Rating: 
Summary: Dissapointing
Review: Althogh this book had some interesting points, overall I would say it [stinks]. He never properly analyzed the supposed premise of the book, and after going through the entire 400 page text, I can't say that he really came close to drawing any major conclusions. He is also very biased, and tends to skew as much data as he can to try and corelate blacks as superior athletes. Most of the book is very irrelevant to objectively analyzing if blacks are suprior at sports and if so, why they are. I am very dissapointed!
Rating: 
Summary: Brave and important writing
Review: Although it's not often discussed, among those who pay attention the wildly disproportionate success of black people in major sports is a reality so obvious it's just taken for granted these days. I've been watching the NFL religiously since I was about 11, and in that time I haven't seen a single successful white running back, and even the number of black quarterbacks is increasing as the game gets faster. Here in Massachusetts, nobody even wonders what country the Boston Marathon winner will come from, just which Kenyan will finish first. And of course, whites in the NBA are virtually nonexistent, except as backup centers. As its subtitle suggests, "Taboo" poses two central questions. First, why are black athletes so overrepresented in the above sports, and several others for that matter? Is it biology or culture? And why can't we have a reasoned discussion of the facts without accusations of "racism" being tossed around?
Fortunately, Jon Entine is committed to providing a comprehensive treatment of race differences and sports, and this book covers its subject with an approach that combines anthropology, sports history, and a bit of sociology to boot. Entine represents the full spectrum of opinion on this issue, giving racial demagogues on both sides enough rope to hang themselves before getting down to the facts. It's not until late in the book, in the chapter "Winning the Genetic Lottery," that Entine really gets into the genetic differences that give blacks an advantage over their peers in certain sports. As he notes, anyone has to put in a lot of work to become a star athlete, but "all the hard work in the world will go for naught if the roulette wheel of genetics doesn't land on your number." And Entine sites all sorts of evidence that that roulette wheel has landed in Africa more than in other places: sleeker musculatures; faster patellar tendon reflexes; higher levels of plasma testosterone; higher percentages of fast-twitch fibers; and in the case of East Africans, most notably Kenyans, much higher levels of running economy.
The book's case for why black athletes dominate sports, or at least many of the more popular ones, is certainly compelling. Of course, the book's second proposition, why we're afraid to talk about said dominance, is a bit trickier. In an effort to get to the bottom of the issue, Entine provides an exhaustive discussion of American sport's racial history and the obstacles that blacks have had to overcome over the past century or so. Around the turn of the century, as Entine shows, black access to sports, and everything else for that matter, was restricted by the common belief among whites that blacks were inferior morally (ummm, probably not), mentally (the jury's still out on that one), and physically (whoops!). Detailing the struggles of legendary black athletes from Jack Johson to Jesse Owens to Joe Louis, Entine writes that while the ultimate success of blacks in sports did manage to shatter the myth of white physical superiority, blacks wound up saddled with a new stereotype: their athletic success was merely a sign that blacks were a more primitive type of human than everyone else, with more brawn and less brains.
Of course, as Entine puts it, intelligence is "the elephant in the living room" when it comes to talking about race in sports, as black athletic success has led to the stereotype that IQ and athletic ability must be inversely proportional. As the book ultimately concludes, that's why there's so much reluctance to talk about this subject. After the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust, there was suddenly a rush to emphasize the shared humanity of all peoples, and this universalist ethic has ruled mainstream science to this day. Since studies of race differences have been used by people like Hitler to justify so much hateful nonsense, the current orthodoxy goes, it's better to just ignore the evidence of differing capacities even when it's staring us right in the face. Of course, just because racists have often distorted race science for their own nefarious ends doesn't mean it's all invalid. After all, failure to acknowledge reality is itself a prejudice whether it's well-intentioned or not, and nobody benefits when the elites try to prevent an objective analysis of the facts.
Although it can get a bit too politically correct at times, "Taboo" is still largely a candid and thorough analysis of a divisive and compelling topic. Entine's writing sytle is extremely straightforward for such complex subject matter, making the often tricky science of genetics, evolution, and society accessible to just about anyone who's interested. For sports fans it ranks right up there with Michael Lewis's brilliant "Moneyball" in the pantheon of thinking man's sports books. And for those who are just interested in controversial subjects, this book is still worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: so sorry, a misguided book....
Review: b/c blacks may dominate usa sports, which primarily involve speed as the most desirable attribute. some blacks are fast, no doubt. but what of weightlifting, swimming, et al. if one looks at say, olympic medalists in these events, one might be led to believe that whites are the superior athletes. what of soccer, the global game? the greatest players of the past and present have been and are overwhelmingly of european and latin extraction (and this doesn't even have to include the few great latins of undeniably black extraction, such as pele). blacks may be disproportionately represented here, as the authors argue, but it is very very very small compared to the usa sports race discrepancies (soccer rewards the quick also). this book is misguided because blacks may have an advantage at the highest end of the speed spectrum, but genetics prove that all races probably only vary in different attributes (intelligence, height, speed, strength, etc.) plus or minus ten-fifteen percent or so (which makes all the difference in the world at the olympic level, or when taking the mensa entrance exams). this book is misguided, and reinforces stereotypes. there have been many studies done that show that football coaches, when presented with the hypothetical situation of a black and a white player of absolutely equal ability competing for one position, will favor playing the black athlete because of their ingrained misguided belief that the black player will play better. so sad and wrong, but so very entrenched in american popular belief. the authors should have spoken more of the great genetic benefit that has been given african-americans, who are on average approximately 15-20% 'white' (b/c of interbreeding between the white and black populations in the usa). this was not because whites are so great or anything like that; it is because, like with all animals, introducing 'complete outcrosses' into the population (i.e. breeding two individuals with totally distant genetic backgrounds) produces hardy individuals. or in this case, produces blacks who can run like their kenyan relatives, and gained muscle mass and strength from their european outcrosses which has helped them become the successful athletes you see today. this has been proven in racehorses, btw, where a master-horse like secretariat was produced as a result of carefully selected complete outcross breeding (but some linebred (carefully inbred) horses do produce great racers as well, but cannot be equated as being equal to not completely outcrossing without inbreeding for you sticklers out there).
Rating: 
Summary: Exciting and informative blend of sports and science
Review: I bought this book expecting to hear some scientific research as to why black athletes dominate sports and whether there is any statistically significant data proving the point or not. Although there are few pieces of macro scientific information included, I learned nothing new. There was virtually no data comparing similar white and black athletes on reaction time, vertical leaping distance, 100 meter dash times etc. I also expected to see some data comparing anthropometric differences that may explain better athletic performance, such as the average thigh length or ratio of thigh length to lower leg length. The book is devoted 90% to the "why we're afraid to talk about it" aspects, that is, the political correctness issue in talking about racial differences. Frankly, this was not why I bought the book so I was mostly disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: The Gentleman Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks
Review: I have no particular quarrel with Entine's hypothesis that individuals from different populations have innate abilities that make them able to excel in certain sports, and that both cultural and social factors seem to enhance these abilities. He certainly presents an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence in support of his position. In fact, one of my problems with the book is its repetitiveness. Entine tells us something, then he tells us what he has told us, then he presents charts graphs, and maps to illustrate what he has told us, then he summarises, being sure to reiterate what he has already told us. A case in point East Africans (particularly Kenyans) dominate in endurance racing. He tells us they dominate, then he gives us statistics outlining the events in which they dominate and the number of records they hold, then he shows the same information in charts and graphs. He then follows up with detailed biographies of several Kenyan runners, tracing each of their lives from childhood through championship years and, in some cases, through retirement and death. Enough, Entine, you've made your point. He digresses, discussing the personalities of various black athletes had on racial relations. He digresses further and discusses Anti-Semitism, Naziism, the Civil Rights Movement, etc. He does make tenuous tie-ins between these subjects and the main thrust of his book, but the book would not have suffered if a lot of this material had been edited out. My overall reaction to Entine's book was that it was a Master's Thesis gone awry. By this I mean that there was enough material for a Thesis but that it had been expanded with repetitious and extraneous material that dulled the impact of its main theme. To end with a paraphrase of an old adage: It's too bad that Entine didn't just throw out the bathwater. I think the baby is worth keeping.
Rating:
Summary: Thoughtful book
Review: I picked this book up because I run marathons and have become aware of the Kenyan domination of this event. What an eye-opener this book is! Jon Entine has very carefully explained how evolution has shaped different body types. I finally understand population genetics. He doesn't preach and "Taboo" doesn't ignore the cultural impact on sports accomplishments. In fact, if you have little interest in genetics, this book is a gem for understanding the history and travails of the African American athlete in the United States. I was also fascinated by his history of sports in the former Communist East Germany, which built its success on pumping its young women athletes full with performance enhancing durgs. This book is truly indispensible for anyone interested in a balanced look at the range of factors that contribute to the success of athletes. Anyone who suggests this book is "racist" just hasn't read it. It's the opposite -- a thoughtful discussion of why discussing human differences doesn't mean you have to resort to the lowest common denominator. And now I understand why Kenyans and other Eastern and Northern Africans are so dominant in endurance races.
Rating:
Summary: racism
Review: I think this book is raciest! To say that there is such a difference between the races just makes me think that someone is trying to come up with more reasons to keep the races apart. I am white, but I can't support this kind of exploitation. Shame on all of you!
Rating:
Summary: But they don't....
Review: It should be subtitled "Why Some Black Athletes Dominate Some Sports, And Why Talking About Like This Means We're Asking The Wrong Questions." To his credit, John Entine spends a lot of time debunking the misuse of science in the service of racism. His book is, appropriately, filled with exceptions, qualifications, and caveats to its own subtitle, "Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports, and Why We're Afraid To Talk About It." Which is a strange subtitle, really, since black athletes don't dominate sports. That's right. Black athletes don't dominate sports! There are literally dozens of professional sports in the world, and out of all of them, athletes of African descent "dominate" only three -- basketball, American football and track and field. That's it. There is no black "dominance" in baseball (where, in Entine's words, blacks are "nearly a third" of the athletes; which is another way of saying "less than a third"; which is another way of admitting that black athletes don't dominate the sport of baseball), or in hockey, tennis, golf, soccer, biathlons, triathlons, gymnastics, weightlifting, cycling or any of the dozens of others sports in the world. This book really tells us more about our own societal obsession with perceptions of race than it does about genetics. To be sure, genetics most likely does play some kind of role in explaining why Kenyans dominate marathons or why West Africans dominate the sport of sprinting. But so do culture, environment, individual initiative and plain old luck. All of these things in combination are necessary to produce a champion. Genetic predisposition by itself doesn't amount to a hill of beans without those other factors in play, and vice versa. And aside from that, there's a big difference between saying "Kenyans dominate the sport of marathon running" (which they do) and saying "black athletes dominate sports" (which they don't). The ease with which public debate moves from one statement to the other is an unsettling marker of just how little progress we've really made in the realm of race relations. It's a good thing that Entine isn't a racist, and his efforts at undermining racism are admirable. Unfortunately, I think that a vast majority of his readers will miss the point.
Rating:
Summary: Pandora's Box
Review: Journalist Jon Entine examines the controversial question of whether or not black dominance in sports has a genetic component. He also examines the social history behind the question, which has given rise to the taboo he speaks of. Entine begins by establishing the fact of black athletic dominance in sports, and then breaks it down further, noting long-distance runners tend to come from East Africa while short-distance athletes come from West Africa. Entine then moves into the history of blacks in sports, taking us from the rise of blacks in sports, begining with boxers Jack Johnson and Joe Louis through Jesse Owens disproving Hitler's racial theories at the 1936 Olympics and to the present day. At first, blacks were considered inferior and incapable of competing with whites. But when blacks began to dominate sports, the ideology turned around: Blacks were good at sports since they were animal like.
Were genetics driving this dominance of blacks in sports? Entine believes the answer is yes. Entine claims that Africans have certain hereditary traits that translate into success in sports. These include less body fat and more muscle, greater bone density, and more fast-twitch fibers. It is hard to make a plausible environmental argument to counter this wealth of evidence. And Entine doesn't really see why intelligent people should balk at any mention of black hereditary advantage in sports.
Strangely enough, this book really did not cause the stir one would expect. It was well-received critically, and few attacked Entine on racial grounds. But by establishing that one racial group had certain biological differences that cannot be explained in terms of the environment, Entine has opened a veritable Pandora's box on the entire issue of race. The burgening white nationalist movement has of course used this book as proof that biological differences do indeed exist, and those differences include not just physical but mental traits as well. In other words, they used the implications from this book to claim blacks are inferior, just like critics feared they would. However, we cannot deny reality must because someone perverts science. The conclusions here seem undeniable: Races vary in physical attributes and capabilities. How this fact will be interpreted will largely determine whether or not we use the evidence presented here to understand our differences and celebrate them, or use those differences to drive others away from us, as we have in the past.
Rating:
Summary: The link between genetics and sports
Review: Many comments could be made about the content of this book; comments concerning, first, the author's qualifications to write it; second, his apparent predispositions regarding the subject matter; and finally his own conclusions. The last first: he projects a reluctance to declare any of his personal conclusions, but rather to show all sides of the question. Yet, there does creep in some evidence of his predilections. For example, he mentions on page 240 that Justice Harlan appears to be favorable to eugenics--a dirty word since the Third Reich--and then immediately follows that observation with the statement that Harlan had voted "for the NAACP in Brown v. Board of Education" (in favor of Affirmative Action in higher education.) A non sequitur unless the subjective perception of "racism" is viewed as a more important consideration than the constitutional requirement of equality before the law. He begins by giving a detailed analysis of sports history--over half the book, I think--resulting in the seemingly inescapable conclusion that black athletes dominate virtually all of the sports in which they compete, far out of proportion to their representation in the population. The author is a runner, and thus much emphasis is given to running. Again, it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion than the innate physical superiority of people of black African descent, particularly in running and jumping. He seems to be reluctant to the point of refusal, on the other hand, to grant that there can be any concomitant assumption that there is any racial (he prefers the term 'population') difference in intelligence. In fact, he seems reluctant to admit that there is any such quantifiable characteristic as intelligence in the human species. He does mention J. Phillipe Rushton's book which addresses that question specifically, "Race, Evolution and Behavior"--which I have reviewed for Amazon.com--with respect, although he told me privately that there is much there with which he disagrees. He mentions, as well, Hernnstein and Murray's book, "The Bell Curve," which I have also reviewed here. He mentions the political impact of the genocide practiced during WWII and its negative impact on serious post-war research into racial genetic differences (hence, the book's title), and the UN-led political effort to peddle the notion that all races are genetically equal, and that individuals are 'Tabla Rasa' (blank slates), on which the only significant influence is environmental experience--the model accepted by most social scientists today, a subject addressed in The Blank Slate, by Steven Pinker. This book demonstrates again, to me, what I have known since I attended art school in the early 'fifties: there are average significant physical differences between the major races --"populations" if you wish--of which you must be aware if you intend to depict them in pictures; specifically, the Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid. That there should be average mental and temperamental differences as well seems undeniable, particularly when coupled with my own observations around the world over three-quarters of a century. To me, this does not mean that one race is "superior," or another "inferior." It is just apparent (to me) that the various populations have used differing methodologies in coping with the differing environments with which they were faced, with concomitant evolutionary differences. We are more alike than different, and there are greater differences within racial groups than between them, but to deny the existence of racial differences would be, and is, utter folly. The Mongoloids and the Caucasoids did, in fact, generate vast diversified societies, the wheel, written language, navigation skills and other intellectual accomplishments in cold, harsh climates, while the Negroids and other aborigines languished with none of the above in a relatively benign, forgiving climate. That much is pretty much undeniable. Altogether, this is a valuable book--particularly if you are interested in sports and black athletes' contributions--and to a lesser extent the impact of genetics on the above, since the author's scientific qualifications for writing such a highly technical book may be questionable. Although his writing skills are superlative, to what extent his potential bias colors his research is an unknown quantity. I personally accept him at face value as an intelligent, curious man seeking the truth. Joseph H. Pierre
author, Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
and other books
|
