Taboo : Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It [ILLUSTRATED] (Hardcover)

by Jon Entine (Author), Earl Smith (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
Is there a genetic reason that African-Americans dominate professional sports? Even raising the question seems tantamount to heresy. Jon Entine not only raises the question, he strives to answer it in Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It.

Entine is no stranger to controversy, having worked with Tom Brokaw on the award-winning NBC News documentary Black Athletes: Fact and Fiction in 1989. He's also willing to ask tough questions--and come up with answers that anger people on all sides of the issue. Entine starts off with some statistics indicating that African-American athletes are disproportionately represented in professional sports: for example, 13 percent of the U.S. population is black, but the NFL is 65 percent black, the NBA is nearly 80 percent black, and the WNBA is 70 percent black. He also examines cultural issues, laying to rest the long-held idea that blacks excel in sports because it is the only avenue open for advancement.

Some scholars cry foul at the idea that blacks are physically gifted, seeing this as a subtle way of saying that they are therefore intellectually stunted. Entine carefully argues that historically athletic ability and intellectual prowess were linked--with a positive bias. The "dumb jock" stereotype is a relatively recent construct--perhaps a defensive mechanism that arose when blacks began to participate on a level playing field and gain prominence in the sporting world. There's no reason to suppose athleticism and intelligence are inversely related; Entine quotes respected sports reporter Frank Deford: "[W]hen Jack Nicklaus sinks a 30-foot putt, nobody thinks his IQ goes down." The issue of physical superiority is further complicated by fears that a genetic explanation results in a belief that blacks don't succeed because of hard work, dedication, and drive, but rather (in the words of Brooks Johnson, who doesn't believe Entine's claims) "because God just gave 'em the right gene."

Is the fear of sounding racist hindering legitimate scientific inquiry? Entine believes so, noting that, "Anyone who attempts to breach this taboo to study or even discuss what might be behind the growing performance gap between black and white athletes must be prepared to run a gauntlet of public scorn, survival not guaranteed." Taboo is destined to make most of its readers uncomfortable. Hopefully this discomfort will serve as a wedge to open up discussion of an issue too long avoided. --Sunny Delaney

From Scientific American
Few issues are as provocative and as poorly understood as biological differences among the races. So loaded are statements suggesting racial superiority or inferiority that, for the most part, an anxious hush surrounds the topic. To his credit, journalist Jon Entine has tackled this problem with a no-holds-barred assault. Not shy about poking at the issue's softest spots, he goes after the history of sports and race science, the segregation and integration of sports, racial breeding and eugenics, sports and IQ, and the emergence of the black female athlete. Entine has put together a well-researched, relatively thorough and lucidly written case, arguing that in many sports-particularly basketball, football, and track and field-athletes of African descent show a competitive advantage. He opens Taboo with the firm conclusion that "to the degree that it is a purely scientific debate, the evidence of black superiority in athletics is persuasive and decisively confirmed on the playing field. Elite athletes who trace most or all of their ancestry to Africa are by and large better than the competition." While acknowledging that success in sports is a "bio-social phenomenon," he asserts that "there is extensive and persuasive research that elite black athletes have a phenotypic advantage-a distinctive skeletal system and musculature, metabolic structures, and other characteristics forged over tens of thousands of years of evolution. While people of African descent have spent most of their evolutionary history near to where they originated, the rest of the world's populations have had to modify their African adaptations after migrating to far different regions and climates." Entine adds that "preliminary research suggests that different phenotypes are at least partially encoded in the genes-conferring genotypic differences, which may result in an advantage in some sports." Such differences are, of course, mediated by experience, from prenatal health to education. In other words, environment and culture can amplify or diminish tiny genetic variations. Considering the variance within each geographic, racial and ethnic population, such differences "may appear minuscule, but at the elite level, they are the stuff of champions." To support this biocultural theory, Entine supplies a wealth of anecdotal information. For example, he notes that although Asians constitute 57 percent of the world's population, they make up a small fraction of professional runners, soccer players or basketball players. In contrast, whereas persons of sub-Saharan African ancestry comprise 12 percent of the world's six billion people, they disproportionately represent the top athletes in those sports requiring running, jumping and endurance. During the 1960s, the National Basketball Association's racial breakdown stood at roughly 80 percent white and 20 percent black; today that proportion has nearly reversed. In fact, a black male has a one-in-4,000 chance of playing in the NBA, compared with a white male's one-in-90,000 chance. Meanwhile, among professional women's basketball players, 70 percent are African-American. In the National Football League, 65 percent of players are black. In college sports, 60 percent of male basketball players and nearly half of all football players are African-American. In track and field, nearly every men's world record belongs to an athlete of African descent-including the top 15 world running records (ranging from 100 meters to the marathon). Such talent, Entine maintains, originates disproportionately in three African regions: the West African coast, North Africa and East Africa. To contrast physiological differences between populations from (or originally from) these regions and European populations, he offers descriptive data from sports anthropologists, exercise physiologists and genetic epidemiologists. Indeed, scientists have identified physical attributes that are more common to West Africans and East Africans than to Europeans, ones that might provide an edge in sprint and endurance exercises. These include a lower percentage of body fat, a higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, a greater capillary-to-muscle fiber ratio, and a superior resistance to fatigue during high-intensity endurance activities that is associated with a higher muscle oxidative capacity and with lower plasma lactate accumulation. Entine does not examine the data on these findings closely, however. And he leaves a number of questions unanswered. Precisely how did these differences originate? The matter of temporal sequencing proves critical-that is, whether rigorous training precedes physiological adaptation (such as changes in oxidative capacity and fatigue resistance) or whether the capacity for tough training reflects a predisposing genetic endowment. Moreover, whether or not such differences are "racial" also remains unclear. And if they are racially related, do they primarily account for the dominance of black athletes in elite competitions? Furthermore, can we generalize data on black Africans to black Americans, given that black Americans have a more diverse gene pool? For example, it is unclear whether data comparing Scandinavian and East African distance runners can be extrapolated to black and white American athletes. Another troublesome question is whether Entine's use of black individuals to support generalizations about black populations is valid-particularly if those individuals are not representative of their "race." Thwarting Stereotypes Despite the questions that are left hanging, Entine's emphasis on open dialogue regarding racial differences is noteworthy. He acknowledges that even to write a book about black athleticism means to probe at a wound: "Given all the controversy involved in addressing such a potentially divisive issue, it is worth asking why it even matters whether blacks are better athletes. It's a fair question and there isn't a short and simple answer. Taboo does its best to understand both the question and the skeptics." As such, he calls the book "self-referential," grappling with "the issue of whether it should have been written at all, considering America's troubling racial history." A key motivation for the book, Entine says, is to thwart stereotypes. Despite decades of social progress, "sport remains a haven for some of our most virulent stereotypes. Taboo is out to do some damage to these prejudices. It was written in the optimistic belief that open debate beats backroom scuttlebutt." Among the most sinister stereotypes is the notion of "the dumb jock"-the idea that athletic prowess implies lesser intelligence. Taboo points out that, historically, brilliant black athletic feats are often associated with "natural" talent, rather than intelligence, dedication or skill. In contrast, weak performance is associated with intrinsic black mental or moral inferiority. To underscore his motivation for writing Taboo, Entine says that "the question is no longer whether these inquiries will continue but in what manner and to what end. Caricaturing population genetics as pseudo-science just devalues legitimate concerns about how this information will be put to use. If we do not welcome the impending onslaught of genetic and anthropological data with open minds, if we are scared to ask and to answer difficult questions, if we lose faith in science, then there is no winner; we all lose." Entine uses sports, he explains, merely as a metaphor to examine why discussions of racial differences are so uncomfortable. The challenge lies in whether "we can conduct the debate so that human diversity might be cause for celebration of our individuality rather than fanning distrust. After all, in the end, for all our differences, we are far, far more similar. That's Taboo's only real message." Ironically, the greatest strength of Entine's book-its single-minded focus and clarity-likewise yields its greatest weakness. Because Taboo takes the form of an argument-a case to be proved, rather than an inquiry-it has a polemical flavor. Instead of sifting through fragmented, conflicting data on the rise of black athletes in sports, Entine seeks to prove his case by presuming his conclusion is true, then supporting it with selected evidence. Such a "proof" would be reasonable, were it not for his claim of reliance on the "scientific method." It is a disingenuous claim. The book does not even attempt to examine a robust data set, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the information, or come to an evenhanded conclusion. Instead Entine chooses to spare his readers the ambiguities of robust data, which form the core of a scientific inquiry. Ultimately, the verdict is still out as to whether natural talent or hard work and determination account primarily for athletic prowess. The most probable answer is that they are inextricably linked. Rather than nature or nurture, the answer most likely lies in an interaction between the two. Entine's proposed biocultural theory offers an attractive explanation, suggesting that cultural conditions can amplify small but meaningful differences in performance related to heredity. Thus, inherited physiological differences may prove meaningless without rigorous training.

LORETTA DIPIETRO is an associate fellow at the John B. Pierce Laboratory and an associate professor of epidemiology and public health at the Yale University School of Medicine. She gratefully acknowledges Nina S. Stachenfeld of the John B. Pierce Laboratory for her valuable contributions to the review.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 387 pages
• Publisher: PublicAffairs; 1 edition (December 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1891620398
• ISBN-13: 978-1891620393
• Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 6.5 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars See all reviews (48 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #706,436 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

50 of 53 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Good, but it takes the long way, April 9, 2003

By	Eric J. Lyman (Roma, Lazio Italy) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It (Paperback)

I find no fault in this book's premise that there are differences between ethnic groups in terms of pure athletic performance and it is a mystery to me how some people find fault in this idea and why it is so politically charged.

But I do find fault in the way Mr. Entine makes his point, and makes it, and makes it, and makes it. This books weighs in at a hefty 400 pages, and it would have benefited from a filter of some kind that would have cut out half of the text by eliminating many of the second, third and fourth examples that illustrate the same points and dull the impact of Mr. Entine's relevant and valuable research and conclusions.

I am not a physiologist, but as a middle distance runner at the university level, a sports journalist for nearly a decade and a keen observer for longer than that, I have seen nothing to make me disagree with Mr. Entine's main points. I do agree with the arguments of those who say there are also cultural factors at play, but to deny the genetic part of the equation does not stand to reason. The opposing view would assume that all types of talent were somehow evenly distributed among the genetic groups.

If that were the case, why are so many great runners from Kenya and Ethiopia but not from, say, Uganda or Zimbabwe (or Mongolia or Bolivia), where conditions are similar but the genetic makeup is different? In the U.S., why do inner city white kids succeed in basketball less often than inner city black kids? From another angle, why, for example, is it rare to see great black swimmers or gymnists, even in proportion to their participation?

That said -- and Mr. Entine makes this point as well, albeit in passing and with some conditions -- none of that gives support to the simple-minded people who write off the accomplishments of successful athletes by pointing to their genetic head start. In global sports competitions that are usually decided by fractions of seconds and millimeters, nobody can succeed without dedication, hard work and discipline at a level that is unfathomable to most of the rest of us.

The point here is that among those who gather the strength and will to work that hard, a few will stand out because of their genetic advantages, and they are the ones who usually go home with the gold medals. Of course, this does not mean that great champions cannot come from other genetic groups, only that this will happen less often. And these great champions should not be looked down upon for who they are, but celebrated -- they represent the best of what humankind can muster in a specific area, just the same as Mozart, or Einstein, or Shakespeare.

66 of 76 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Misleading title, doesn't even address the topic, April 21, 2005

By	Vato-Curandero - See all my reviews

This review is from: Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It (Paperback)

After hearing the controversy surrounding this book, I decided to shell out twenty bucks and pick up a copy myself. As a social scientist with a strong interest in racial inequality and identity, and especially as a major sports fan, I figured that this would be a rather intriguing book. It certainly is, but in a different way than which the author/publisher market it.

Entine provides very little evidence and data to explain to us "why black athletes dominate sports." Mostly, he gives us a collection of statistics on the number of black players at the so-called speed positions in various sports (providing a numerical relationship, but no explanation). Quite disappointing - With such an adamant title, I was expecting the author to give us the concrete, infallible scientific proof explaining "why black athletes dominate sports," but I guess my expectations were too high.

Entine has a point up to a certain extent. Body form is, in fact, a major factor in calculating competitive advantage in certain sports. For example, a 5'3" man can forget about playing center in the NBA, just as a seven-footer has no shot at being the winning jockey at the Belmont Stakes. But to assume body form to some innate, hard-wired, racial sports gene is absurd and ultimately undermines the valid points that Entine does bring up.

I half think that Entine chose such a title for this book for the sensational reaction he knew it would garner. Sports consists of much more than speed and running, and clearly, black athletes do not dominate in sports such as weight lifting, skiing, field, wrestling, gymnastics, or hockey. By the title of this books, blacks rule the entire world of sports - which is not the case.

Something else also comes to mind. I find it quite amazing how people are always quick to point out that the high proportion of African-Americans in the NBA is scientific proof that blacks are genetically gifted basketball players. However, those folks must remain oblivious to the fact that after the United States, the basketball powerhouse nations are found in Eastern Europe...NOT western Africa! If African-Americans' ancestry to equatorial west Africa was responsible for their basketball abilities, then we should expect to find the nations of Nigeria, Ghana, and Zaire winning international basketball medals over the likes of Lithuania, Germany, Russia, Croatia, and Serbia. The fact of the matter is that growing numbers of NBA players are comming out of the former communist bloc of Europe. In 20 years, I believe the NBA will be 50 percent European. Even sports reporter Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star has bemoaned the fact that African-American players are "losing their jobs" to foreign players.

Also, Entine attributes the pheonomenal success of Brazil in World Cup Soccer to the African ancestry of most players on the national roster. This is quite ironic, since Germany, Italy, and Argentina are also soccer powerhouses and have accomplished this with few African-descent players on their respective clubs. England, Colombia, and Mexico each have far superior soccer squads than any national teams from West Africa (the area of the world where the nature's most gifted athletes trace their ancestry, according to Entine). And if any sport ever relied on speed, quickness, explosiveness and agility, certainly it is soccer.

I bring up these points to illustrate the absurdity and inconsistencies in attributing innate racial abilities of any particular group of people with regards to any particular sport. If African-descended players dominate basketball and baseball for their superior speed and agility, then why does this fail to yield results in soccer? "Racial realists" can not have their cake and eat it to.

Despite the failure to produce scientific evidence for black athletic superiority, I do like this book for one big reason. Entine provides an excellent account of the history of racism and racial politics of sports, from the days of Jack Johnson and the Negro Leagues of baseball up until the steroid scandals of communist East Germany and the USSR in the 1980s. We are given chapters on Joe Louis, Jewish basketball teams, Jackie Robinson, and the social significance of all of these historical events.

The real value of this book is found in its second half, when the author provides a nice account of race in sports throughout the 20th century. The fact of the matter is the right-wing lunatics have no ability to engage in scientific debate on race whatsoever. Their only recourse is to point out correlations, and assume there is a biological explanation. Such is not the nature of science, but the nature of charlatans motivated by personal agendas. Entine's lack of scientific evidence proves he can not discuss this subject matter, and as such, makes a bold claim and then sits back, labeling anyone who challenges him as a politically correct crackpot. The truth is, Entine and his backers are the ones motivated by political agendas.

Talk about false advertising. The book implies it will provide a scientific explanation for athletic performance, and does not even come close to doing anything of the sort.

18 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Athletic skill differences not a black and white issue, May 9, 2001

By A Customer

This review is from: Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It (Paperback)

"Taboo" examines the question that has remained in the back of my mind since my basketball playing days, "Why is the representation of black athletes so completely out of proportion to their population?" Is it really true that, "White men can't jump?" After a brief introduction, including the story of the PC storm that engulfed British physician (and the first four minute miler) Roger Bannister for suggesting that genetics was part of the answer, the book explains the need for research into this topic and scientifically approaches answers to this question by examining biological, social, and historical factors.

This question is so taboo because honest discussion of race and human differences remains such a touchy issue. Especially in the context of sport, human competition, the differences among humans are exemplified. "Taboo" provided insight and allowed me to explore this topic in a non-polemical, even-handed way. Because of a history of prejudice, a white person noticing that black people are better at sports can be seen as judging black people as more primitive or succumbing to "dumb jock" theory. This is not always the case, and this book objectively examines the possibilities.

As Entine makes clear, examining this issue should held eliminate racism, since scientific data demonstrates that the difference among all human beings is relatively small and that skin color is just one of millions of genetic mutations among the human population. "Taboo" examines evolution theories, the most common of which is the Eve theory that states that all human beings share common ancestry.

The depth in which this topic had been studied blows me away. Slowly revealed through pages of evidence, it appears that the cause/effect relationship of ethnicity and athletic capability cannot be explained in terms of black and white, but varying shades of gray. Entine does not claim that blacks are "superior" or "inferior" in any way, just that evolution has left a footprint on different populations. All the training in the world will not turn an Eskimo into an NBA center or a Kenyan into a sprinter.

I was particularly taken by one chapter on how blacks have come to dominate basketball, a sport that Jews dominated in the 1930s. I remember a few years ago when I watched a basketball documentary on TV. I was surprised to discover that my favorite team, the New York Knickerbockers, was at one time composed of Jewish white men. Today it is the complete converse. "Taboo" tells the story of the Philadelphia "Hebrews," the predecessor of the Philadelphia Warriors/76ers. Entine explains the cause to this social revolution and also discusses how Jews of that era were thought to be genetically "trickier," "manipulative," and "deceptive." He uses this comparison to show the danger of facile racial and ethnic stereotypes and to underscore the complex interaction of cultural and genetic factors.

As Entine persuasively shows, social and environmental factors along don't seem to be enough to explain black dominance of so many sports or white dominance of "strength" events such as weightlifting, shot-put, hammer throw etc. Different populations have different physiques and physiological characteristics.

The coverage of black domination in running, especially sprinting, examines the essence of this whole topic. Running is competition in its purest form, without equipment or guidelines. It is simply who can reach the finish line first, and it is usually runners of West African ancestry.

East Africans such as Kenyans, who dominate distance running, have a different genetic history then athletes of West African ancestry (including African Americans), and have quite distinct ectomorphic physiques and physiological characteristics. How could it be that in a radius of sixty miles around Eldoret, Kenya in the Nandi Hills, ninety percent of the top Kenyan world-class athletes (and 40 percent of the world's top distance runners) are produced? Without the training books, special diets, let alone even running shoes, Kenyan runners are still top notch.

As Entine points out time and again, race based on skin color is biologically meaningless but there are some patterned biological differences between populations and sub-populations (he offers great examples of "racial" and "ethnic" differences in disease proclivities, such as the fact that European Jews are more susceptible to Tay-Sachs, northern European whites get MS and cystic fibrosis, and blacks are more likely to get colo-rectal cancer, all the result of gene patterning.

By reading the book I expected to obtain answers, though it was soon clear that Entine was making the case that there was no clear-cut explanation to the success of black athletes. That's what I liked about the book. It didn't beat me over the head with its perspective, although not one could read this book and reamin convinced of the myth that genetics plays no role. The book made me even more curious about this controversial topic that Entine was brave enough to leap into.

"Taboo" takes pains to make clear that athletic skill differences are not a black and white issue. I LOVED this book.