Its not actually true that black athletes dominate sports. They dominate PARTS of SOME sports. The reasons for this are really quite simple.

1. Sport has been seen as a way out of poverty for generations. Certain sports have lent themselves to team games by poor kids (in the UK its traditionally been soccer which cold be played in the streets and back lanes, in the West Indies cricket which could be played on any piece of relatively flat waste ground [not many of those in inner city England, despite its being the home of cricket, where it remains a fairly middle class, white, game], in the US basketball which can be played on a small court of the type established by local government all over the inner cities. Boxing has been another route out of poverty and gyms have flourished in inner city areas. They've been played by poor, working class kids and hence, these are sports where black participation has soared.

2. There are certain sports which are middle class and where there have been fewer middle class blacks in the past and therefore fewer patterns of life involving them and their children in certain sports. That's why Tiger Woods is unique in golf.

3. For certain events in certain sports, there is a requirement for certain body characteristics. It doesn't really matter whether the athlete is black, white, yellow or purple, a good long distance runner is likely to be slightly built. This is the dominant body shape in East Africa and the Far East. Hence it should be no surprise that athletes from these countries (either those currently living there or those whose families roots are there) do well. There are, however, white athletes who are also of slight build and, if they are good enough and train, they can match or out-perform black athletes. The same logic holds true for events that require high degrees of body mass (certain positions in football) or height (basketball).

Finally, as for why people don't talk about these reasons - its because they confuse making factual statements and discussing their explanation with using those explanations to justify the past or present subjugation of one group of people by another. They're afraid that they will be seen a rascist, even though they may not be.

To illustrate, I come from a culture that has a high degree of heart disease. We're the world champions for heart attacks. This is as a result of genetic selection and diet. This is saying that we're genetically pre-disposed to doing really well in the heart attack stakes. (By the way, the working class in this culture suffer more from heart disease.) Saying this doesn't mean that the Scots (that's who I'm talking about in case you're wondering) or the working class should be regarded as inferior to any other nationality. Its saying that Scots are better at heart disease than almost any other national group. It helps us explain what's going on. That's all. Nothing rascist about that. We should be able to have the same sort of discussion and seek the same level of explanations about the relationship between race and other phenomena.

Learn more about this author, Sebastian Ramshackle III.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Why black athletes dominate sports?
We want to hear your view. Write now!