Yeah man, that was racist.

Here all day, folks. Try the veal.

Not just black people, but more specifically geographical descendants from a relatively small region of Western Africa. We focus a lot on melanin concentration when grouping people, which makes sense, because we are visual species.

But melanin production seems to be an adaptation that has happened fairly quickly on an evolutionary scale in response to environment; so using this to group people can cause people to be put into the same racial group despite otherwise having dramatic genetic differences (on average) that came about from environmental isolation over a long time period.

Maybe the long distance races but not the 100 M

Hope you can find a solution for your phones, LB. Stay safe out there

You're not comparing average Kenyans though. You have no clue at all how fast the average Kenyan runs.

The same way one states that most elite croquet players haven't been black.

But why would you want to?

No. But we were talking people from
Kenya, and a specific ethnic group from that area, with less than 10m members, dominated marathons in particular since the 50s.

And the qualities needed to win short distances are totally different from very long distance running.

The Kalenjin from the rift valley near the border of Kenya and Ethiopia are a very very specific ethnic group with very precise qualities above average which, ofc coupled with extreme training in very dedicated individuals, allow for better results in long distance training that any other human group.

We are talking something like less than 0.02% of the human population winning half or more the International medals in long distance running after WW2.

Genetically speaking their blood cells are simply special on average. Their work at full perfect regime with less oxygen.

Ofc it isn't deterministic, training still plays a huge part and almost certainly a bigger part. But at the very top of the profession everyone dedicates his whole life to training with the best strategies possible.

And if a kalenjin does he has hugely higher chances to be the best (still infinitesimally small for a single individual) than if anyone else does

Which you chose to categories as "Kenyans", as if running long distances is something the average Kenyan businessman or call centre worker excels at.

Actually there is more genetic difference between groups that are all labeled as blacks, than between the average black and most other "races" (under the silly American style labeling).

Blacks have both the tallest and the shortest human group for example (Dinka and bambuti), and calling them both the same race is a disgrace, a mistake and so on.

That's obviously expected for any species in the area it originated.

No I didn't it was chillrob, check again.

"Ghana has worse outcomes than south Korea" therefore <<derogatory conclusion about Ghanaians>> is similarly bad.

No as I didn't even posit it was for genetic reasons, check again.

I literally didn't even discuss why the outcome is difference, all it takes is for the outcome to be different and to assume at least of portion of it is endogenous

Some places have objectively far worse outcomes than others, why would it be "derogatory" to measure that?

That's quite an assumption, isn't it?

For any or no reason, but mostly because I don't want to be restricted from stating objective facts by political correctness.

Measuring something isn't derogatory. Drawing negative conclusions about the people with worse outcomes is.

I don't think anyone wants to stop you from stating anything that's objective true. But of all the millions of facts that are objectively true it's odd how often it's the one about black people being better (allegedly) at certain types of running that gets stated. And that it's usually not black people making that observation.

iI's almost as if it's a prelude to something else.

Probably because there is a large group of people out there who seek to make such conversations taboo. Seems obvious that there would be some push back on that.

Given that such "observations" were being made long before the rise of your dreaded "PC", that's clearly not true.

No, that's why you take Ghana and south Korea.

Because they both became independent from colonial influence in practice in the 50s

Because it's not all blacks. Not sure how else to tell you that, "black" isn't a race at all. It's not a coherent human group with common ancestors that differentiate them from all other human groups in specific measurable ways.

But in Jamaica there are super proud of their dominance of short distance running, and in the rift valley they are, of their dominance of long distance running

Fair enough. Obviously I'm not into the race science stuff, but equally, I'm not a fan of the idea of not being able to make such an observation for fear of offending someone.

Strange how (without looking it up) most of the recent Olympic champions and WR holders in sprinting are the descendants of people taken from West Africa but not actual West Africans.

I don't suppose the reason why East Africans win so many long distance medals but their descendants in the West don't is in any way related to the amount of money that goes into finding young sprinters because of their hugely inflated marketability over long distance runners?

No idea what you're talking about honestly. I have never heard of anyone thinking American is a race.
If anyone agrees with you I would love to know.