Good Idea
02-24-2006, 12:54 AM
The previous race thread got me to wondering about something. If you look at Track & Field records you will find that the vast majority of the fastest times ever recorded in the sprints from 100m to 400m belong to people who can trace their ancestry to west Africa. The events from 10,000m thru the marathon are dominated by people from east Africa. This is fact, you can look it up.
I'm guessing that this may be because the dense vegetation in west Africa required the indigenous people to be able to run quickly and with great agility over short distances. While in east Africa with it's huge savannahs and long distances between water sources, people had to cover long distances but not necessarily run fast in a sprint. The people in both groups are "black" but their physical predispositions are totally different.
In the previous thread the question was "Are whites smarter than blacks?" or something like that. What I'm wondering is how can we label a "race" as something as general as "black" and assign it an intelligence value when there are such differences within the "black" race?
Regards,
G.I.
I'm guessing that this may be because the dense vegetation in west Africa required the indigenous people to be able to run quickly and with great agility over short distances. While in east Africa with it's huge savannahs and long distances between water sources, people had to cover long distances but not necessarily run fast in a sprint. The people in both groups are "black" but their physical predispositions are totally different.
In the previous thread the question was "Are whites smarter than blacks?" or something like that. What I'm wondering is how can we label a "race" as something as general as "black" and assign it an intelligence value when there are such differences within the "black" race?
Regards,
G.I.