest in athletics, I love the sport. If you see the threads I have started here you should notice that it was not me who raised the issue of race. So please throw that sad accusation at the direction of osprey. You're probably r***ing him so you wont.

azania wrote:

teassoc wrote:Having visited a number of Caribbean countries, I know that the local populations differ quite considerably in many respects. Local islanders told me that this was because the original slave populations were typically from the same tribes, on an island by island basis.

Consequently you'd have to look at the gene pools in each of the former colonies to understand why performances varied to such a degree.

But clearly genetic differences are only part of the story when considering why certain countries have more success than others.

teasoc

You couldn't be more wrong. Or rather the locals you spoke to couldn't be more wrong. One of the features of the caribbean is that is was used as a breaking ground for slaves before they were sent to USA. Slaves from the same tribe were deliberately kept apart in order for them not to have an familiarity to communicate freely so as not to plan any uprising. A good point of reference would be Walter Rodne and in particular Chancellor Williams together with Eluada Equiano (spelling)who goes into great detail about slavery in the Caribbean.

Horrible.

Given what I heard, I'm left wondering to what extent these cruel policies (of the English and French colonialists) were actually applied over the whole 300 years or so of slave trading in the region.

What I have read is that the most rebellious slaves were sent to Jamaica to work as cane cutters and were routinely whipped in front of other slaves to break them. St Vincent and the Grenadines was another hotspot for rebellious slaves.

Azania, can you please stop using the word neo-nazi? It is very insulting to those whose family have been affected by the actual thing.

Thanks.

Mike Selig wrote:Azania, can you please stop using the word neo-nazi? It is very insulting to those whose family have been affected by the actual thing.

Thanks.

Apologies.

I find the whole issue dangerous. That is not to say I am blinded by my own moral views on this subject and where it can lead to. In fact someone on another claim made the claim that whites are better at mathematics than blacks and blacks are better sprinters (my paraphrase). There is zero scientific for either. There are theories but nothing more.

Until there is 100% irrevocable proof, I believe that nurture over nature is the likely theory that carries more weight. So long as people support and promote the theory that whites are at a genetic disadvantage, very few will break through because 1) their teachers will push them to other sports and work with black youths because of genetic theory; 2) the poor white kid with feel psychologically inferior because he will believe that he is genetically disadvantaged and will probably not focus or train as hard as he should do.

I am very thankful that Lemaitre has busted that silly theory and hopefully he acts as a correct role model.

So white sprinters don't train hard as black sprinters and therefore lose.

It's so unfair. You're allowed to use racist stereotyping, but I'm not.

I'm sorry that the thought of there being a genetic* reason that partly describes this superiority somehow makes you feel bad about yourself.

* when I say genetic, I don't mean that there's a 'sprinting gene'. I appreciate this has confused you a great deal on this thread from start to finish.

Ask Lemaitre and his coach.

Its very clear you have no idea on the subject matter. All you see are blacks lining up on the starting line and claim its all genetics.

barbario - I wasn't trying to troll. Just endorsing and putting into context teassoc's disgust for slavery. Context is important. As for references. I believe one of my two comments you referred was referenced and the stat of european slavery is, like african slavery, up for contention but the enslavement of the village of baltimore is a pretty well know historic event so you can look it up. Not going to labour it as I wasn't trolling.

DJ and others - I can't believe you keep arguing the same non argument. You make a point about W African/slave genetics. Get given glowing and fairly weighty exceptions to your arguments such as brazil, cuba etc but yet still try and find wriggle room out. Yes, other affluent nations put funds into sports. But that's all sports. Germany is very successful at field athletics. Even before Black domination of the track it didn't have a great record. So, you have no argument. Just give it up. Nurture is by far the most compelling rationale to this.

Mike - I appreciate this is a sensitive subject but expressing a race or cultures genetic superiority was a fundamental tenet of Nazism and so it isn't that much fo an affront. It is, validly, drawing parallels. If people don't draw attention to it you risk repeating the same mistakes.

Azania - As I pointed out earlier, your rebellion comment further negates the "gene" theory. Surely the most "rebellious" were the most competitive and physically strong. They won! So, Haiti, St Vincent etc. should be the "winniest"... And the Garafuna still exist and live in adject poverty around C America.

Teassoc - you're niave if you believe "divide and conquer" was an "English and French" colonial invention. Its the history of empire building and human control. I don't want to belittle your article, but it was the analysis of only 30 partial skeletons from one grave. So, whilst interesting and testament to the fact slaves did come from all over africa. It gives not indication of the proportions. The slave export stats I gave were derived by slave logs and, for babarios info, I found out later it came from an african slave database but I've found similar at this site and its referenced:

http://africanhistory.about.com/od/slavery/ig/Slavery-Statistics-and-Maps/SlaveryTable001.htm

Got some other interesting stats too

To labour the point further. Context is all important. If you latch onto one piece of the picture you can fill out the rest to fit an agenda. This is an example make a gene based argument because decendents of slaves from the US and Jamaica have dominated world sprinting over the last 20yrs. However, if falls apart when then throw into the mix that other slave nations, in particular the greatest slaving nation of them all, Brazil!

One last comment on context for Teassoc - As repugnant as slavery is to modern, and a lot of contempory, morals , it was common across the parts of africa slaves were taken from and Latin America where the slaves were mainly sent, even amongst the totalitarian Pre Colombian empires the conquistadors ruthlessly oppressed. Although, the slaughter and inhumanity was taken to new levels by the conquistidors. The Mayan's only came out of slavery/surfdom in the 1920's (remember that when you go to Cancun on holiday and see no Mayan's working their cos they're still a disadvantaged group) and today most indiginous Latin American's have no say over their country etc. Morales is the first indiginous leader in 500yrs in Bolivia, a country 80% indiginous. I could digress further about Arab slaving, which we ignore, and modern slavery in Africa and Asia. But, I think you get the point. Because the transatlantic slave trade had a modern, liberal democracy(ies) as one of its "customers" means its well investigated and given the exposure it deserves. But, its worth pointing out other regions experienced similar hideous history but don't get the publicity because the "customers" are still largely poor etc.