Percentage of White Americans in NBA

[MetroGlobe]

Do you have any links to back up this theory? It just strikes me an urban legendish.  So someone's great great grandfather was bred. So what?  Look at MJ's kids...not as good.

There are many books on this topic.  Some of them are primary source documents from that time period.  Here's a few links I found in a matter of minutes:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASbreeding.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Peculiar-Institution-Slavery-Ante-Bellum-South/dp/0679723072


Furthermore, European slave traders apprehended most of their slaves from West Africa.  The tribes living there were fairly isolated from one another (they needed to be to prevent the spread of malaria), and even more isolated from East Africa.  The isolation of those tribes gave rise to different body types on each part of the continent.  So while both groups of Africans may appear to be the same inside and out, that is not entirely true.  West Africans tend to have a higher concentration of fast-twitch muscle fibers than do East Africans.  These muscles are primarily used for explosive activities like sprinting and jumping.  Therefore, since most African Americans are of West African descent, it is no wonder that the best athletes in the world are American.  It's all in the biology.
    Conversely, It is not a random happenstance that the world's best marathon runners are from Kenya.  East Africans possess more of the slow twitch muscles, which lend themselves to endurance and distance running.  European slave traders took very, very few slaves from East Africa.  That is why there has never been an African American to win any of the major marathons in the US.  Or the distance events at the Olympics.
    Here is a pretty reasonable article on the subject, with plenty more references included, if want to read futher.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200009180009

[Eja117]

Do you have any links to back up this theory? It just strikes me an urban legendish.  So someone's great great grandfather was bred. So what?  Look at MJ's kids...not as good.

There are many books on this topic.  Some of them are primary source documents from that time period.  Here's a few links I found in a matter of minutes:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASbreeding.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Peculiar-Institution-Slavery-Ante-Bellum-South/dp/0679723072

I'm not saying slaves were never bred (here or in all the other societies in the world by the way), but I am not sure that anyone has ever tried to prove that breeding that happened 150 years ago has any physical bearing on populations today.

People would have to study the family tress of a lot of athletes to prove this.

It just strikes me as way too simple and unrealistic

If this were true what I would generally expect would be people's grandparents to be great athletes.  Like Jim Brown's father would be better than him. And Jim's kid would be slightly less good. Then the next kid would be slightly less good than that.

But instead you get a guy like Jordan whose parents weren't good and who's kids weren't good. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything to me. Same as Bird.

Further I've never seen any real data about the socio-economic backgrounds of nba kids, but let's just say the average NBA player came from some poverty or a lower middle class scenario.

Wouldn't the immediate effects of poverty (higher malnutrition and sickness) cancel out any 150 year old breeding results?

I'm trying to question this whole genetic thing more than anything else.

Plus every society in the world had slaves. Wouldn't that cancel out some of the African American slave benefit?

Plus many many African Americans had gotten to the north or been freed and weren't bred.

I just would need to see some significant data linking this theory to actual performance before I would believe it.

[nickagneta]

As a matter of reference, most of the Latin world doesn't distinguish people by color as much as they do nationality. Much of the Latin world has seen interracial couplings and production of children for centuries. The natives lived there. Were conquered by white Europeans who then proceeded to bring over African slaves to work in the area. All of these people eventually intermarried and reproduced.

As a result, my Puertorican wife has relatives of every color and appearance than you could imagine. She is blond and white. Her father has green eyes. She has cousins that have very Taino Indian appearance. She has cousins that have very dark skin pigmentation and African identifications. Her family and our friends number from 14 different Latin countries. They are of all different shapes and colors and appearances.

But when they identify each other as "something" it is from where they are from and not what color they are. And they try to keep the heritages of those places in place, including, and most importantly, their language and food. This is why speaking Spanish or Portuguese is so important to them. Americans just don't get this.

[MetroGlobe]

I'm not saying slaves were never bred (here or in all the other societies in the world by the way), but I am not sure that anyone has ever tried to prove that breeding that happened 150 years ago has any physical bearing on populations today.

People would have to study the family tress of a lot of athletes to prove this.

It just strikes me as way too simple and unrealistic

If this were true what I would generally expect would be people's grandparents to be great athletes.  Like Jim Brown's father would be better than him. And Jim's kid would be slightly less good. Then the next kid would be slightly less good than that.

Recessive genes, friend.  Recessive genes.  These traits are carried from one generation to the next.  But they are not always expressed.

Just look at the other links I posted.  Especially the one about fast-twitch vs. slow-twitch muscles.  The genetics cannot be refuted.

[Amonkey]

I'm not saying slaves were never bred (here or in all the other societies in the world by the way), but I am not sure that anyone has ever tried to prove that breeding that happened 150 years ago has any physical bearing on populations today.

People would have to study the family tress of a lot of athletes to prove this.

It just strikes me as way too simple and unrealistic

If this were true what I would generally expect would be people's grandparents to be great athletes.  Like Jim Brown's father would be better than him. And Jim's kid would be slightly less good. Then the next kid would be slightly less good than that.

Recessive genes, friend.  Recessive genes.  These traits are carried from one generation to the next.  But they are not always expressed.

Just look at the other links I posted.  Especially the one about fast-twitch vs. slow-twitch muscles.  The genetics cannot be refuted.

The interesting thing is the technology advancement on gene therapy.  I wrote a paper about the next performance enhancing doping will be "gene doping".  There has been a lot of research on finding specific genes, such as the specific gene responsible for the production of proteins involved in fiber growth in a specific joint area, which would decrease injury time.  I have seen research (mostly by the Chinese) where they have injected a gene into rats to produce a protein responsible for promoting fiber growth on the digital tendon in injured rats, and it worked.

I think in the future, within 20 years, you will see people getting injected with genes reponsible for muscle growth, for these muscle twitch fibers.  This will result in better athletic performance.

[fairweatherfan]

BTW, an interesting study from my field that dealt with some of the issues in the thread:

A study was run where participants listened to an audio recording of a DI men's basketball game, and told to pay attention to what a player named Mark Flick did.  Flick made some good plays and some bad plays over the course of the game.  Half the participants were shown a picture of a black man identified as Flick; the other half were shown a picture of a white man.  Everything else was identical across conditions, including the recording itself.  Afterward, they were asked to rate Flick on a variety of different characteristics.  The relevant results:


"When participants thought the player was Black, they rated him as being more athletic and as making more of a contribution to the game through individual and team play compared to when they thought he was White. In contrast, when participants thought the player was White, they perceived him as having more basketball intelligence (i.e., “court smarts”) and putting in more effort on the court than when they thought he was Black."

Racial stereotypes do affect how people interpret players' abilities, much like what guava said about Hinrich being seen as a bad defender early in his career.  I can't find an online copy of the original study, but here's a link to an article that cites it and talks more indepth about the concept of stereotype threat if anyone is interested - the above study is summarized on pg 599:

http://hpl.uchicago.edu/Publications/papers_reprints/JSEP2004.pdf

[guava_wrench]

BTW, an interesting study from my field that dealt with some of the issues in the thread:

A study was run where participants listened to an audio recording of a DI men's basketball game, and told to pay attention to what a player named Mark Flick did.  Flick made some good plays and some bad plays over the course of the game.  Half the participants were shown a picture of a black man identified as Flick; the other half were shown a picture of a white man.  Everything else was identical across conditions, including the recording itself.  Afterward, they were asked to rate Flick on a variety of different characteristics.  The relevant results:


"When participants thought the player was Black, they rated him as being more athletic and as making more of a contribution to the game through individual and team play compared to when they thought he was White. In contrast, when participants thought the player was White, they perceived him as having more basketball intelligence (i.e., “court smarts”) and putting in more effort on the court than when they thought he was Black."

Racial stereotypes do affect how people interpret players' abilities, much like what guava said about Hinrich being seen as a bad defender early in his career.  I can't find an online copy of the original study, but here's a link to an article that cites it and talks more indepth about the concept of stereotype threat if anyone is interested - the above study is summarized on pg 599:

http://hpl.uchicago.edu/Publications/papers_reprints/JSEP2004.pdf

I haven't followed your link but I have read many papers on stereotype threat, including "A threat in the air" (1996 if my memory is correct), which is a classic, and other papers by Claude Steele, Aronson, and other authors. Sadly, most of the papers are not available for free.

[fairweatherfan]

BTW, an interesting study from my field that dealt with some of the issues in the thread:

A study was run where participants listened to an audio recording of a DI men's basketball game, and told to pay attention to what a player named Mark Flick did.  Flick made some good plays and some bad plays over the course of the game.  Half the participants were shown a picture of a black man identified as Flick; the other half were shown a picture of a white man.  Everything else was identical across conditions, including the recording itself.  Afterward, they were asked to rate Flick on a variety of different characteristics.  The relevant results:


"When participants thought the player was Black, they rated him as being more athletic and as making more of a contribution to the game through individual and team play compared to when they thought he was White. In contrast, when participants thought the player was White, they perceived him as having more basketball intelligence (i.e., “court smarts”) and putting in more effort on the court than when they thought he was Black."

Racial stereotypes do affect how people interpret players' abilities, much like what guava said about Hinrich being seen as a bad defender early in his career.  I can't find an online copy of the original study, but here's a link to an article that cites it and talks more indepth about the concept of stereotype threat if anyone is interested - the above study is summarized on pg 599:

http://hpl.uchicago.edu/Publications/papers_reprints/JSEP2004.pdf

I haven't followed your link but I have read many papers on stereotype threat, including "A threat in the air" (1996 if my memory is correct), which is a classic, and other papers by Claude Steele, Aronson, and other authors. Sadly, most of the papers are not available for free.

A surprising number are these days, especially newer articles - authors tend to link copies from their personal websites, and Google Scholar is a godsend. 

But the stereotype threat stuff is stunning when you realize how strong the effects can be with what seems like a trivial manipulation - I think everyone should at least read summaries of the research.  The Flick study isn't stereotype threat per se but is definitely related.

[guava_wrench]

MetroGlobe refers to an important fact. The variation among human populations in Africa is tremendous. It is naive to think that "blacks" are more athletic when some populations called "black" may be closer genetically to certain populations called "white" than they are to many populations considered "black". The Khoisan are considered black by many, but branched off into their own group a very long time ago.

We can probably find comparative advantages between local gene pools if we had the time and technology. Considering the incredible amount of genetic variation in Africa compared to other continents, it would not be surprising to find many situations where local African gene pools confer advantages in certain situations. It is troubling to me though when we generalize about blacks considering the great variation among those considered black. Such generalizations are particularly troubling to me when considering the mixing of genes across historical boundaries that is common in the US.

[guava_wrench]

BTW, an interesting study from my field that dealt with some of the issues in the thread:

A study was run where participants listened to an audio recording of a DI men's basketball game, and told to pay attention to what a player named Mark Flick did.  Flick made some good plays and some bad plays over the course of the game.  Half the participants were shown a picture of a black man identified as Flick; the other half were shown a picture of a white man.  Everything else was identical across conditions, including the recording itself.  Afterward, they were asked to rate Flick on a variety of different characteristics.  The relevant results:


"When participants thought the player was Black, they rated him as being more athletic and as making more of a contribution to the game through individual and team play compared to when they thought he was White. In contrast, when participants thought the player was White, they perceived him as having more basketball intelligence (i.e., “court smarts”) and putting in more effort on the court than when they thought he was Black."

Racial stereotypes do affect how people interpret players' abilities, much like what guava said about Hinrich being seen as a bad defender early in his career.  I can't find an online copy of the original study, but here's a link to an article that cites it and talks more indepth about the concept of stereotype threat if anyone is interested - the above study is summarized on pg 599:

http://hpl.uchicago.edu/Publications/papers_reprints/JSEP2004.pdf

I haven't followed your link but I have read many papers on stereotype threat, including "A threat in the air" (1996 if my memory is correct), which is a classic, and other papers by Claude Steele, Aronson, and other authors. Sadly, most of the papers are not available for free.

A surprising number are these days, especially newer articles - authors tend to link copies from their personal websites, and Google Scholar is a godsend. 

But the stereotype threat stuff is stunning when you realize how strong the effects can be with what seems like a trivial manipulation - I think everyone should at least read summaries of the research.  The Flick study isn't stereotype threat per se but is definitely related.

Fortunately I have access through a University, but for those who don't and who live around Boston, I would suggest getting a BPL library card and accessing articles online. Using Google Scholar through BPL seems to increase access.

[Eja117]

I'm not saying slaves were never bred (here or in all the other societies in the world by the way), but I am not sure that anyone has ever tried to prove that breeding that happened 150 years ago has any physical bearing on populations today.

People would have to study the family tress of a lot of athletes to prove this.

It just strikes me as way too simple and unrealistic

If this were true what I would generally expect would be people's grandparents to be great athletes.  Like Jim Brown's father would be better than him. And Jim's kid would be slightly less good. Then the next kid would be slightly less good than that.

Recessive genes, friend.  Recessive genes.  These traits are carried from one generation to the next.  But they are not always expressed.

Just look at the other links I posted.  Especially the one about fast-twitch vs. slow-twitch muscles.  The genetics cannot be refuted.

Well what about dominant genes?

I have no problem with the idea that certain groups are built different than others, but your links just aren't giving what I asked.

The first two are trying to show that breeding happened (actually the second is an advertisement for a book) and the third shows  major debate about why black athletes dominate with the conclusion that it's a complex answer.

I'm not seeing evidence that slave breeding 150 years ago is contributing to athletic success today. Honestly I'm not even seeing evidence of correlation, let alone causation

You say recessive genes, in which case every race that was ever enslaved (all of them) and bred (perhaps all of them, I'm not sure) would also have recessive genes canceling out the effect.

The only example I can think of where a grandson of a former slave was totally dominant was Muhammed Ali, and even then you'd have to demonstrate that his ancestors were bred for things that would equate to boxing success.

As far as I see it ----interesting theory, but no proof, and hardly any evidence. Possibly because nobody has actually done the study, which would probably be painstaking.

The third link is titled "Why black will beat white at the Olympics"

It didn't really explain about why blacks beat whites at the winter Olympics (does that happen?). Is there no muscle twitch there? Is there no endurance and explosiveness there? Are there no blacks that live in cold environments?.....back to the drawing board

[MetroGlobe]

I'm not saying slaves were never bred (here or in all the other societies in the world by the way), but I am not sure that anyone has ever tried to prove that breeding that happened 150 years ago has any physical bearing on populations today.

People would have to study the family tress of a lot of athletes to prove this.

It just strikes me as way too simple and unrealistic

If this were true what I would generally expect would be people's grandparents to be great athletes.  Like Jim Brown's father would be better than him. And Jim's kid would be slightly less good. Then the next kid would be slightly less good than that.

Recessive genes, friend.  Recessive genes.  These traits are carried from one generation to the next.  But they are not always expressed.

Just look at the other links I posted.  Especially the one about fast-twitch vs. slow-twitch muscles.  The genetics cannot be refuted.

Well what about dominant genes?

I have no problem with the idea that certain groups are built different than others, but your links just aren't giving what I asked.

The first two are trying to show that breeding happened (actually the second is an advertisement for a book) and the third shows  major debate about why black athletes dominate with the conclusion that it's a complex answer.

I'm not seeing evidence that slave breeding 150 years ago is contributing to athletic success today. Honestly I'm not even seeing evidence of correlation, let alone causation

You say recessive genes, in which case every race that was ever enslaved (all of them) and bred (perhaps all of them, I'm not sure) would also have recessive genes canceling out the effect.

The only example I can think of where a grandson of a former slave was totally dominant was Muhammed Ali, and even then you'd have to demonstrate that his ancestors were bred for things that would equate to boxing success.

As far as I see it ----interesting theory, but no proof, and hardly any evidence. Possibly because nobody has actually done the study, which would probably be painstaking.

The third link is titled "Why black will beat white at the Olympics"

It didn't really explain about why blacks beat whites at the winter Olympics (does that happen?). Is there no muscle twitch there? Is there no endurance and explosiveness there? Are there no blacks that live in cold environments?.....back to the drawing board

Certainly you have every right to be skeptical.  These are only theories (aside from the fact about different Africans having different muscle types).  I happen to think these theories are credible, and logical.  No one can deny that there is a tremendously disproportionate amount of African Americans dominating the sports universe.  One theory says it's entirely cultural and sociological.  Other theories present ideas about genetic history, heredity, etc.  I'm a science guy myself, so I gravitate towards the theories about heredity and genetics.  But in the end, all these explanations are nothing more than hypotheses.  We can agree to disagree on this one.

[Eja117]

I'm not saying slaves were never bred (here or in all the other societies in the world by the way), but I am not sure that anyone has ever tried to prove that breeding that happened 150 years ago has any physical bearing on populations today.

People would have to study the family tress of a lot of athletes to prove this.

It just strikes me as way too simple and unrealistic

If this were true what I would generally expect would be people's grandparents to be great athletes.  Like Jim Brown's father would be better than him. And Jim's kid would be slightly less good. Then the next kid would be slightly less good than that.

Recessive genes, friend.  Recessive genes.  These traits are carried from one generation to the next.  But they are not always expressed.

Just look at the other links I posted.  Especially the one about fast-twitch vs. slow-twitch muscles.  The genetics cannot be refuted.

Well what about dominant genes?

I have no problem with the idea that certain groups are built different than others, but your links just aren't giving what I asked.

The first two are trying to show that breeding happened (actually the second is an advertisement for a book) and the third shows  major debate about why black athletes dominate with the conclusion that it's a complex answer.

I'm not seeing evidence that slave breeding 150 years ago is contributing to athletic success today. Honestly I'm not even seeing evidence of correlation, let alone causation

You say recessive genes, in which case every race that was ever enslaved (all of them) and bred (perhaps all of them, I'm not sure) would also have recessive genes canceling out the effect.

The only example I can think of where a grandson of a former slave was totally dominant was Muhammed Ali, and even then you'd have to demonstrate that his ancestors were bred for things that would equate to boxing success.

As far as I see it ----interesting theory, but no proof, and hardly any evidence. Possibly because nobody has actually done the study, which would probably be painstaking.

The third link is titled "Why black will beat white at the Olympics"

It didn't really explain about why blacks beat whites at the winter Olympics (does that happen?). Is there no muscle twitch there? Is there no endurance and explosiveness there? Are there no blacks that live in cold environments?.....back to the drawing board

Certainly you have every right to be skeptical.  These are only theories (aside from the fact about different Africans having different muscle types).  I happen to think these theories are credible, and logical.  No one can deny that there is a tremendously disproportionate amount of African Americans dominating the sports universe.  One theory says it's entirely cultural and sociological.  Other theories present ideas about genetic history, heredity, etc.  I'm a science guy myself, so I gravitate towards the theories about heredity and genetics.  But in the end, all these explanations are nothing more than hypotheses.  We can agree to disagree on this one.

I guess the best way to try to test the hypothesis would be with rats and see if they can breed a super rat and then do nothing and see if 5 generations later there are still some significantly stronger rats

i hold this open as a distinct possibility, but till then I'll agree with your article that there's probably a mix of factors and reserve judgment on the predominant factors

i guess for predominant factors you'd have to look at all the players and try to see what they have in common other than just blackness

[makaveli]

By the way, don't look now but Milwaukee looks to be the most diversified team in the league.  They almost have a starting rotation of international players.

PG- Brandon Jennings (played in Italy)
SF- Carlos Delfino (Argentina)
PF- Ersan Ilyasova (Turkey)
C- Andrew Bogut (Australia)

Not to mention...
Luc Richard Mbah a Moute (Cameroon)
Franciso Elson (Netherlands)
Dan Gadzuric (Netherlands)
Roko Ukic (Yugoslavia)
Joe Alexander (Taiwan)

...wow, come to think about it, almost the entire team are foreigners.  The Americans are actually the minority.  Considering that 8 out 15 players were born outside USA.

it's Croatia not yogoslavia  , wow, I cant bold anything :S

[blackbird]

I'm not saying slaves were never bred (here or in all the other societies in the world by the way), but I am not sure that anyone has ever tried to prove that breeding that happened 150 years ago has any physical bearing on populations today.

People would have to study the family tress of a lot of athletes to prove this.

It just strikes me as way too simple and unrealistic

If this were true what I would generally expect would be people's grandparents to be great athletes.  Like Jim Brown's father would be better than him. And Jim's kid would be slightly less good. Then the next kid would be slightly less good than that.

Recessive genes, friend.  Recessive genes.  These traits are carried from one generation to the next.  But they are not always expressed.

Just look at the other links I posted.  Especially the one about fast-twitch vs. slow-twitch muscles.  The genetics cannot be refuted.

Well what about dominant genes?

I have no problem with the idea that certain groups are built different than others, but your links just aren't giving what I asked.

The first two are trying to show that breeding happened (actually the second is an advertisement for a book) and the third shows  major debate about why black athletes dominate with the conclusion that it's a complex answer.

I'm not seeing evidence that slave breeding 150 years ago is contributing to athletic success today. Honestly I'm not even seeing evidence of correlation, let alone causation

You say recessive genes, in which case every race that was ever enslaved (all of them) and bred (perhaps all of them, I'm not sure) would also have recessive genes canceling out the effect.

The only example I can think of where a grandson of a former slave was totally dominant was Muhammed Ali, and even then you'd have to demonstrate that his ancestors were bred for things that would equate to boxing success.

As far as I see it ----interesting theory, but no proof, and hardly any evidence. Possibly because nobody has actually done the study, which would probably be painstaking.

The third link is titled "Why black will beat white at the Olympics"

It didn't really explain about why blacks beat whites at the winter Olympics (does that happen?). Is there no muscle twitch there? Is there no endurance and explosiveness there? Are there no blacks that live in cold environments?.....back to the drawing board

Certainly you have every right to be skeptical.  These are only theories (aside from the fact about different Africans having different muscle types).  I happen to think these theories are credible, and logical.  No one can deny that there is a tremendously disproportionate amount of African Americans dominating the sports universe.  One theory says it's entirely cultural and sociological.  Other theories present ideas about genetic history, heredity, etc.  I'm a science guy myself, so I gravitate towards the theories about heredity and genetics.  But in the end, all these explanations are nothing more than hypotheses.  We can agree to disagree on this one.

This theory sounds crazy to me because the slave owners and their sons regularly raped and impregnated their slaves. Haven't you noticed that black Americans look different than Africans? "Black" Americans have white genes, too! If there was some kind of breeding program going on then black Americans would still look like Africans.

I would also think that if you had some sort of systematic breeding program then you would have to be smart enough to keep your own genes out of the pool.