- Apr 27, 2002
- 3,717
- 3,467
He made a lot of good points in here. One of the things they touched on is the whole breeding thing. I don't buy into that thinking that we dominate athletic sports cuz slave masters made us this way. I think in their ignorant minds they thought that's what they were doing but I strongly believe that their were Moors that could jump like LeBron and and run like Adrian Peterson.
Same. Africans have always been dominant physically. What group of people have been able to survive 1000 plus years of Arab slavery plus another 400 years of chattel slavery.
If anything, it shows how strong African DNA is. Even after 400 years of rape and mixing with Europeans African Americans are still dominant physically. Africans in general dominate physical sports, not just African Americans.
to add to some complexity to this line of thinking, all africans are not the same; the peoples of Africa have the most genetic diversity such that genetically Africans are more similar to other people's than another person of African descent...
also there are some theories about why some of these differences in traits exist, some have to do with the environment that our ancestors lived in, closer to the equator longer limbs to more efficiently deal with the heat (which is theorized to be why east africans make such efficient runners -along with living at high elevation), colder climates stockier bodies. there is also a theory about west africans having more fast twitch muscle fibers (those responsible for explosive movement as opposed to slow twitch which are more geared towards endurance) as a result of adaptation for malaria-the sickle cell...it is a very fascinating explanation
so no, what slavers did in terms of breeding doesn't account for the "dominance" of those of African descent in sports, for those things traits were already there; though it may have made it more likely for the children to survive? the other part of the equation as far as the over-representation in certain sports go, is socio-economic...
it is a slippery slope to talk about the "strength" of DNA , after all it was this type of rationale that led to eugenics...