rising@utzoo.uucp (Jim Rising) (08/17/89)
The relatively large number of Blacks in professional sports is doubtless a combination of both average physical differences among "races" and social influences. Disregarding direct morpholgical evidence (which I don't have at hand), this is indicated both by the differences in proportions of Blacks among sports, and in the positions that they play. The vast majority of professional basketball players are Black, but Blacks are rare in the PGA, etc. In pro football, Black quarterbacks are rare (in US; not so much so in Canada)--generally thought to be a reflection of racism (fans and coach want a Caucasoid running the team). In a recent USA Today (10 Aug) there is a breakdown by race of players in ML baseball. Overall, about 20% are Black (another 10% or so are Hispanic--many racially Black). 48% of the outfielders are Black, and about 18% of the middle infielders are Black, but only 5.1% of the pitchers, 4.4% of the catchers, etc. are Black. In short, the Blacks and Hispanics dominate in the "speed" positions; the Whites in the slow, "power" positions. That is probably largely a reflection of average physical differences among "races." Incidentally, the average Black ML baseball player makes $566,708/year, the average White $470,887, and the average Hispanic $459,381. This suggests that a disproportionate number of superstars are Black, and a disproportionate number of marginal players are either White or Hispanic. Perhaps there is a tendency to keep a marginal White player over a marginal Black player on a team. As someone else has already noted, not all Black Africans are the same. There is probably more geographic variation in physical features among African groups than among all the rest of humankind-- although I don't know if that has been quantified. Most of the N.A. Blacks are descended from slaves caught in West Africa (and thus may be very different from the Kenyan runners). Also US Blacks are introgressed with White genes--and the extent of this also varies from place to place. On average about 30% of the genes in a "Black" from Oakland are of White origin, but only about 16% of the genes in a "Black" from Claxton, Georgia. --Jim Rising -- Name: Jim Rising Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 UUCP: uunet!attcan!utzoo!rising BITNET: rising@utzoo.utoronto.bitnet
chedley@psueea.uucp (Chedley A. Aouriri) (08/28/89)
In article <1989Aug17.154940.20583@utzoo.uucp> rising@utzoo.uucp (Jim Rising) writes: >The relatively large number of Blacks in professional >sports is doubtless a combination of both average physical >differences among "races" and social influences. Disregarding >direct morpholgical evidence (which I don't have at hand), this >is indicated both by the differences in proportions of Blacks >among sports, and in the positions that they play. First, Blacks are not present in all professional sports. For example, in Hockey, Tennis or Golf, it's hard to spot a Black player. I think SOCIAL and SOCIO-POLITICAL influences are the only rational explanation for the relative large number of Blacks in some professional sports. I do not believe in the theory of morphological or physical differences among the "races", to explain or infer their social status. I mean, what do you think of the relative large number of Whites in professions such as computer scientists, investment bankers, doctors, real estate brokers, chief executives,... Would you explain/infer it by intellectual or intelligence differences among the races? If so, I suggest you study the situation in any African country: say Kenya or Madagascar, but not in South Africa, though. :). Racism in its modern form cannot state bluntly the superiority of one race over another. Cloacked under science, it rather tries to use pseudo-scientific arguments to "justify" a-posteriori the domination of ane race over another. In the first half of this century, Nazism in Germany tried the trick as well, to "justify" the attempted extermination of the european jews. ..CHEDLEY..