Where did I ever discount their hard work? All I said was some body types are better suited for certain athletic pursuits (notably running) - that's it and the data overwhelmingly supports that theory. They still have to work ridiculously hard - any serious athlete does. It's like saying Michael Phelps has a body suited for swimming or Messi for dribbling - I don't think it does anything to discount either's success. You seem to be the one attributing hard work to race by saying non-blacks work less hard.
dude. dude. DUDE. this was your first reply to me:
All this is true but it'd also be naive to not acknowledge the difference in body types. How come the contestants in 100m final are always black (usually of West African origin)? No matter how hard white folks train, they won't be able to compete at that level (I believe only one white man has ever broken the 10s barrier).
Black people have nothing innate to them that makes them better sprinters or spit out "michael phelps body types" much like white people have nothing innate to them that makes them produce messi body types, if we were to take your example into consideration. Athleticism or predisposition for it nor a certain body type is innate to black people.
I'm not attributing hard work to race, and the fact that you think i am makes me realize i've wasted my time and keyboard strokes even replying to you in the first place. What I said was "the people that run sub 10 are exceptional individuals that pop up in every group, on track they are black because when hundreds of thousands of black kids dedicate themselves to track like they do, you are more likely to find these exceptional individuals, whereas white sprinters usually don't come from similar circumstances or even countries that support sprinting like the black athletes do, also sprinting is not as an accentuated part of their lives as it is for black athletes so the talent pool is not as big, and lastly, white sprinters don't put in as much work", that is logical reasoning. Not some dumb
"oh them blacks got something in their genetic code that gives them an advantage" assumption that's been debunked over and over by science.
You seem to have a problem with the real possibility that due to economic background, social conditioning, expectations and circumstances, environment, prejudice, and other cultural factors, black athletes are more likely to put more work in than their white counterparts in the realms where they dominate. I keep asking you and you keep skirting it, if its innately a black body type thing, why aren't africa or brazil producing these sub 10 athletes?
there's nothing, and this is scientifically supported, NOTHING outside of socio-cultural factors stopping/preventing white sprinters from competing at the level black sprinters compete, certainly not black people hitting the genetic athleticism lotto.
Race is only partly a social construct. There are very obvious innate differences (like skin colour) - it's why we even have the concept of race in the first place! As an Indian living in Kenya, my race would be still Indian and it'd stay like that for thousands of years.
Race is a social construct, its labels attached to people based on superficial differences/people with similar phenotypes (skin color, hair type), and just because individuals have similar phenotype it doesn't mean they have similar genetic variant sequences:
"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded," Pääbo told Live Science. "It is all a question of differences in how frequent different variants are on different continents and in different regions."
In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim."
SOURCE
race is neither a genetically nor biologically sound paradigm but instead a social construct based largely on Western society’s obsession with superficial physical features such as skin color (Harpalani, 2004). Even those who make arguments for a biological definition of race acknowledge that that definition would not correspond to simplistic notions of people being labeled as “Black” and “White” (Andreasen, 1998). Prominent anthropologists such as Jonathon Marks have also recently weighed in on this issue, debunking notions of genetically-based racial differences.
The wide range of physical differences among people across the global environmental landscape makes it exceedingly difficult to entertain the notion that there are four or five non-overlapping, distinct races. The more scientists measure human traits, the fewer discrete differences they find.
scientific studies which, time and time again, have failed to locate concrete biological differences specific only to certain populations. Noted social critic Pilar Ossario observes, “We can't find any genetic markers that are in everybody of a particular race and in nobody of some other race”
SOURCE
So yeah, I don't mean to crush your world, but an Indian living in Kenya might actually find a bunch of Kenyans that share more genome sequences with him than a substantial amount of his fellow Indians.
In your hypothetical challenge, yes living in that environment and culture my kids would smoke yours but my kids may not smoke his fellow Kalenjin - that'd take far longer time.
This is what you don't seem to get. If you were living in that environment and fully immersed in the culture and dietary habits, and had kids there, your kids wouldn't be at a disadvantage genetically (outside of being extraordinary individuals). They'd be at a level playing field, and stuff like training, time, commitment, attention and support, etc would be the differentiators in how far he'd go. He'd be better than some and worse than some depending on those factors, not on simply not being a kalenjin.
