A
more appropriate title for this book would omit "why" from
the first clause of the subtitle. The book deals with a taboo subject—racial
science is viewed as the third rail by many academics–but the author
fails to deliver a convincing answer.
Entine,
an award-winning journalist, begins the book with an overview of the taboo:
investigating (or even discussing) whether blacks are naturally superior
athletes, a question linked historically with insidious stereotypes of
intellectual and moral inferiority. In Part II, he provides copious, although
selective, evidence for that superiority from professional and amateur
athletics. The examples cited are certainly interesting, but not surprising.
One need only be a fan of football, basketball, or Olympic sprinting events
to realize that whites are vastly underrepresented. Unfortunately, many
readers will conflate evidence of black/white performance differences
with evidence of cause, and Entine e does nothing to discourage this.
Indeed, given the porosity of later arguments, it may be that Entine himself
was overwhelmed by the correlations he offers.
Parts
III and IV deal with the history of eugenics, an overly simplified review
of human evolution, and the transition from white to largely black domination
of selected sports in the United States. It is not until Part V that
Entine really tries to make his case favoring nature over nurture as
the explanation for black superiority in sports. I suspect that Entine
heard the hum of the third rail and needed the first 200 pages to bolster
his resolve. Given this section's centrality to the book, it is unfortunate
that it is the weakest (and most maddening) part.
Taboo falters primarily because it rests on the flawed but central
premise that "race," as defined by skin color, is a meaningful
biological and genetic construct. In this view, common sense reveals
whether a person is black or white and that simple (and apparently qualitative)
assignment tracks reliably with more complex traits such as running
and jumping ability. Interestingly, Entine undermines his own argument
by separating out blacks descended from Western versus Eastern Africa
as having different athletic advantages over whites. Apparently, some
blacks have no advantage, which would seem to eliminate skin color as
the crucial determinant.
With
every new population study of genetic variation, the biological basis
for Entine's race premise becomes less and less tenable. The heavy reliance
on anthropologists who support the race distinction does not strengthen
the case and, indeed, serves only to highlight the pronounced and growing
distance between mainstream genetics and anthropology. Much of the cited
evidence derives from secondary and tertiary sources, and a fair amount
of email, anecdotes, celebrity opinions, newspaper editorials, and unpublished
communications masquerade as evidence. Many controversial statements,
and often ones presented as summaries of weak arguments, are inadequately
cited or completely uncited. For example, when trying to separate discussions
of race-based athletic performance from discussions of race-based intelligence,
Entine writes “it cannot be stated too strongly that the data
that conclusively links [sic] our ancestry to athletic skills
have little or anything (sic) to say about intelligence" (p 245,
emphasis added). In fact, no such data are presented.
Entine
acknowledges but remains unconvinced by compelling evidence that skin
color may be merely a superficial trait, and that genetic variation
between populations is too small to justify traditional race designations.
He also avoids appearing antediluvian by admitting that environment
plays a role in shaping phenotype. He is correct that "biology
circumscribes possibility," but he dismisses arguments against
“innate black superiority” as dogmatic and politically motivated.
Entine betrays his disdain for those who disagree with him through his
use of tendentious rhetorical devices such as conversation stoppers,
non sequiturs, and ad hominem attacks. For example, in ridiculing a
proposed experiment (identifying genes that enhance endurance and finding
them at higher frequency among Kenyan runners) that would provide convincing
evidence of genetically influenced, population-based performance differences,
the author writes: “[i]ronically, the arguments advanced by Marks
and Anderson echo the creationist attack on evolution" (p 289).
Although
there is much to criticize, the book generally is well written and interesting,
and makes a number of valid points. Entine acknowledges that, regardless
of the contribution of biology to differences in athletic performance,
economics, opportunity, coaching, and hard work are critical in realizing
athletic potential. He also cautions that postmodern political correctness
threatens to chill investigations into not only differences in athletic
performance, but other areas of intellectual inquiry as well.
It
is certainly true that many complex behaviors are rooted in biology,
and with the completion of the Human Genome Project and increasingly
detailed maps of genetic polymorphisms, we undoubtedly will determine
even more links between genes and complex phenotypes. In fact, scientists
may eventually discover biological causes for population. based differences
in athletic performance. It is quite clear, however, that we will not
find meaningful answers unless we ask the right questions. Framing those
questions simplistically and inaccurately in terms of skin color only
complicates the search.
Michael J. Dougherty, Biology,
Hampden–Sydney
College, Hampden–Sydney,
Virginia
