When segregation ended in 1964, racial biases continued to thrive through the slave gene myth. If you’re not familiar with this theory, let me enlighten you.
The slave gene theory is a racial assumption that African Americans are better athletes, in general, than other races due to the physical legacy of slavery. The idea was first coined in 1988 by CBC sports commentator Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder, who destroyed his career with the following statement:
“The black is a better athlete to begin with because he’s been bred to be that way, because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs. This goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trade … the owner, the slave owner would breed his big black (man) to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid.”
His statement might’ve made sense to someone who has modest knowledge of biology and genetics, but the racism and ignorance in his claim couldn’t be ignored. It immediately sparked a controversy and CBS “ended its relationship” with Snyder and said his statement didn’t “reflect the views of CBS Sports.” The question of whether it’s true or not seemed too sensitive of a topic to discuss, but, fortunately, the factual errors in Snyder’s statement were addressed sooner than later.
It turns out that the slave trade in Africa was largely the result of tribal conflicts and war. Historically, those who became slaves were the survivors of war, captives of rival tribes. Even if slave traders selected for apparent strength and health when they traded blacks for guns and sugar, the basis of their selection was not genetic but rather environmental. Likewise, their survival on the way to American slave markets was directly linked to their health at the beginning of the trip and to other factors, including disease, exposure and nutrition.
And while some slave masters did engage in eugenics, their efforts were ineffective, as the slave populations were limited in scale and uncontrolled. Furthermore, even with a more controlled and widespread eugenics program, 250 years would not have been enough time for major genetic differences to emerge.
If you still don’t buy that African Americans aren’t physically and athletically superior because of slavery, just look at USA swimming statistics. In 2010, the USA Swimming Foundation released data from its diversity study, which found that almost 60 percent of African American children couldn’t swim, twice as many as their white counterparts. The reason behind the lack of swimming skills was directly linked to the habits of the children’s parents. Simply enough, if the parent could not swim or was afraid of swimming, the child automatically had the disadvantage of not learning, and the likelihood of the child learning how to swim is 13 percent. No race involved here.
Take, for instance, someone who is of Jewish, African American and Native American descent, such as elite U.S. swimmer Anthony Ervin. How, I ask, is his expertise in swimming linked solely to his African American descent with so much going on in his background?
The situation is similar with Tiger Woods, whom journalists always struggled to find words to describe his mixed parental heritage.
The problem might simply be that in the United States, race is generally dealt with in a binary of black and white, regardless of the multiplicities of color. Thus, if one is not white, which neither Ervin nor Woods are, one is automatically assumed black. We tend to see the legacy of slaves as the only explanation for their excellence in sports.
If everyone’s goal is to eradicate racism and ignorance, it really doesn’t help when a majority of people refuse to learn the truth or even share their enlightenment to end the misconception. There are lots of factors that contribute to athletic ability, but race is not one of them.
