Gladwell on Black Athletes

fascinating read, i'll be back later this evening- i expect educated replies boys and girls.

http://www.gladwell.com/pdf/sports.pdf

 

<div class="quote_poster">TheBlackMamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I think this article is going to start A LOT of flaming, bating, and personal attacks, even amongst "educated people."</div>

first gladwell is black, secondly the article is way too complex for those who have no idea to even consider commenting on.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
"It's impossible to speak of black physical superiority, without implying intellectual inferiority."
</div>

I'm assuming that's in reference to the handful of black athletes that grow up in the "ghetto" and what not? I'm not sure if every ghetto-born black athlete is intellectually inferior, but if they could make it out of thier hardships by applying thier God-given talent to use, it actually shows intellectual superiority and an undeniable sense of ambition in my opinion. To make it as an athlete is not an easy task. For every one person that aspires to be an athlete and is training everyday, there's probably 500 more training harder, and in some cases, training out of desperation to make it out of the lifestyles that they live in.

The implication of "intellectual inferiority" will depend on how one defines intellects. If it's supposed to be about book smarts, then yes, perhaps that statement would apply to the athletes that have dropped out of school or done bad in school...but if my athletic ability was the sole reason I could make it out of hardship since I am surrounded by negativity and violence all around me, then I would choose to hone my athletic abilities as opposed to focusing on my studies as well.

None of my comments are meant to be rascist and I'm not agreeing with his point, just questioning his statement.

 

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Why did you post it for us lemmings then? </div>

u're a smart man and its jargon free. read it!!!!

<div class="quote_poster">Junoon Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">
None of my comments are meant to be rascist and I'm not agreeing with his point, just questioning his statement.</div>

he works to dispel that sentiment throughout the rest of the article, so yeah he's agreeing with u of sorts. his arguments are fascinating, i encourage u to read it as well

 

It's definitely an interesting article. Nice find. I had a little difficulty with his explanation of variable differences, but I think I understand it.

That really is a powerful argument. And I agree with him completely. "Learned hopelessness" is embedded in our society. The media is a perfect example, as it perpetuates myths/stereotypes, like the hard-working white player and naturally talented black player. This pigeon-holes ethnic groups into a certain position and role. Football is a great example, where caucasians tend to feel that they are meant to play the quarterback position and depend on their offensive awareness and poise. And, of course, this has a reverse effect as black players feel that certain positions are meant for them (usually the skill positions) and they are best served to rely on natural athletic ability. I feel society has begun to overcome some of these restrictions, but people still have certain expectations when they see a player's race. Also, it is pointless to simply blame the media, as it's become a brutal cycle now.

Gladwell's right when he dismisses the "race determines athletic success" argument as too simplistic. What this idea does do is prevent people from openly discussing the role of race in sports. Ironically, to solve this problem, society has to actually consider these ideas as acceptable topics to discuss. Until then, people will be blind to how racial stereotypes are unknowingly forced upon them.

(Hope that read as clear as it was in my head. It was a complex article.)

 

<div class="quote_poster">shapecity Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I also don't agree with the statement, but I do notice people drawing those conclusions when sports and race come into debate. People usually correlate the better athlete with not being as cerebral as his counterpart. Must people don't draw the conclusion that a person can be both highly intellectual and a highly gifted athlete simultaneously.</div>

In terms of basketball, the players that actually end up speaking out and publicizing (either intentionally or through the media's perception of them) thier past lives are the ones that have grown up hard and made it through struggle. Think of players that are known to the mass public. Players like AI, Baron Davis, Marbury, Ron Artest all have grown up in difficult places (there's plenty more players like that in the NBA) and in that sense, when the mass public hears about these kinds of players being made famous, the stereotype of athletes just dropping thier studies to hone thier athletic skills comes into play. And when people see Ron Artest jumping seats and attacking fans, the word "intelligent" doesn't jump out at them.

To this day, and I've always said this, I still can't believe that people knocked Vince Carter for choosing to put his graduation over a game 7. The funny thing is, the guy didn't even MISS the game...in fact, he was the reason that they almost WON the game...yet people said him attaining his degree prevented him from performing properly in that game?

In today's world, where athletes are scrutinized for 'bad judgements' and labeled certain things by the media (selfish, troublemaker, uncivilian, etc), I found it quite ironic that when a SUPERSTAR chose to put education over athletics, he got blasted for it.

But, pushing aside the stereotype, there are a lot of highly intellectual individuals in all of the major sports. The sad thing is that, the intelligent athletes don't get the press, it's usually the athletes that choose to do/say stupid things that get the press.

 

here are a few more significant things to look for:

africa as most of u know is the place where we all come from. there were a series of migrations out of Africa 100?000s years ago, some going as far as australia (i'm referring to the aboriginals here). Africa as the motherland can be proved by the fact that africa has the greatest genetic diversity in the world. to that end, gladwell surmises that if the world perished except africa, africans could still maintain the worlds genetic diversity. so what he's getting at is that africans are representating all of US (every race), so this enables them to have the greatest degree of outliers (extremes), i.e. u can find the greatest and worst athletes in the world within the african population.

however, the athletic component is just one component, the other is desire. more importantly its the social construction of desire, this is what chutney is getting at. Gladwell calls blacks "boys" and whites "girls" -deducing those analogous classifications from scores on math tests. both boys and girls had the same mean (average) scores but the boys also showed the greatest variance (high and low scores as well). he deduces that boys are socially wired to challenge their teachers (coaches) or believe their poor result was a consequence of their lack of effort, so they display a better ability to recoup from a poor result. conversely, girls are much more accepting of their poor results and have a harder time recouping from a bad result. likewise, when white athletes fail, they assume its a lack of ability while black athletes assume it was poor execution on their part or others.

 

Haven't read the article yet, but does he bring up how slavery plays a part into all of this? It's assumed that black americans and west indians are physically superior because during the days of slavery, slave traders would select only the most physically fit africans to sell. They'd even select the most ideal males and females and force them to mate so they can produce an even more physically gifted child, which would then be sold. Also, during the early days of slavery, the survival rate in America and West Indies was extremely low so of the physically superior ones brought over from Africa, only the best would survive and produce offspring.

It's probably common sense by now and maybe it doesn't relate to the issues brought up in the article.... but just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

This article is way too complex for me as I have no idea to even consider commenting on.

 

<div class="quote_poster">dunksworth Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Haven't read the article yet, but does he bring up how slavery plays a part into all of this? It's assumed that black americans and west indians are physically superior because during the days of slavery, slave traders would select only the most physically fit africans to sell. They'd even select the most ideal males and females and force them to mate so they can produce an even more physically gifted child, which would then be sold. Also, during the early days of slavery, the survival rate in America and West Indies was extremely low so of the physically superior ones brought over from Africa, only the best would survive and produce offspring.

It's probably common sense by now and maybe it doesn't relate to the issues brought up in the article.... but just thought I'd throw it out there.</div>

a lot of what u mentioned is revisionist history, mostly perpetuated by african americans who have this strange superiority complex over africans. the truth is that slaves tend to resonate from places with the weakest kinships, places where foreigners were allowed without much resistance to come in and eviscerate their way of life. and remember choosing on appearance is simply perception (misleading and unscientific) . the article gets away from a lot of the guesswork u just mentioned and i?m not dismissing what u?re saying but its still guesswork.

 

<div class="quote_poster">SkiptoMyLue11 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">This article is way too complex for me as I have no idea to even consider commenting on. </div>
you're not the only one man

 

<div class="quote_poster">phunDamentalz Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">you're not the only one man</div>

the article isn't complex at all if u break it up into manageable ideas

 

I read it. I thought he was kind of all over the map. He says that African-Americans have on average stronger bone structures. Then he argues that the seeming physical superiority has to do with higher variation. Then he goes on to say it has more to do with cultural differences and the impact of racial stereotypes (whites tend to believe they are physically inferior, so they don't focus as hard on it). I wasn't able to pinpoint was exactly his thesis is.

It was also interesting that he side-stepped the other issue ... are their differences in intellectual capacity (be it on average, or in variability) between different races, and if so why?

 

<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I read it. I thought he was kind of all over the map. He says that African-Americans have on average stronger bone structures. Then he argues that the seeming physical superiority has to do with higher variation. Then he goes on to say it has more to do with cultural differences and the impact of racial stereotypes (whites tend to believe they are physically inferior, so they don't focus as hard on it). I wasn't able to pinpoint was exactly his thesis is.

It was also interesting that he side-stepped the other issue ... are their differences in intellectual capacity (be it on average, or in variability) between different races, and if so why?</div>

his thesis is that race isn't as simple as u might think. secondly, u're right - its variation + desire (mostly socially constructed) = great black athelte on freakish occasion.

and he doesn't evade the intellect issue; in fact, it was kinda the opening theme, underscored by the sentence shape quoted in the thread from the article. fyi- intellect has far more to do with nurture, than nature.

 

I'll have to read through the article again to make sure this author mentioned anything about Jocks and Nerds stereotypes (brains vs. brawn). There is the notion that strong, fast athlete = dumber or less educated in general compared to people not as physically blessed (this stereotype probably applies to every single society regardless of race.) Sometimes, people don't think much of the in-between or balanced individual or great at everything individual.

I think if someone is decently smart, it's more to do with the social/economic environment and the choices in life that people decide to put their effort towards, such as studying or athletics). This is probably what the author is getting more at. What are the socioeconomic factors and choices that lead the individual into making the most of his/her potential for certain skills?

However, if anyone is implying physical superiority and intellectual inferiority, maybe it is because there are racists out there that want to justify that the institution of slavery artificially led to the physically strongest individuals surviving over those who were good at brain work and not so good at physical work (the whole jocks versus nerds stereotype). I'm sure this idea has probably carried over to many bigotted folks who had an agenda against African Americans, especially in the military, government, or any educational institution, where they tried to keep blacks out.

Read about the Tuskegee airmen and they were some of the best pilots of world war 2 (not just because they had to be, but it helped).