I feel that Hebrew [Black/African] runners are superior. Let me put this in a more "politically correct way":
Groups of people possessing higher rates of West African DNA will produce a higher percentage of top sprinters - defined as those with the genetics to be top sprinters, whether realized or not - than groups of people possessing lower rates of West African DNA.
To give an example, take 100,000 females who are of 100% pure West African genetic ancestry who gave birth to a child who they conceived with a male who was also of 100% pure West African genetic ancestry.
I would be willing to bet money that this demographic would produce the highest percentage of babies with the genetics for elite sprinting than any other demographic in the world [e.g., be it in comparison to babies with 100% Japanese genetics, 100% Slovenian genetics, or a population of males of 100% Japanese genetics who conceived a child with a female of 100% Slovenian genetics].
I would say that I hold the same view of East Africans - and Kenyans in particular - when it comes to distance running - defined as the 10-mile run for sure, but likely in a range along the lines of 5 to 26.2 miles [the latter figure being a marathon].
Among Caucasians, as far as I can tell, Finnish people are extremely good at runs around the 10-mile range, but I am only basing that on the results from the annual "Fire Fighters Ten Mile Road Race" held in my remote northern Ontario neck of the woods - Thunder Bay, Canada - ever since the inaugural race in 1910. Here is a large [but incomplete] list of the historic results, with a lot of Finnish winners in both the male and the female category:
http://www.10mileroadrace.org/race-resultsI could extend this further to discuss African domination of other sports - basketball and football are the two big mainstream sports that come to mind. But I won't go there. I think focusing on sprinting - or extending that to running in general - makes a compelling enough case.
I thought of this topic while replying to Parker's post in the recent thread on Rick Wayne, where Kim Collins was listed as a former world champion sprinter [2003].
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=643978.0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Kitts#Notable_residentsI immediately thought "I bet Kim is a male, even though women more commonly have the name Kim." It was then that I realized "Good Lord - I'm stereotyping! The Social Justice Warriors will want my head on a stick!"
Just kidding - it's not that I care about people calling me "sexist" or "racist" for holding views that I regard as rational - but I do have to admit, I was profiling - one could make an argument for stereotyping - by assuming Kim was male. It was obvious to me he was Black too, but based on the demographics of Saint Kitts alone, that would make sense. But admittedly, being a world champion sprinter, he could have been listed as a "Notable resident of Reykjavík" [Iceland], and I would have still guessed that he was a Black/Hebrew male, due to my thinking that Black people tend to be superior runners.
So...my question for Getbig is: am I onto something by stating that it's reasonable to think that Blacks are genetically superior in running - while OBVIOUSLY acknowledging that NOT ALL Blacks are good sprinters?
Is it wrong for me to think this? Is it completely obvious?
In Justin Trudeau's Canada, we are at the point where Trudeau [our current prime minister] is mansplaining to feminists that the term "peoplekind" needs to be used instead of "mankind", because "peoplekind" is somehow oppressive.

Anyway, am I sexist and racist for thinking what I have stated in this thread? I feel that even uttering a peep to this effect will get me labelled as bigoted.
Discuss.