White People Swim, and Black People Run? Race, Science, and Athletics
by Latoya Peterson
So I am up at five, again, but this time for a good cause. The Takeaway (NYC) is hosting a show on a new study that is causing tongues to wag:
Biomechanical researchers analysed 100 years of athletes’ heights, weights and running and swimming records, and demonstrated how the placement of one’s center of gravity affects one’s athletic performance. No big deal, right? People got jumpy, however, when the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics published the paper: “The Evolution of Speed in Athletics: Why the Fastest Runners are Black and Swimmers are White.”
We talk with two of the scientists behind the study: Dr. Adrian Bejan of Duke University and Edward Jones, of Howard University, about why their team embarked on this project, the science enlisted in their research, and the specifics of the study’s outcomes.
We also talk with Latoya Peterson of Racialicious.com about why these sorts of studies make so many people squeamish, and whether, in a post-racial society, it makes sense to conduct studies on groups of people based on shared physical characteristics. What’s your take? Are race-based studies inherently racist?
The show is live at 6 AM ET – or, you can listen to the podcast and comment here a bit later in the day.
Update:
Just finished the show, and, as usual, the supertight constraints of radio mean a lot was left unsaid.
I received the papers by Bejan and Jones last night as part of my prep for the segment, and noticed something interesting. Bejan has published two other studies that didn’t grab headlines: “The Evolution of Speed, Size, and Shape in Modern Athletics” (2009, with Jordan D. Charles) and “Constructing Animal Locomation from New Thermodynamics Theory” (2006, with James H. Marden). For Bejan, this is another paper in a research cycle, looking at changes in speed and dynamics through a variety of lenses. But the reason this paper grabbed headlines is because of the racial angle.
I am reminded of the PhD comic linked to by a reader a while back:
And this is kind of what happened with this study. The actual paper states in the third paragraph (or fourth, if you count the abstract):
Our approach is to study phenotypic (somatotypic) differences of human locomotion in different media (terrestrial vs. aquatic), which we consider to have been historically misclassified as racial characteristics. These differences represent consequences of still not well-understood variable environmental stimuli for survival fitness in different parts of the globe during thousands of years of habitation [3–6]. Our study does not advance the notion of race, now recognized as a social construct, as opposed to a biological construct. We acknowledge the wide phenotypic and genotypic diversity among the so-called racial types.
Yet, the study is being distilled simply as blacks are better runners, whites are better swimmers.
When this happened on air, I forfeited a statement spot* to push the question back to the study authors. The researchers used the terms “black” and “white” but were really talking about regions, particularly in the case of runners. However, when the segment wrapped, I hoped listeners had taken some of the more important parts of the study with them. The point of the convo was not to have people to rail against research, but to understand and critically analyze research and context. Jones sent out an email to those of us on the segment, saying:
1) My contribution was in bringing the relevant comparative body composition literature to the table.
2) Future research design that would seem logical to do, if this science is deemed sound, useful and relevant to pursue — may include a longitudinal, prospective (from this point forward) study that attempted to standardize factors such as socioeconomic status, access to similar athletic training swimming or running), and other such factors among different members of a representative sample from different population groups (e.g., blacks of various subtypes, whites of various subtypes, and Asians of various subtypes) to see if the differences remain. Technically, this type of study could be argued as required before the findings in the recent paper by Bejan, Jones & Charles (2010) might be considered proved/disproved. Retrospective studies such as this are useful, but clearly have methodical limitations given the lack of standardization and control in study designs.
When a newspaper publishes an article about a recent scientific study concerning humans, it is almost expected that people with a political agenda will pick and choose parts of the article that support their view, and ignore those parts that invalidate it. The science writers may even intentionally and deliberately insert clarifications and disclaimers to make sure the article is inconsistent with a popular incorrect political view, but people with an agenda will ignore the clarifications and disclaimers because they don’t understand it, they reject nuances, or because they simply ignore information that does not fit into their worldview. [...]Of course, this is a complete misunderstanding of how scientific research works. Almost all scientific studies are not done to educate the general public; they are done to explore the unexplored territory in the field. The primary audience of a scientific paper is other scientists in the field. Only after the original paper endures years of debate and replications among the scientific community do the new findings make it into the canon of an undergraduate textbook. Most published studies do not make it into this canon, and are read by only a small circle of specialists.In other words, many members of the public assume that scientific studies are conducted for them instead of for other scientists. Given this assumption, it is not too much of logical leap for them to suppose that the scientists conducted a particular controversial study with the nefarious intention to advance a political (e.g., right-wing) agenda.
The whole reason I jumped on the radio this morning was to say this: Talking about race and science are similar because both topics become a bit distorted in national conversations, despite efforts by anti-racists and by many scientists to make sure that everyone is working from a clear understanding of the underlying assumptions and principles. The problem with research around race isn’t that simple research exists – its that people take this research and consider it the absolute truth, which is then used to prop up existing prejudices.
Now, I’m not saying that scientists can’t be racist or put together flawed studies in support of prejudice. But I am saying that these matters are complicated, and we should be skeptical of what conclusions are drawn from what types of data.
–
*I said forfeited a statement spot, which is a direct result of my media training. While listening to the scientists talk during their segment, I realized they were trying to answer the questions as thoroughly as possible – which meant they kept getting cut off. The radio and tv environment does want some clarity, but they really thrive on soundbytes. So, now when I am asked a question, I’m not thinking “what’s the best way to answer this question?” but rather “what’s the best way to answer this question in 30 seconds and in a way that will be remembered.” Our super condensed media cycle may also be an explanation as to why its hard to have clarity in larger national conversations.
(And I need to give a big thank you to the commenters on Racialicious who are part of the science community - you all have really helped shape how we approach these discussions.)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
DelphineBlue wrote:
“What’s your take? Are race-based studies inherently racist?”
I will believe that race based studies (conducted by White scientists) are not racist when there is research studying why historically, the most inter-racial violence has been committed by White people. I won’t hold my breath.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 9:14 am ¶
Eva wrote:
Every time I see some “scientific” claim about anything I roll my eyes. What may be true today won’t be true in a few years. When I was a college student in the 70’s the belief was that childhood trauma was the cause of schizophrenia. People believe differently today.
What I want to ask those scientists is what about people who aren’t black or white? What about Asians, Pacific Islanders? What about biracial or multi racial people? What if Michael Phelps has a child with a black woman, would that child be a great runner AND a great swimmer?
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 9:18 am ¶
Tamara wrote:
“What if Michael Phelps has a child with a black woman, would that child be a great runner AND a great swimmer?”
Ha!!!!!! Good point!
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 10:02 am ¶
Just A Thought wrote:
@ Eva:
I am on the same page. I was wondering why it was boiled down to just a black/white binary, especially because you can find the geographical distribution of africa and europe in asia.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 10:06 am ¶
Mickey wrote:
“What about biracial or multi racial people? What if Michael Phelps has a child with a black woman, would that child be a great runner AND a great swimmer?”
@ Eva,
That is EXACTLY what I was thinking regarding this article. Do these scientists believe in hybrid vigor? And, yes, why do they not look at other races for these types of research? Have they bought into the stereotype that Asians are smart, but not athletic? My guess is that some of them are obsessed with seeing which race, black or white, is better than the other when it comes to these matters.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 10:14 am ¶
Kim wrote:
It is no wonder that people of color are skeptical about “scientific research”. From the dawn of this country research about them has been biased or in some cases abusive. I am working on a literature review of some of the early American psychological journals. Many of them contained the most racist ideas about Black people you could ever read, and this was in their Volume Ones (early 1900s) so there was a real preoccupation with race in research at that point. The material is not for a weak stomach.
And then there was research in the medical field that was just downright abusive like the Tuskeegee study.
I think the point now is that we have come a very short way in terms of changing deep rooted sterotypes and there are some groups that will jump on any opportunity to “prove” people of color are somehow so different from them and in cases less important than they are.
I think you are right that they work got distilled down to what would sell papers or air time or whatever. And the bigots will just jump right in.
We need to be encouraged to take a little extra time to understand that we are talking about very complex issues (history, environment, social issues, individual attributes) when we talk about racial differences and that they cannot be distilled into simplistic arguments about entire groups of people.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 10:29 am ¶
amber. wrote:
I think it’s important to understand that, actually, the scientists who conducted the study aren’t “claiming” anything. good scientists don’t make claims; they know that even volumes of careful research don’t yield proof but rather evidence to be interpreted. it’s the media that manipulates and distorts these studies and misrepresents the data in order to interest the non-scientific public.
further, I imagine the research did include data on athletes who are Asian/Pacific Islander or multiracial, based on the paragraph from the paper Latoya quoted. if not, Jones’ email makes it clear that more research would include study of those racial types.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 10:36 am ¶
JihadPunk77 wrote:
I’m with Eva. I always ignore “scientific studies” released by the mainstream media because I know it’s all distilled into some simple bullshit for dumb people to “comprehend.”
Latoya, I give you kudos for declining the statement spot. I fucking hate sound-bytes. It killed the mainstream media.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 10:38 am ¶
Darth Paul wrote:
“Almost all scientific studies are not done to educate the general public; they are done to explore the unexplored territory in the field.”
That’s questionable. Maybe at universities that’s the case, but a staggering amount of “studies” are corporately funded in order to produce results in line with their lobbying and political agenda.
I’ll also point out that most people have utterly dogmatic views on science AND politics, which is disastrous. And like Eva, I’m dismissive of any exclusive study. I particularly hate the ones that try to home in on causes of homosexuality that totally ignore lesbians or POC. White males are the only gay people on earth?
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 10:41 am ¶
jen* wrote:
What I noticed when I watched a highly disturbing clip from AC360 over at Shakesville, was that folks who are trying to combat racist ideas in the media have their work cut out for them simply in the allotted time they have to defend against idiocy or explain sometimes complex points.
What I’ve noticed more often, is that newspeople sometimes seem to be advancing one idea that may be erroneous, but the newsperson has the moderator’s position and is able to shape the conversation.
I’ll try to listen later on today…
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 10:42 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Oh, I thought I made this clear.
The scientists at this one weren’t at fault. They have a provocatively named study, which is ill advised, but to them it’s just a point of exploration in the context of all their other research.
I’ve actually kept up a short correspondence with Jones (he does research at Howard on African Americans and obesity) so I’m fairly certain that the title of the paper was just to grab attention. The actual study is full of qualifiers, but “there is a higher correlation between central mass, sitting height, and swimming performance” just ain’t catchy.
(Oh, and to the scientists in the house – is sending more research papers scientist for “let’s be friends?” Now I have three things to read!)
@jen* – folks who are trying to combat racist ideas in the media have their work cut out for them simply in the allotted time they have to defend against idiocy
Ooooooh….I could tell you stories.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 10:57 am ¶
LM wrote:
Have downloaded podcast for a listen later today. Meantime, this is a fantastic insight into how misshapen the “race, science and athletics” conversation tends to be.
Great work on your part, Latoya, for doing your preparation in advance on short notice; for getting on the radio at that hour; for bringing light more than heat to the actual conversation; and then for the thorough follow-up on this site, including an excellent explanation of how the structure of media dialogue skews the subject matter itself. With illustrations to boot…
Would that more people read, think and express themselves half as carefully as you do. I won’t expect them to keep up with the volume of your production.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 11:09 am ¶
Brenda wrote:
I read this article a couple of days ago in a newspaper and wondered what happens when an athlete is half black and half white? Will they be a super athlete in running and swimming since they get the “best of both”?
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 12:54 pm ¶
Brenda wrote:
…after all, my son is a fast runner AND loves being in the water!
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 12:56 pm ¶
Brandon wrote:
As much as conversations about race, genetics, and sports scare the crap out of me… I think it’s important that they happen.
We all agree that the color-blind society is a myth. It’s a way for people to avoid issues of race.
To not notice certain racial trends in athletics feels like color-blind naivety to me, denying what is obvious.
Where things get dangerous is when people attribute success to race. So-and-so can run because he’s black. So-and-so can swim because she’s white.
The conversation is worth having, but we have to steer it in the right direction, and hope that people are willing to engage their brains and try to actually understand something. Media constraints make that really tough, though.
And Latoya’s point is a great one: we have to change our strategies for a soundbite culture…
But I also wonder if at some point it becomes counterproductive to have such serious topics raised in such a shallow manner. You want a voice of reason included in the conversation, but is it always worth it?
I guess if some people can’t get the Cliff’s Notes version of Race 101, they won’t get anything… so we’d better offer it.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 1:04 pm ¶
Val wrote:
Somebody should get this information to Jeremy Wariner so he won’t continue beating all those Black runners in the 400m every week.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 1:26 pm ¶
fred wrote:
Eva asks: “What if Michael Phelps has a child with a black woman, would that child be a great runner AND a great swimmer?”
No. The research makes it quite clear that it is “the placement of one’s center of gravity that affects one’s athletic performance.” All things being equal, a higher center of gravity is an advantage for runners and a lower center of gravity is an advantage for swimmers. Since it’s not possible to have both a “higher” AND “lower” center of gravity it is not possibly to be both a world class runner and world class swimmer.
The only connection to race this research makes is that africans tend to have a higher center of gravity and eurasians tend to have a lower center of gravity. The issue is one’s center of gravity – not color.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 3:58 pm ¶
Valkyrie607 wrote:
The scientists in this study made it clear that they regard race as a social construct only, and that any correlation to race stems from correlations to certain physical attributes–center of gravity in this place.
The only way to find out whether a scientific study is worth paying attention to or dismissing is to investigate it.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 6:44 pm ¶
Sisou wrote:
The other problem is that there are studies that suggest if people know a stereotype they will perform in line with that stereotype. So white basketball player will perform worst if they are told that basketball is a natural ability.
So how can we have a clean study in this world we live in? at this point we will never know “differences’ vs ” brainwashing”
though health studies are a different matter.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 7:15 pm ¶
Umm...what? wrote:
These studies NEVER adjust for the fact that most black Americans are of mixed ancestry and that the mixing was relatively recent. That alone raises questions about the integrity of study samples. It also makes any racist conclusion that can be drawn from study result null and void. Negative traits could just as easily be blamed on our white ancestors as they could our black ancestors.
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 7:25 pm ¶
Restructure! wrote:
Thank you for doing this, Latoya.
I hope the earlier comments were there before you updated the post…
Posted 28 Jul 2010 at 11:58 pm ¶
Roland Hulme wrote:
This is GENIUS.
Posted 29 Jul 2010 at 9:17 am ¶
blah wrote:
This is all very interesting esp with what is happening in Barcelona and Christophe Lemaitre, a white Frenchmen, who is slight of shape and is beating the odds because apparently sprinters are suppose to have bodies and skin color like Bolt. I agree with the poster who said that all these studies are interesting but I think that they will be of course used to promote a group of people’s racial stereotypes when a lot of the time an individual’s environment can be just as instrumental in a person’s development.
Posted 29 Jul 2010 at 11:18 am ¶
Say What? wrote:
What comments here and lower middlebrow shows like The Takeaway once again glaringly reveal is the catastrophic inadequacy of science education in the US. Thanks to which it is still not universally understood that it has long since been determined that there is N O S U CH
T H I N G A S R A C E.
Ignorant fake controversy milking media personalities persistent use of the term as if it meant something perpetuates the public doing same.
The Athletics study has no more reason to raise eyebrows than a study showing pale or milky white skinned (Skin Type 1) people with blond or red hair, have the highest susceptibility to Sunburn whereas people with black skin (Skin Type 6) have none.
Y’all get a grip now.
Posted 29 Jul 2010 at 4:42 pm ¶
Morpho wrote:
Echoing what Valkyrie607 said:
This research was mentioned in last week’s issue of “The Week,” and what I really liked about their article was that they actually distanced themselves from race, reasoning that the study focuses on physiological variances and race is a social construct. So they reported on the results, and gave examples as well, using the geographical region of the subjects in question (e.g., referencing a West African’s ability to run faster than a Western European).
Posted 29 Jul 2010 at 4:58 pm ¶
karak wrote:
The idea that a population which has lived in a certain environment for thousands of years might develop subtle acclimations is obvious. That those acclimations might result in particular skills or talents isn’t too much of a leap, either.
To suggest some sort of *value* on that, is stupid. And to make it continent v continent is even stupider on the part of the media. Africa is A GIANT LAND MASS WITH MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF TERRAIN. SO IS EUROPE.
Ugh.
Posted 29 Jul 2010 at 7:15 pm ¶
PatrickInBeijing wrote:
Thanks LaToya for telling us about this, and for going out there in the MSM and trying to bring some rational thought to tough subjects.
I remember arguing with Jon Entine who wrote a book trying to prove that some “racial” groups are genetically better at athletics than others. He had noted in his book that people whose results disagreed with his studies were excluded, since they tended to “distort” the results. WTF? I got into a public online debate with the guy, but he never saw what was wrong with what he was doing.
I have no problem with “scientists” doing any kind of research. But we should all (including and especially, in this case, scientists), be honest and bring our biases (ones we know we have, and ones we might possibly have) to the table.
Can, and do, scientists do this?? The good ones try, it sounds like these folks were on it, asking a lot of the right questions. But the bad ones??
And can the MSM tell the difference? Or do they even care?
So, I am always of mixed feelings. Usually, when I hear about something like this, my eyes roll, and my head starts to pound, but really…… we can’t stop the research from happening.
If we say “no”, then the good scientists, listen and stop researching, the ignorant ones keep going. So, I am afraid that we are (in my opinion) stuck with “yes”.
About including other races. When I first got to Beijing, I jogged around my local track. It was 2002. A lot of students jogged with me (free English practice, but they had to go really slow). They used to insist that Asians were unable to run fast due to genetic differences. Then came that glorious 100 meters hurdles at the 2004 Olympics. After that, they said, “hey, maybe we can run fast if we believe we can”.
I am not so sure that I think this study is definitive, there are so many possible body types and combinations (i remember running (jogging slowly) in a road race once, there were six tall thin guys ahead of me, i could never catch them (i am short and stout, and not very young). A big fat female came charging past me and then passed them, like we were all standing still. Hmmm, i thought admiringly. Someone forgot to tell her she can’t be fast and strong. I passed four of those guys…. HeHeHe…
Posted 30 Jul 2010 at 1:03 am ¶
Alston Adams wrote:
@fred #17:
Is this confirmed in any way? And if true, what does that mean for African-Canadians and Americans who are, as someone pointed out, very mixed of race?
Posted 31 Jul 2010 at 1:13 pm ¶