A Thought on Biden

One thing hanging over Barack Obama is the idea -- voiced by Debra Dickerson among others -- that he isn't really black. He was, after all, raised by his white mother. And his dad was from Kenya, not the descendant of American slaves. It seems to me that Joe Biden should have dispelled that kind of talk, by showing that Obama's black enough to be subjected to bizarre race-related crap from white people.

Similarly, if you watch the NBA I think it's clear that there's a set of stereotypes associated with black players ("amazing speed and athleticism") and a different set associated with Europeans ("incredible skills, but he's too soft") and also fairly clear that black Europeans (Parker, Diaw, Turiaf, etc.) are treated like blacks rather than like Europeans for these purposes.

UPDATE: See also Chris Hayes' article on David Alexrod.

Comments

I've wondered why nobody has pointed out that the real reason Barack Obama doesn't seem black is that he has no black relatives who can be portrayed as somehow embarrassing and out of the mainstream by crypto-racist smearmongers. If his name was Barry Washington there would have been an enormous effort before he even ran for the Senate to find some uncle or cousin somewhere who could fit the stereotype of mumbling/menacing/whatever. It seems that they've actually given up on tarring him with any racial stereotypes and are moving on to insinuating that he is a terrifying Muslim.

Posted by Cryptic Ned | February 4, 2007 2:00 PM

I wasn't clear...what I mean to say is that Obama is a black man, with no black relatives. His father vanished from his life early. This will help in making him unstereotypable.

Posted by Cryptic Ned | February 4, 2007 2:01 PM

Actually, his father is proving a potential embarrassment.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23383304-details/A+drunk+and+a+bigot+-+what+the+US+Presidental+hopeful+HASN%27T+said+about+his+father.../article.do

Posted by James Kabala | February 4, 2007 2:06 PM

Parker and maybe Diaw used to be a nice combination of each: athletic but soft.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 4, 2007 2:07 PM

I wasn't clear...what I mean to say is that Obama is a black man, with no black relatives. His father vanished from his life early. This will help in making him unstereotypable.

His wife is black; potentially she could have relatives with some "stereotype" baggage in her closet.

But still, Roger Clinton? Neil Bush? The messed up relative is hardly political poison at this point.

Posted by right | February 4, 2007 2:27 PM

Right Obama's wife is black, and he worked with Black churches as a community organizer before getting into the state senate. From an ethnic/cultural standpoint, Obama is definitely African American.

Posted by Chad Okere | February 4, 2007 2:55 PM

James, do you actually think having a womanizer for a father will be a serious detriment to Obama's political career?

Posted by djw | February 4, 2007 2:58 PM

The same goes for tennis players, the Williams sisters are "powerful", Martina Hingis plays "smart".

Too be fair, Anna Kournikova is white and I suppose no one accuses her for playing with skill and smarts.

Posted by aleks | February 4, 2007 3:23 PM

I thought Turiaf was French Caribbean, not European.

Posted by stand | February 4, 2007 3:26 PM

Similarly, if you watch the NBA I think it's clear that there's a set of stereotypes associated with black players ("amazing speed and athleticism") and a different set associated with Europeans...

What I want to know is, is this generalization valid or not?

I think the theories about differing cognitive abilities among the races are pure crapola. But I’m not so sure there isn’t some validity to be observed when it comes to things like muscles, lung capacity, etc. It does seem like one very rarely observes a real, bonafide, freak of nature “athlete” amongst the ranks of white NBA players.

My total non-scientist theory: there’s never been a large group of homo sapiens for whom natural selection wouldn’t have strongly favored intelligence (I’m thinking especially in terms of competition for mating opportunities), so, the human brain has evolved more or less at a constant rate among all peoples since our species first left Africa. But this hasn’t been the case when it comes to other organs or physiological systems. The extra big lungs that help you survive until sexual maturity in what is now Tibet, in other words, might have been a net energy waste if you make your home in the Amazon basin. But in both places better brains would help you get laid.

Posted by Jasper | February 4, 2007 3:52 PM

It does seem like one very rarely observes a real, bonafide, freak of nature “athlete” amongst the ranks of white NBA players.

Part of this, I would guess, reduces to socioeconomics, rather than innate qualities. The NBA is less likely to get the gifted freak white guy than other sports.

Posted by dj moonbat | February 4, 2007 3:57 PM

Actually, his father is proving a potential embarrassment.

What a lame hit piece. There's nothing in there that wasn't in DREAMS FROM MY FATHER, so it's not Obama's trying to hide anything.

I pretty much agree with the Dickerson essay. It's fairly even-handed, and it lays out a viewpoint that's quite prevalent in the black community. It's true that there's a difference between slave descendants and immigrant children. It's also true that, by running for President, Obama is nevertheless advancing the cause of blacks everywhere in the U.S. Should Obama win the primary, I have no doubt blacks will come out for him in HUGE force. Getting to that point might be a challenge, though.

Posted by Korha | February 4, 2007 4:02 PM

The hoops world has been prejudiced for a long time against "slow" white guys.

Posted by Jimm | February 4, 2007 4:15 PM

This is purely anecdotal, but I found the encounter to be revealing.

During the 2004 Dem Convention, I was in Detroit on business. After watching Obama's keynote address in my room, I went down to the hotel bar and ordered a drink. The convention was playing on TV with no sound, so when the (black) bartender struck up a conversation with me, I mentioned that I had been very impressed by Obama's speech. The bartender said, "I saw him talking..." (pause) "...Is he black?"

I said I was pretty sure that he's biracial.

"Is he married to a black woman?"

I answered that yes, I had seen his wife on TV and she is, in fact, a very attractive black woman.

"Then he's black enough for me."

As I said, it's just an anecdote. But I think that attitude is probably a common one.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 4, 2007 4:34 PM

It's absurd to argue that Obama isn't "really black" because he's not descended from American slaves and/or was raised by a white woman, just as it would be absurd to argue that he isn't "really American," culturally speaking, because of his ancestry. The black population in America might have started out solely as black slaves and their descendents, but it only remained this way for a very brief period if at all. Almost since the founding of this country, there have been mixed race black Americans, black descendents of freed slaves (or of blacks who were never slaves) and black immigrants.

Arguments that Obama isn't "really black" should be marginalized, as they don't make any sense. Even if you ignore the fact that the black population is worldwide and did not originate in America (so how could a Kenyan possibly be less "black" than a black America and you take "black" to mean culturally black American) there's still the problem that black America is composed of a many different cultural groups. If Italian Americans and Irish Americans and their descendents are just as white and just as American as German Americans and English Americans and their descendents, how can descendents of black immigrants be any less "black" or any less American than descendents of black slaves?

Posted by Janis | February 4, 2007 4:45 PM

'Arguments that Obama isn't "really black" should be marginalized, as they don't make any sense. ... how can descendents of black immigrants be any less "black" or any less American than descendents of black slaves?'

Perceptions matter, and one certainly sees comments from African-Americans at Daily Kos or in the paper saying Obama's not black for some sense of the word, and it's an important factor in assessing white reaction to him and why HRC still polls much much better among blacks.

I think Biden had those points in the back of his mind, and it's surprising to me that Matt doesn't recognize that as "bizarre race-related crap from white people".

Posted by rilkefan | February 4, 2007 4:57 PM

Also, I'm thrilled that Obama's wife is black. As a black woman, I'm happy when any man who seems like a "good catch" chooses a black woman. It does bug me, however, that Obama's wife being black, along with his community organizing, are used to "prove" that he really is black. White politicians don't have to do or have done anything to prove that they are white, even though the vast majority of them are just as far removed in terms of wealth and education (maybe even more so) from the average white American than Obama is from the average black American. We'll have a hard enough time ever electing a black person president without erecting the absurd "how regular is s/he/" "has s/he done significant amounts of community organizing work?" hurdles that don't apply to white candidates.

Posted by Janis | February 4, 2007 4:59 PM

Rilkefan,

Of course perceptions matter, and I've been on the receiving end of the "not black" argument enough times to have an idea of how prevalent it is (my parents are Jamaican). My point is that the "not black" arguments should be challenged and dismissed despite their prevelance rather than deferred to, as they so often are. This deference is part of the reason, IMO, why these arguments persist decades and decades after similar arguments (re Irish and Italians) were marginalized when advanced by whites about other whites. Most white people probably aren't willing to do this, hence my posts.

Posted by Janis | February 4, 2007 5:04 PM

Some people think this means that Obama won't be able to take away from Hillary's support among blacks. Or maybe black voters don't think, "Well, you know, because he IS a black man, I better support him," which everyone seems to assume at some level. Call me crazy, but perhaps a candidate's race simply doesn't matter to black voters. At least not as much as it does to white political commentators.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | February 4, 2007 5:07 PM

I'm not sure I get the point of this "not authentically black" thing, but it's being assiduously promulgated by the talk-radio right - e.g., Limbaugh. (Cf. "Halfrican-American", etc.)

He's obviously far from the only American Black to have white ancestors - most do -, so it can't just be that. Is it that the admixture is so recent? That, while most American Blacks are some generations removed from their white ancestors, Obama is only one generation removed from miscegenation? And that, moreover, the union was consensual, & it was his mother who was white & his father who was black?

Whatever it is, I doubt Limbaugh, et. al., mean it as a compliment. I'd just appreciate it if they'd spell it all out.

Posted by KH | February 4, 2007 5:15 PM

Debra Dickerson ought to be ashamed. The fact that I'm not West African and I'm not descended from slaves hasn't seemed to make that much difference, judging by the dozen or so times in my life I've been called nigger.

Posted by Luke | February 4, 2007 5:27 PM

"Call me crazy, but perhaps a candidate's race simply doesn't matter to black voters. At least not as much as it does to white political commentators."

That's right insofar as we're talking about the Democractic primary. Things would be very different in the general.

Obama definitely shouldn't count on the black vote to save him in the primary. That would be foolish. What he does need to do is avoid eroding his existing black support. And that's actually a fine line to walk.

Posted by Korha | February 4, 2007 5:29 PM

The reason black Europeans in the NBA are thought of as black rather than European is because the NBA is a physical contest, and racial differences in average physique are massively obvious to basketball observers. Similarly, when Barack Obama attended the expensive Punahou prep school in Hawaii, which is only 1% black, he was a basketball player.

But being President of the United States is not a test of physical prowess, so his upbringing is of interest. Summing across the adults he lived with from birth to 18, (father, mother, stepfather, and grandparents), his upbringing was 26/32 white American, 4/32 Indonesian, and 2/32 Kenyan. He had virtually no contact with American-born blacks.

Something that has been completely overlooked is that he spent 14 of his 18 years in Hawaii, which has a completely different outlook on race than the other 49 states. I review some implications of that for assessing Obama's asserted racial identity here:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/02/barack-obamas-hawaiian-upbringing.html

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 4, 2007 5:30 PM

By the way, the expensive, socially-dominant Punahou Prep School in Honolulu that Obama attended from 10 to 18 was fully racially integrated back in 1851. (Sun Yat-sen, for example, attended it in the 1880s.) Its enrollment is currently only 1/3rd white. Moreover, multiracial people like Obama are extremely common in Hawaii -- in the 1980s, for instance, 46% of marriages in Hawaii were interracial.

Obama's self-made myth about himself consists in equal measures of adolescent alienation fantasies and yanking the chains of Mainland white people who don't know much about Hawaii.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 4, 2007 5:41 PM

The reason black Europeans in the NBA are thought of as black rather than European is because the NBA is a physical contest, and racial differences in average physique are massively obvious to basketball observers.

Physique has little to nothing to do with it.

Posted by Jimm | February 4, 2007 6:03 PM

"So, Obama's feelings of racial oppression as a youth were more adolescent alienation fantasies than his daily reality."

That's a part of it, maybe, but you're being awfully cavalier here, don't you think? You can't just assert that he made the whole thing up. Anyways, Obama has a good and thoughtful treatment of the whole issue in his autobiography--meaning not just his messed up high school years, but also college, his work as a community organizer in Chicago, etc.

Posted by Korha | February 4, 2007 6:22 PM

Jasper said:

"My total non-scientist theory: there’s never been a large group of homo sapiens for whom natural selection wouldn’t have strongly favored intelligence (I’m thinking especially in terms of competition for mating opportunities), so, the human brain has evolved more or less at a constant rate among all peoples since our species first left Africa. But this hasn’t been the case when it comes to other organs or physiological systems. The extra big lungs that help you survive until sexual maturity in what is now Tibet, in other words, might have been a net energy waste if you make your home in the Amazon basin. But in both places better brains would help you get laid."

This will only be true for genes which increase intelligence without incurring any costs. Such genes probably will quickly spread and become universal among human populations (at least until humans got smart enough to practice birth control). However there will also be genes which boost intelligence while incurring a cost so that their net effect on fitness is nearly neutral. For example a gene might make your brain and head bigger giving a gain in intelligence but having a cost in that your mother is more likely to die in childbirth. Or a gene might affect brain development in way that produces higher intelligence most of the time but sometimes fails badly (it has been suggested autism is the result of such genes). Conversely a gene might give some other benefit like better vision at a cost in intelligence. These nearly neutral genes probably account for much of the observed variation in intelligence within human populations. Their frequency will be at some equilibrium level in each population depending on the relative value of intelligence versus other traits in the local environment. It seems implausible that the equilibrium level for intelligence would be exactly the same for all the world's varied environments.

This analysis is not particular to intelligence. We aren't all big and strong because this has disadvantages as well as advantages. The advantages are more important for males so they are bigger and stronger on average than females (but don't live as long).

Posted by James B. Shearer | February 4, 2007 8:39 PM

Where does the NBA stereotype machine place someone like Luol Deng, who's a Sudanese Londoner who went to high-school and college in the US?

The 'Halfrican' bullshit from wingnut radio would be amusingly transparent if it wasn't so offensive. They should really come out and say what they mean: 'He's n****r enough for me, but is he enough for you?'

Also Steve Sailer really is embarrassing.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 4, 2007 9:30 PM

Luol Deng is considered soft for the same reason his fellow Dinka tribesman Manute Bol was considered soft: the Dinka, along with the neighboring Nuer, are the most "elongated" people on earth, to use the physical anthropologists' term. They just don't have a lot of meat on their very long bones. Here's a picture of Malvina Hoffman's glorious life-size bronze statue of a 6'-8" Nuer warrior that the Field Museum keeps down in the basement next to the Mold-o-Vac souvenier machine:

http://www.discoversandiego.com/features/anderson/large/chicago06.htm

As for why the Williams sisters in tennis are said to be "powerful," the reason is because they are powerful. Serena's right arm is probably twice the diameter of Martina Hingis's right arm. Their father Richard Williams watched white women playing tennis on television in the 1970s and told his wife that they personally could have a daughter who would be so physically superior to white women tennis players that, given equal training, she could win millions. And he has been proven right, twice.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 4, 2007 9:58 PM

As for why the Williams sisters in tennis are said to be "powerful," the reason is because they are powerful.

Have to agree with Sailer on that. Davenport's also considered "powerful," as was Graf.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 4, 2007 10:07 PM

"Also Steve Sailer really is embarrassing."

I don't find Sailer embarrassing. Racists are more sleazy and hateful than embarrassing.

Posted by Petey | February 4, 2007 10:29 PM

"and also fairly clear that black Europeans (Parker, Diaw, Turiaf, etc.) are treated like blacks rather than like Europeans for these purposes."

I think this is one hundred and eighty degrees wrong.

Parker and Diaw have been criticized for being "soft" since they entered the league.

Or in other words, Parker and Diaw are treated like Europeans rather than blacks for these purposes.

Posted by Petey | February 4, 2007 10:32 PM

"black Europeans (Parker, Diaw, Turiaf, etc.) are treated like blacks rather than like Europeans for these purposes."
Parker is refered to or widely known as black? And Turiaf is referred to as athletic? I had no idea. Turiaf is not that athletic. But all this really has nothing to do with Dickerson's article, which is about the cultural and political legacy of American slavery and Jim Crow, not sports stereotypes about black athleticism.

"Debra Dickerson ought to be ashamed. The fact that I'm not West African and I'm not descended from slaves hasn't seemed to make that much difference, judging by the dozen or so times in my life I've been called nigger"
Dickerson's article was a bit provacative, but I think she did acknowledge that the fact Obama didn't descend from slaves did not allow him to escape from everyday discrimination. Her point was that Obama is not subject to the whole range of political hangups of American whites and American blacks regarding the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Whites get to support a black candidate and wear this support as a badge of their own enlightenment, without worrying about whether he's still an "angry black". I think she has a point, and she's probably right about why the first black president of the United States may end up being someone who is a descendent of slaves.

It seems to me to be telling that people get so angry about Obama being called not-black. It seems to be evidence for what Dickerson is saying--some white people desperately want him to be black, and others are just repelled by such a bold questioning of Obama's background, experience of racism, etc. The meaning of having a descendant of slaves as president of the U.S. does seem to be seriously different than the meaning of having a son of an African immigrant as president. Which is nothing against Obama as a candidate at all, but does say something about America.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | February 4, 2007 11:02 PM

...right about why the first black president of the United States may end up being someone who NOT is a descendent of slaves...

Posted by Jeremiah J. | February 4, 2007 11:05 PM

According to some of the posts above, since I have a black wife I should now be considered black. I play a power game so this should work out nicely for me.

Posted by 4 | February 4, 2007 11:18 PM

According to some of the posts above, since I have a black wife I should now be considered black.

Hillary, too, is married to a black man. Does that make her black?

Posted by anon | February 4, 2007 11:25 PM

Parker, Turiaf and Diaw are not only black European, but all French! Add Pietrus to that list.

However, callling Parker a black European is a bit of a stretch: Parker is half-white, half-black, by way of his father who is American (hint: his last name is Parker). Turiaf and Pietrus are from the west indies, so they does qualifies on the terms of being a descendant of African slaves. France did some slave trading back in the days, until about the French revolution when they put an end to it (thank you, Condorcet).

OTOH, Boris Diaw's dad is from Senegal, so he would qualify as a non-slave descendant European. Joakim Noah would be another black European, with a black French dad and a Swedish mother.

If you want a super athletic, non-soft black European, I personally recommend Ruud Gullit. In terms of street cred, he did played for Harlem, albeit the Dutch city, and not in the NBA but in soccer leagues. But he was a one of the great ones.

Posted by cedichou | February 4, 2007 11:30 PM

It's interesting to watch European soccer, which if not enitirely dominated by white guys, is certainly not dominated by blacks. We always talk about racism and our perception of athletes, but so much of it is really just parochialism. We give little credit to athletes who don't play "our" sports. If you pay attention to world sports -- not just soccer, but all the sports -- the racial stereotypes are clearly less justified.

Posted by moriarty | February 4, 2007 11:41 PM

Might be a good time to remember Harry Golden on Barry Goldwater: I always said the first Jew elected president of the United States would be an episcopalian.

Posted by Buce | February 4, 2007 11:43 PM

"If you pay attention to world sports -- not just soccer, but all the sports -- the racial stereotypes are clearly less justified."

Well, how about the 100 meter dash in the Olympics, the race to be the World's Fastest Man? It's probably the single most widely competed at event in the world, since every schoolboy tries sprinting at least once. Each Olympics starts with 64 or more qualifiers from around the world, and they have to make it through three rounds to reach the final, where the eight fastest men in the world race for the gold. In the last six Olympics, back through 1984, all 48 finalists have been men of West African descent.

Similarly, the last time I checked, men of West African descent had broken 10 seconds in the 100m over 500 times compared to once by the rest of humanity -- a half Irish-half Australian Aborigine sprinter in 2003.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 5, 2007 1:01 AM

Can we name any "athletic" white players? "Athletic" would be a player known for his speed and leaping ability and not his shot or his "toughness" or passing ability. The only one I can think of is Rex Chapman.

Posted by bjkdas | February 5, 2007 4:35 AM

Wow, this thread is just all over the place.

Sean Bradley for president! Or not. Whatever.

Posted by Reality Man | February 5, 2007 4:48 AM

Anna Kournikova was actually a very smart player, you don't win 16 double titles, arguably the technically more difficult discipline, by playing dumb tennis. But, yeah, she's cute so she must be dumb.

An while embarrasing Steve is correct in that Venus Williams is a 'powerful' player, she is not physically superior to white players like e.g. Davenport or Mauresmo.

Posted by novakant | February 5, 2007 6:13 AM

Can we name any "athletic" white players? "Athletic" would be a player known for his speed and leaping ability and not his shot or his "toughness" or passing ability. The only one I can think of is Rex Chapman.

Tom Chambers. Stupid player. Amazing athlete.

Steve is correct in that Venus Williams is a 'powerful' player, she is not physically superior to white players like e.g. Davenport or Mauresmo.

I personally don't think Davenport is anywhere near the high end of women's tennis in terms of athleticism. Certainly she hits the ball harder than Venus, but I always assumed that's because of her poor ability to cover the court.? Meanwhile, Mauresmo (my fave) IS very athletic, but isn't all that powerful (first serve somewhat excepted). Regardless, the 'powerful' label is clearly correct when assigned to Serena.

Posted by keatssycamore | February 5, 2007 9:00 AM

Well, how about the 100 meter dash in the Olympics, the race to be the World's Fastest Man?

In the US, the 100m is given a disproportionate share of attention because we're good at it. Parochialism is still a large part of this.

Posted by moriarty | February 5, 2007 10:15 AM

Tom Chambers is possible. Also Detlev Schrempf.

Posted by bajkas | February 5, 2007 12:08 PM

Sailer has a wierd obsession with successful black men who are less than fully identified with African-American culture. See his bizarre allegation that Malcolm Gladwell grew his hair in order to look tough and get chicks! Now he's all about Obama.

Sailer's Jewish obsession probably stems from the fact he was born (half?) Jewish, and then adopted into a Christian family. But what explains his hounding of multi-racial black men?

Posted by SailerLover | February 5, 2007 12:56 PM

not defending it, but it's obvious that until very recently, certain western european groups were not treated as "white" in some sense, which is why kennedy's election was such a big deal (irish and catholic). we may have some of these same discussions in terms of giulianni's candidacy (can't think of an italian-american presidents, though perhaps overlooking someone). so it's not that odd that the US is still fumbling with whether a descendant of an african immigrant is the same for political purposes as an african-american or whatever term denotes a descendant of slaves. malcolm gladwell has an article about this distinction in terms of haitians in new york and the pains they take to distinguish themselves from the "native" african americans.

as for soccer, i don't follow it too closely, but it was noticeable in the last world cup how many of the french players were of some "non-white" descent from a former french colony. i don't recall that being so much the case 20 years ago for (e.g.) the french or british teams, assume the trend will continue. so i think soccer may be on it's way to the same transformation the NBA/NFL/etc. underwent about a generation ago, with players of african descent (in the limited sense, all of us technically of african descent) coming to predominate or at least share the stage.

(related: this is one reason i think all sports records from roughly 1950 and earlier are bogus -- if you (e.g.) didn't have african americans or hispanics competing in the majors, i don't want to hear about someone as potential greatest ever, just seems silly.)

Posted by dj superflat | February 5, 2007 1:21 PM

Sailer has a wierd obsession with successful black men who are less than fully identified with African-American culture.

So true. See, for instance, his Amazon review of Appiah and Gutmann's Colour Conscious:

Appiah...is a more open and intriguing thinker. This may stem from the near-comic ironies of his position in life. He is a Professor of Afro-American Studies at Harvard, but he's not very Afro-American.

Posted by archytas | February 5, 2007 1:28 PM

as for soccer, i don't follow it too closely, but it was noticeable in the last world cup how many of the french players were of some "non-white" descent from a former french colony. i don't recall that being so much the case 20 years ago for (e.g.) the french or british teams, assume the trend will continue. so i think soccer may be on it's way to the same transformation the NBA/NFL/etc. underwent about a generation ago, with players of african descent (in the limited sense, all of us technically of african descent) coming to predominate or at least share the stage.

Indeed, when this generation of players (Zidane, Desailly, Viera, etc.) came up, Jean-Mrie LePen remarked at how "un-French" it appeared (which, of course, was just another of a long string of racist remarks by LePen). My memory is somewhat hazy, but I can only recall one black French player in the 80s. Likewise the English team then. The Dutch have had somewhat more of a history with black players - someone mentioned Gullit above, and of course you had Rijkaard as well in the 80s.

That said, it's a bit difficult to look at the various European countries in this regard since they all have quite different histories of colonization and immigration. Germany doesn't have the same level of black immigration as France and Holland, I'd bet - and thus we see fewer blacks represented on the team. It's a bit difficult to say that blacks will achieve in European soccer the similar degrees of success as in the NBA when their experience in Europe is so different than blacks here in the US.

Posted by Al | February 5, 2007 2:07 PM

I don't follow soccer at all--b/c I'm a Good American--but aren't the S. American teams considered more athletic (or something close to it) than European teams?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 5, 2007 2:16 PM

The same goes for tennis players, the Williams sisters are "powerful"

Actually, the adjective you're looking for is "hawt". ;)

Posted by DAS | February 5, 2007 3:07 PM

As to the Blackness or non-Blackness of African/Carribean immigrants, AFAIK, how their race was "assessed" depended on where and how they were living as well as the situation at hand, nu?

I know my gf's father was a Jamaican immigrant in (then segregated) FL. For the purposes of whatever anti-miscegenation laws may by then still have existed, he was Black (and indeed married an African-American woman, my gf's mother). OTOH, when it came time for my gf to be born, he (an engineer with various professional, including physician, friends) was able to arrange for my gf to be born in a White hospital.

I also had a professor who used to teach in the DC area (where there were plenty of African, e.g., embassy staff) around and would tell stories about it. Evidently, in segregated DC, if you were African, you would be treated as a White person rather than as a Black person. So you even had African-American people trying to pass as African ...

... and speaking of my under-grad experiences, evidently it wasn't so long ago that us Jews couldn't live anywhere we wanted to. Supposedly the reason UC Irvine has such kick-ass faculty housing was that when UC Irvine was built, the nearest place to live was Newport Beach which at the time was a place Jews couldn't live. Except I had relatives that lived there at the time. They certainly did not deny being Jewish. Except probably nobody thought to consider that tall, blue-eyed blonds named Robinson might be Jews and hence shouldn't be allowed to live in Newport Beach. OTOH, when relatives from another branch of my family got rich and tried to buy a home in the nicest part of Kansas City ...

Posted by DAS | February 5, 2007 3:18 PM

can't think of an italian-american presidents, though perhaps overlooking someone - dj superflat

IIRC, Pelosi is the first Italian-American Speaker of the House, FWIW.

*

Re: Malcolm Gladwell. I just looked him up on Wikipedia. I never realized he was partially of any African heritage. I just figured he was sporting a Jew-fro or something ...

Posted by DAS | February 5, 2007 3:22 PM

If I recall correctly, Kieth Van Horn was pretty freakishly athletic, though he wasn't known for it. I believe that reports about his workouts had his vertical leap at like 42 inches. Brent Barry won the dunk contest, which may have had to do with him being white, but his jumping ability was pretty obvious. And he used to throw it down pretty impressively when he was a rookie. Raef Lafrentz was a good jumper too and a really good shotblocker his rookie year, before injuries messed up his kness. I also think you'd have to characterize Steve Nash as an amazing athlete. I'm not sure how high he jumps, but he's blazingly fast, is pretty mindbogglingly coordinated in terms of body control, and does not seem to tire (at least until late in the year). And, on the other side of the coin, I can also think of examples of black athletes who are pretty slow (and noted for being so pretty regularly): Zach Randolph and Jamal Magloire, Eric Snow. So, obviously, if you were picking people in the draft, the race-based stereotypes about athleticism vs skill wouldn't be a good substitute for, you know, actual observation and measurement.

Further diluting the usefulness of these stereotypes, it has to be acknowledged that the observation that someone is athletic is pretty anecdotal and nearly totally undefined, at least in terms of its use during NBA telecasts. I mean, above, I give several describe several different types of athleticism (jumping/coordination/endurance).

Posted by Tim Sullivan | February 5, 2007 4:03 PM

It's a bit difficult to say that blacks will achieve in European soccer the similar degrees of success as in the NBA when their experience in Europe is so different than blacks here in the US.

Um, right. I think your point is really that the experience of NBA players in terms of 'success' is different to that of soccer players.

aren't the S. American teams considered more athletic (or something close to it) than European teams?

There are regional stereotypes, but they're not racial. The northern European game is faster and more physical, the southern European game is more exact, the S. American game emphasises ball control and balance.

Pele faced a lot of shit outside the game for dating blondes -- and in Brazil, you don't find many dark-skinned F1 drivers -- but that's something quite different.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 5, 2007 4:48 PM

Race isn't just black and white. It's important to be sensitive to the diversity of racial variety that can be found even within individuals.

For example, the Harvard Afro-American studies professor Anthony Appiah is the grandson of Sir Stafford Cripps, the famous Chancellor of the Exchecquer in the 1940s Labour Party government in Britain.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 5, 2007 5:27 PM

I don't follow soccer at all--b/c I'm a Good American--but aren't the S. American teams considered more athletic (or something close to it) than European teams?

Well, South American soccer is dominated by two countries - Brasil and Argentina. But while the Brazilian team has a lot of players of African heritage, the Argentine team has, like, none. Argentina is, racially, basically European (as is Chile, not that Chile is a good soccer country).

Posted by Al | February 5, 2007 5:41 PM

FIFA could change the rules of soccer to make it more entertaining by giving a bigger advantage to speed, which would benefit blacks. But that would hurt established powers like Italy and Germany, and would damage the economic future of soccer by alienating the big new market, East Asians, who aren't so fast.

So, because they don't want to see soccer become a black-dominated game like American football and basketball, they keep the current system, even at the cost of a lot of nil-nil draws.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 5, 2007 6:12 PM

FIFA could change--

Wow, you really are a complete fucking tool.

But thanks for showing us that your pronouncements on race are up to the calibre of your pronouncements on soccer.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 5, 2007 6:16 PM

"FIFA could change the rules of soccer to make it more entertaining by giving a bigger advantage to speed, which would benefit blacks."

But I'm confused. Jews regularly win chess championships, indicating superior mental abilities, but yet Steve Sailer regularly displays substandard mental abilities despite being a Jew.

Is there any way for FIFA to make Steve any smarter?

Posted by Petey | February 5, 2007 6:18 PM

"in Brazil, you don't find many dark-skinned F1 drivers"

Well, I think Steve would explain that dark-skinned Brazilians have genetically developed inferior heels, not letting them compete at the elite levels of F1 driving.

After all, there couldn't be a more sensible explanation for any of this, could there be?

Posted by Petey | February 5, 2007 6:23 PM

After all, there couldn't be a more sensible explanation for any of this, could there be?

It's all the Jews' fault?

Posted by DaveL | February 5, 2007 6:58 PM

I'm always amused by how my critics wind up sputtering hate-filled rage at me.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 5, 2007 7:18 PM

If Steve's critics could come up with half as many interesting, original, illuminating observations as he does with his "racist" perspective, then I'd take them more seriously.

As my other comments around here show, I'm a pretty liberal Dem who I'm sure disagrees with him on some issues. But all the attempts at pre-emptive censorship of him based on simplistic smear words like "racism" are annoying and contribute nothing.

Posted by MQ | February 5, 2007 7:30 PM

"I'm always amused by how my critics wind up sputtering hate-filled rage at me."

Not me Steve. I've criticized you but I've always kept it real.
peace.

Posted by Mark | February 5, 2007 7:35 PM

Hmm, hate-filled rage? For me, more like "what a silly person." If you want to be taken seriously, maybe start by not pretending that a couple of hours of Googling gives you great insight into, e.g., life in Hawaii in the 70s.

Posted by DaveL | February 5, 2007 8:44 PM

No, please: share with us the necessary rule changes that FIFA could propose to 'benefit blacks'. After all, the World Cup will be in South Africa in 2010, so they've got a reason for it. I'm all ears. (And no, that's not a reference to some genetic trait.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 5, 2007 11:33 PM

This thread is everywhere! In reply to Al above, who cannot recall a black French player in the team from the 80s, well: Marius Tresor was the team captain I believe (and held the record for selection on the national team for a while); Jean Tigana was there too, so that's at least two black guys who were very prominent players. The team of the 80s also had Luis Fernandez, a Spanish-born player, and Michel Platini, himself the son of an Italian immigrant, Aldo, I believe. Of the famed mid-field of the French team of the 80s (Giresse, Tigana, Fernandez and Platini), only Giresse would satisfy LePen's Frenchness criteria.

Posted by cedichou | February 6, 2007 10:43 AM