www.slate.com/.../
In a nutshell
"Anthropometric measurements of large populations show that systematic differences exist among blacks, whites and Asians. The published evidence is massive: blacks have longer limbs than whites, and because blacks have longer legs and smaller circumferences (e.g. calves and arms), their center of mass is higher than that in other individuals of the same height. Asians and whites have longer torsos, therefore their centers of mass are lower.
These structural differences, they argue, generate differences in performance. Using equations about the physics of locomotion, they analyze racing as a process of falling forward. Based on this analysis, they conclude that having a higher center of body mass in a standing position is advantageous in running but disadvantageous in swimming."
According to the study I should be a runner and not a swimmer because of high center of mass. I really don't care for running at all, but I wonder if this is why I'm better at short swimming events.
What would be a decent time for a non-runner male 40-44, to complete the 400M run?
And here I thought it was all those practice sessions and all the intensive corrections that made those Olympians perform as they did.
I do remember a statement that many of the African runners came from small villages where they ran barefoot on natural ground and strengthened their feet.
Former Member
Eliminate race from that statement, and I would agree with you. Race is not a physical attribute. That is the point. There are greater genetic differences between any two individuals than there are between any two races. (re my comment, race, skin color, hair color, eye color and hundreds of other physical attributes are genetic.)
Race is indeed an inherited trait, as is many biological, including neurological and physiological, characteristics. In how we treat each other, irrelevant. Racists, however, view life and value differently.
lifted from elsewhere....A human race is defined as a group of people with certain common inherited features that distinguish them from other groups of people...Most anthropologists recognize 3 or 4 basic races of man in existence today. These races can be further subdivided into as many as 30 subgroups.
Someday, perhaps at the loss of the beauty of difference, the races and all their characteristics will melt together.
Former Member
No. What the author is saying, correctly, is that race is not a scientific concept. Studying populations, on the other hand, is legitimate science. couldn't agree more. Of course, some might say it's just semantic, but being a so (wrongly) called Race myself, I do appreciate the fact that you make this distinction.
1. There's only one race of human.
2. It's already better to talk about different ethnic groups or population.
3. A great deal of inter-ethnic group variations in several sports are mostly driven by cultural differences, more than on physical attributes. Nicholas Macrozonaris (a proud white butt Montrealer) did exceptionnally well over the 100m sprint (track & field), Tiger Woods at Golf etc...
Former Member
Tiger Woods at Golf etc...
Now that is interesting regarding the 1/2 Thai Tiger Woods. I wonder what color category Thai would be? I guess race is as simple as choosing curries? Such as red, green or yellow curries?
I would hope you treat each person individually. But part of your treatment involves being aware of their racial background. Read any physician's summary and you will usually see "this is a 42 year-old African American Woman" or "this is a 50 year-old white male".
I harp on Vitamin D supplementation much more heavily to African Americans than whites, and I think the reasons should be obvious to all. I am less likely to stick a catheter in a black infant's bladder to test for UTI because studies show white children have 2-4 times the risk. Considering racial background saves a lot of unnecessary testing/screening.
This is a little bit like the emperor's new clothes. Some people don't want to point out the obvious; there are inherent differences between races. Through natural election, certain genetic features become prevalent. Is it really wrong to say that Philippinos tend to be short, just because there is a minority of tall ones so I shouldn't generalize? Frankly, if every race kept to itself and there was no mixing we would probably diverge as species in a few hundred thousand years. Fortunately we do mix. Kind of an interesting thought. With the world effectively getting smaller and smaller, and with so much mixing, I wonder if our genetic diversity will eventually contract.
There is plenty of relevance to putting people into "finite buckets". So if I am to do a study on melanoma risk, should I just look at everyone and take an average? Never mind the fact that there are dark skinned African Americans and pale skinned Irish Americans in the study. But they live in the same area, so I guess we should group them all together.
How about a blond, straight haired patient comes to me with severe back pain. Am I supposed to be color-blind and give strong consideration to the possibility that he is having a sickle cell crisis? Because he lives in the same population as African Americans.
Or how about a child who is neurologically degenerating. Is the fact that he is of Ashkenazi Jewish background irrelevant?
Some people don't want to point out the obvious; there are inherent differences between races.
I accept the fact there are physical differences between population groups. I don't accept the fact that this means there is more than one race of homo sapiens.
Deleted by moderator
Ok, moderators where are you? I'm giving facts and this person is hurling insults. For the record I am a dark skinned minority physician. If anything I wrote is racist, then all physicians who are capable of passing their boards are racist; black, white, red, or green.
As for the species issue, species diverge.. This is a scientific fact. However, as I stated, humans mix so this will not happen.
The population talk by some of you trying to circumvent talking about race is ridiculous. The population in any given city here in the US is diverse. They do not all suddenly develop the same medical problems just because they live in the same place. Going back to the sickle cell argument, a sickler is a sickler no matter where he or she lives.
Lefty, I thought long and hard about insulting you but I'm going to refrain.
Lefty; I thought hard about saying something nasty to you
I am feeling like this discussion belongs in the same place as the one about Immigration in Arizona--taken down by the moderators. Should we even get in to the discussion about how "science" is as socially constructed as any other discipline and is impacted by the thinking of the time, etc.?
Enough already.
