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."
Former Member
Trying to reconcile that race has no scientific basis with the claim that race is a useful medical diagnostic tool has been generating cognitive dissonance all evening.
As Wikipedia says:
The primary impetus for considering race in biomedical research is the possibility of improving the prevention and treatment of diseases by predicting hard-to-ascertain factors on the basis of more easily ascertained characteristics.
In that sense it is easier to guess whether someone has African ancestry than to perform genetic testing to determine whether they have the gene that causes sickle cell disease.
The question that arises in my mind is whether the concept of race actually aids the diagnostic process in any way. Can you not just leap directly from having African (or Mediterranean or Middle East or Indian) ancestry to increased probability of the sickle cell trait without the intermediate step of classifying the patient as being of a "race"?
Former Member
The concept of race, which is not scientific, has been used to perpetuate stereotypes and to justify unequal treatment. Physicians do not have an unblemished record when it comes to matters of race. Tuskegee is a notable example. Even today African-Americans are less likely to undergo cardiac catheterization in the setting of acute coronary syndrome than their white counterparts.
Former Member
For the record I don't think you're a racist, taruky, and I realize this is largely a question of semantics. I like to think that no one on this site is racist. People here are way too open minded to be racists.
Like you said, it's more of a semantic thing.
That said, the topic of this study implies some sort of discrimination, based on skin color, in both swimming and running. It would be much more productive and less controversial to approach it from a cultural social perspective. Because I am absolutely convinced, for so many reasons, that physical attributes or differences can not, in themselves, explain anything.
Would have been little more accurate to talk about Blacks born in this or that country vs white born in this or that country. Because there are far more difference physically speaking between a Black Tuty Rwandaise and a short Masai Kenyan runner (both black) than between a short Masai Kenyan runner and a short Japanese runner. There are not that many differences between slim cuban runner and a slim deutch runner etc etc....
Attempting to discriminate, no matter the reason, between 'black' and 'white' regardless of ethnic background or origin, without narrowing the differences down to cultural and social is severely missing the point in my humble opinion.
As far as swimming is concerned, as a rule of thumb, you need to be tall and slim to perform well on the world scene in Pool events (not a place for a Masai Kenyan, but would fit our 6'5 avg Tutsi if they were fortunate enough to have a pool in their country). Open water, world class, pretty much anything works, as long as you can remain in 60deg water for 10 consecutive hours without falling in hypothermia.
Former Member
The problem is nomenclature. It isn't consistant, for some athletes are lumped together in a particular color, while others are separated w/o any color. The recent census is guilty of this.
Former Member
as for the charge that race is not scientific, there are about 150,000 scientific studies involving race in the readily searchable medical literature. almost every clinical trial and medical topic includes consideration of race. ignoring race in human studies and medical care would be anti-scientific and offer less than optimum health care delivery. hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care providers are not racists for considering race.
in some fields, the term race is declining in usage, eg anthropology - the study of the human species
race is not simply an attitude, though I suppose it can be, especially for racists
as this sensitive topic shows, the subject generates much heat and finger pointing by some
Some swimmers are a race too, they race at meets.:) Ha ha ha
Former Member
Ethnic background and nationality are noted by a physician in the assessment of a patient just as we observe whether an individual is, say, obese or elderly, as certain diseases are more prevalent in those two populations as well. So should the obese be a race unto themselves? They do afterall share physical attributes.
Former Member
Probably. Then all competitive people are race-ists ;-)
Interesting pun Steve!
