Africa the next russia?

2»

Comments

  • Kléber
    Kléber Posts: 6,842
    A wise idea. You will find that there can be a far greater genetic diversity between people from one village to the next in places in Africa than, say, between a Finn and a Brazilian. In other words, within any "racial" aspect it is possible to find an enormous variation of characteristics, a skin tone which assists those living in equatorial regions doesn't obviously imply anything about muscle type, lung volume, limb proportions etc.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    Is there much evidence that Kenyans are genetically better at distance running beyond the fact Kenya has lots of good distance runners ? Have they identified particular genes or done a study of people of Kenyan descent living in Western Europe which shows that their dominance is not economic or cultural. I mean everyone says they would make great cyclists because they are good runners - nobody says Italy could dominate marathon running because of their success in cycling.
    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,473
    Is there much evidence that Kenyans are genetically better at distance running beyond the fact Kenya has lots of good distance runners ? Have they identified particular genes or done a study of people of Kenyan descent living in Western Europe which shows that their dominance is not economic or cultural. I mean everyone says they would make great cyclists because they are good runners - nobody says Italy could dominate marathon running because of their success in cycling.

    Seems that it's still controversial:

    http://www.icears.org/docs/press/scienc ... 300704.pdf

    But:

    http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/34/5/391
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    neeb wrote:
    Stop thinking about people in terms of race. it only causes problems.
    Excuse me, I didn't mention race even once... you did!

    Race is probably a meaningless concept in human biology; there are far more differences overall within any "racial" group that you could define than between them, and different characteristics that vary geographically aren't well enough correlated with each other. Skin colour is one of the most meaningless characters of all in terms of correlating with anything else. Nonetheless there are clearly differences in the distribution of individual human characteristics in different populations, to claim otherwise is just ridiculous 1970s social-science / postmodernist bollocks.

    Few people would claim that the predominance of east africans in long distance running had nothing to do with genetics, at least statistically.

    It's ironic that it's regarded as "dodgy territory" to acknowledge the obvious fact that there are genetic differences between human beings, while apparent it is is not "dodgy" to talk about "race" in general and to encourage people to think of themselves as being racially "black" or "cacausian".

    I don't blame you though, these misconceptions are almost universal.


    I'm pretty sure you implied race when you were describing the physiological differences between West and East Africans.

    I never said anything about talking of race in binary terms, though, which I think is what you're implying! You were the one who spoke of groups, not me!

    As far as I am aware, there are genetic differences between every single individual, twins aside. I know I never see my girlfriend do better than me and think "hmm, must be in her genes".

    I am very tempted to rise to your bait though, when you suggested that a), postmodern thought is bullshit and that b) i'm ignorant about it. Since postmodern history of Africa has been my speciality for some time, particularly focussing on binaristic colonial identities and discourses, I would venture that I am probably not that ignorant about the issue!

    Give postmodern ideas some good thought and time before you dismiss it. It's an awful lot more powerful than you think...
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    edited January 2009
    double post...
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    edited January 2009
    danm computer.. sorry guys..
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    edited January 2009
    Again.... :oops:
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    triple post
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,473
    As far as I am aware, there are genetic differences between every single individual, twins aside. .
    Yup, but these differences obviously aren't completely randomised with respect to geography, because various populations of human beings have (historically at least) been more or less isolated from reach other for many thousands of years.
    I know I never see my girlfriend do better than me and think "hmm, must be in her genes"
    Never? Why not? Depending on what she is better at, there's a good chance that there's a big genetic component. Intelligence, for example, is at least half genetically determined.
    And if you Give postmodern ideas some good thought and time before you dismiss them. They're an awful lot more powerful than you think...
    I'm sure they're useful in certain areas, but like any ideology/zeitgeist they have been grossly misapplied outside the areas that they are useful in, often by people who use them as an excuse to dismiss whole areas of knowledge they don't understand or can't be bothered to learn (that's not a dig at you personally, I'm sure that colonial identities and discourses is a very appropriate area for postmodernist philosophy - things like genetics and physiology aren't!).
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    neeb wrote:
    As far as I am aware, there are genetic differences between every single individual, twins aside. .
    Yup, but these differences obviously aren't completely randomised with respect to geography, because various populations of human beings have (historically at least) been more or less isolated from reach other for many thousands of years.
    I know I never see my girlfriend do better than me and think "hmm, must be in her genes"
    Never? Why not? Depending on what she is better at, there's a good chance that there's a big genetic component. Intelligence, for example, is at least half genetically determined.
    And if you Give postmodern ideas some good thought and time before you dismiss them. They're an awful lot more powerful than you think...
    I'm sure they're useful in certain areas, but like any ideology/zeitgeist they have been grossly misapplied outside the areas that they are useful in, often by people who use them as an excuse to dismiss whole areas of knowledge they don't understand or can't be bothered to learn (that's not a dig at you personally, I'm sure that colonial identities and discourses is a very appropriate area for postmodernist philosophy - things like genetics and physiology aren't!).


    But you have used physiology and genetics to identiy people! I was just saying that identifying people on the basis of their ethnic origin (east african west african etc), is dangerous, and, intentional or not, is laced with racial overtones which can very quickly lead to more dangerous ideas.

    i think that makes sense :? :shock:
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • jp1985
    jp1985 Posts: 434
    Is there much evidence that Kenyans are genetically better at distance running beyond the fact Kenya has lots of good distance runners ? Have they identified particular genes or done a study of people of Kenyan descent living in Western Europe which shows that their dominance is not economic or cultural. I mean everyone says they would make great cyclists because they are good runners - nobody says Italy could dominate marathon running because of their success in cycling.

    A couple of studies have shown east africans to possess a greater running economy than european runners that explains their greater performance in distance running. However determinants of running economy and cycling economy may differ so whether east africans are more economical when it comes to cycling isnt known but it may well be the case. These studies suggest that there is a physiological factor that explains the success of east african runners. Although this doesn't rule out social/cultural/economic factors also being potentially influential in their success.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17111007?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10862541?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
    But you have used physiology and genetics to identiy people! I was just saying that identifying people on the basis of their ethnic origin (east african west african etc), is dangerous, and, intentional or not, is laced with racial overtones which can very quickly lead to more dangerous ideas.

    i think that makes sense

    Teagar I understand the point you are making but i think it is naive to believe that there are not genetic diferences between races beyond skin colour. It is not the identification of these differences that causes a problem it is how they are interpretted/misinterpretted and acted upon by certain individuals
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    Teagar I understand the point you are making but i think it is naive to believe that there are not genetic diferences between races beyond skin colour. It is not the identification of these differences that causes a problem it is how they are interpretted/misinterpretted and acted upon by certain individuals


    I'm not so sure. By identifying them in the first place, you make some important assumptions. If you decide to identify people by race, then you assume that there is a substantial enough difference between races in order to make the identification. Right? We don't identify groups by the colour of their eyes, because we feel that has no bearing on anything other than the colour of their eyes. I've never heard a forum talk about how green eyed cyclists should be better than brown eyed cyclists.

    So if there is a substantial enough difference to warrent the racial identity, then there are just as strong grounds to discriminate, whether postively, neutrally, or negatively.

    I object to the idea that the differences between race are somehow more significant than those between any individual, whatever their ethnicity!
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.

Categories