Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It

John Entine's fascinating and persuasive book provides the scientific documentation supporting what we see with our own eyes every night on ESPN: That racial groups differ in average ability in different sports. Men of West African descent (e.g., African Americans) are more likely to have the explosive combination of strength, quickness, and sprinting speed needed to make it to the NBA and the NFL than other races (although Samoans aren't far behind at all in having the bodies most in demand in football). Certain East African tribes, especially the Kalenjin of Kenya, are tremendously better than the world average at distance running. On the other hand, whites tend to be better than blacks at some sports requiring higher body fat percentages, such as English Channel swimming and dog sled mushing.

Despite (or because of) the overwhelming evidence for Entine's thesis, this book drives some people crazy. 1. Many white guys absolutely hate reading that blacks tend to be better than whites at some very important sports. 2. Many argue that, although everybody talks about racial differences, it should never ever be written about. The end result of that kind of censorship, of course, is that all that most people hear on the subject is a lot of barroom blather rather than the sophisticated, informed, and nuanced perspective that a top writer like Entine can bring to the subject.

Steve Sailer


This time it's personal   May 2, 2001
 7 out of 12 found this review helpful

Jon Entine poses the question, "So why do we so readily accept the idea evolution has turned out Jews with a genetic predisposition to Tay-Sachs disease and that blacks are more susceptible to sickle cell anemia yet find it racist to suggest that West Africans may have evolved into the world's best sprinters?"...Well, it isn't.

In the lexicon of multiculturalism, 'race' doesn't exist, therefore racism is a non-term. Maybe, the suggestion is 'ethnically insensitive.' Possibly, Mr. Entine's question is merely rhetorical since his tome makes it quite clear he knows the suggestion is benign, but the ramifications resulting from periodically implemented subjective agendas offered by those who promulgate populace group superiority based on bio-diversity hold the real peril. Maybe it is the lugubrious episodes of self-flagellation African descendants must endure as the result of any concession to idea genetic differentiation, phenotypically or genotypically, is a plausibility. Ideally, a racial/cultural/ethnic/population (this could become tedious) group's diversity should be construed as little more an area of distinctiveness with no implication to the group's access or opportunities in larger society. Needless to say, that is not the the reality of the world and often the tangible effects of theory have been devastating. It's why many post-modernists prefer tacit acceptance of victimization to maintain an aura of contrition amongst those culpable for past oppressive actions. "Race" is a social construct until prevailing wisdom requires group partitioning to buttress some advocated social issue, and defining the lines of demarcation are within the latitude of the aggrieved, only. One thing is certain, the only areas where diversity is not a respected value for the modernists are in dissemination of nonconforming views and any suggestion of any manifestation of racial bio-diversity.

As a journalist rather than an anthropologist, physiologist, psychologist, sociologist or any other 'ologist', Mr. Entine is not destined to have the last world on genetic predisposition - not that he should. The reality, however, is any information emanating from the scientific community will not be dispassionately adjudged either. Prevailing wisdom promulgates 'undefinable race', with any evident variants exclusively attributable to environmental influences. The debate is not new, it has been waged in different forms for centuries but reaction to the horrific atrocities of the 20th century elevated the egalitarians to the ideological summit. Unfortunately, via tacit revisionism, the acknowledged definition of egalitarian morphed from "equal in worth" to "identical at birth," a premise unsubstantiated by extant empirics.

Withstanding the review of every reasonable objection, I reluctantly find myself consonant in principle with Mr. Entine's generalized postulations, which serves to transport me to a place of significant discomfort since I know logically, I cannot categorically dismiss the postulations of Rushton, Jensen or Herrnstein and Murray. If I accept the the rationale of phenotypical adaptations such as a broader nose to accomodate equatorical climatic conditions or enhanced musculature to facilitate leaping ability are valid, than I must also concede the probability of genotypic variables that have direct impact on intelligence is not beyond feasibility. The resultant question becomes whether the existent data are necessarily pejorative to Africans and African descendants or are prevalent reactions ill-founded paranoia. Here again, the prevailing view obfuscates the answer. I find it to be a curious capitulation the the determinists' reasoning. That seems to be another area where agreement is viable, that it is a question of juxaposition, 'brawn or brain.' Could it be that the real answer is 'brawn and brain?" Environmental "thought police" proscribe existentalism as their province alone, without objective consideration of the underlying basis. Preemptive circumvention is the order of the day, particulaly where any mechanism to measure intelligence is proffered. The first objection is invariably the onus of cultural bias immediately supplemented by protestations regarding the nebulous quality of intelligence. It has been proposed by some environmentalists, intelligence is a completely immeasurable value, that there may in fact be 100 or more "intelligences." In both instances, the alternative positions seem predicated on social objectives rather than science.

It should be noted Mr. Entine takes no position on the matter of "g", or innate intelligence in general. He presents a balanced overview of extant research to delineate the encumbrances to full and open research of bio-diversity. He discussion - understandably - is focused on physiological differentiation.

As noted, I find Mr. Entine's ruminations regarding the predominance of the descendants of West Africans in sports where speed, quickness, agility and verticality are paramount to be reasonable. Aside, it was not entirely clear what criteria other than physicial appearance was used to ascertain the lineage of African American athletes. In the case of East Africans, the prima facie evidence tends to support his premise without equivocation in regard to endurance events in track and road racing. However, his views are less pursuasive when one scrutinizes a wider range of sports. The miniscule genetic advantages he alludes to to not appear as pertinent in many other endeavors. He places a great deal of credence in the effects of environmental influences he believes constrain the Africans' access to equalized opportunity in sports where dominance is not as clearly evident or succintly, a non-issue at present. Unless he anticipates a significant influx of East Africans at Daytona, I believe the premise would have benefited from narrower parameters. I have similar misgivings with regard to women in as much as whatever genetic advantage West African descent female sprinters may have realized, West African descended female basketball players seem to blow out ACL's as frequently as their "nordic" peers.

In the final analysis, TABOO: WHY BLACK ATHLETES DOMINATE SPORTS AND WHY WE'RE AFRAID TO TALK ABOUT IT is fundamentally a polemic to foster discussion of the second part of that provocative title. It admirably meets the challenge. The basic questions are unchanged; nature or nuture, brawn or brain. TABOO does not contain the answers but it unquestionablely instigates healthy discussion.


Bold concept, weak presentation   April 23, 2001
 31 out of 39 found this review helpful

The idea that blacks might be better athletes than whites is intriguing. It's the stuff of conversation -- quite conversation -- in coffee and barber shops around the world. The anecdotal evidence points to an obvious athletic edge for black athletes. Jon Entine, a journalist, not a scientist, has researched the subject fully, but still fails to come up with a valid argument.

The obvious question to ask Entine is "Why?" Why do we need to know that blacks are better athletes than whites? He does not answer this question in TABOO. Entine is passionate about this subject, but why? What does it matter to him? Does it help society to know there are racial differences, or even to establish that there are different races in the first place? I'm not dismissing the need to find out if blacks make better athletes. We always want answers even to unanswerable questions.

TABOO winds through more than 300 pages of Entine's rhetoric, unnecessarily so. Rarely does his premise surface. Often he tells us for dozens of pages how great black athletes are, but doesn't tell us why they're better than white athletes. His argument is uneven. He lauds scientists and science that support his view, and dismisses as crackpots those scientists and sociologists who disagree.

Though he doesn't say as much, Entine's basic argument is that blacks are better athletes than whites because they just are. It's obvious. Don't you watch the Olympics, everybody? Or watch the highlights on ESPN?

Entine uses socioeconomic evidence to support his claim at times -- blacks are better basketball players because it's an inexpensive game to play -- but at other times ignores the evidence. He doesn't say that blacks would be better at expensive, elite sports such as sailing and fencing if the sports were entirely open to blacks and more affordable. He ignores the interesting example of hockey, a sport that features few black players, but which is seeing more and black players taking it up. Hockey is an expensive sport. Will blacks, as socioeconomic conditions improve, one day dominate hockey, too?

I was intrigued by the very idea of this book when I saw it in the bookstore. I wish Entine could have written a less convoluted and more scientific book. Still, perhaps it is better not to know if blacks are better athletes than whites after all.


Credibility Gap Casts Doubt on Review of the Evidence   April 19, 2001
 61 out of 99 found this review helpful

This is a rather self-congratulatory book that examines why Black athletes seem to dominate sports. (As one reviewer pointed out, they don't--there are hundreds of sports in which Blacks don't dominate). But the author believes it's time to lay all the cards on tha table, even if race and differential race performance make us uncomfortable.

One of the main problems is that Entine seems to think that science is a democracy; that all points of view deserve equal weight. But scientific arguments are not equally valid, they differ in the quantity and, especially, the quality of the data that support them. There is no reason, at this stage of our knowledge, that we should be equally open to all viewpoints. While Entine seems to pride himself on asking the "tough" questions, his attempt to depoliticize the debate fails because he seems to ignore his own assumptions and values. His attempt at value-free inquiry is either naiive or duplicitous.

He is especially weak on the analogous question of whether IQ is genetically tied to race. He suggests that we keep an open mind about "The Bell Curve," a book that has been roundly criticized for its selectivity, dubious social conclusions, and hidden political agenda (see "The Bell Curve Wars"). Speaking of which, what are we to make of a writer who calls Arthur Jenson a "respected scientist," who slights America's greatest popular science author (Stephen Jay Gould) and who so disrespectfully paints Howard Gardner's concept of multiple (eight) intelligences. (He doesn't even mention Guilford's pioneering work proposing well over 100 intelligences).

Such shoddy treatment of "The Bell Curve," the most publicized book on race and performance in recent times, casts substantial doubt on Entine's discussion and theories about the heritability of athletic ability. Nor does he tackle the sociobiological meaning of race and its validity problems (see the "Scientic American" editorial review above).

It's true that we should be unafraid to discuss racial issues, and I suppose this book will encourage debate. But that debate should be reasoned, grounded in known facts, and taken very very seriously. It's one thing to call for a national uncensored debate, it's quite another to popularize the issue (using Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan to sell books), to imply that all scientists' theories deserve the same consideration, and to make a very serious issue a matter for casual jokes: What are we to make of a book that concludes (perhaps tongue in cheek) that maybe "white men can't jump." The issue, wherever it takes us, deserves more serious and scholarly treatment than it gets here. As one alternative I suggest Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasurement of Man." This book is not worth the money or effort.


Brave Book!   December 25, 2000
 10 out of 11 found this review helpful

This is a fascinating and fair account of a subject that has led to much demagoguery, even from scientists. Discussions of human differences and their genetic component are not usually embraced with openness. Yet Taboo manages, for the most part, to avoid common cliches and make a great contribution to the emerging debate over genetics. And it's fun reading too.

The first eight chapters cover a vast terrain, from evolution to Roger Bannister's (first 4 minute miler) public humiliation in even raising the topic of biological factors contributing to black athletic success. Taboo makes it clear that it's necessary to address the biological, social, spiritual, and historical factors. It allows the reader to explore this topic in its historical context, free from racist generalizations. Ironically, examining this issue discourages racism based on skin color, since Taboo shows through scientific data that the difference among all human beings is so drastically small and that skin color is just one of millions of genetic mutations among the human population.

Taboo goes into some depth about evolutionary theories, the most common of which is the Eve theory that states that all human beings share common ancestry (though it also looks at multiregionalism). As is apparent, it doesn't matter "how" evolution has occurred, significant physiological and anatomical differences could have -- and clearly have -- emerged in differing populations.

The depth in which this controversy had been studied is just remarkable. Slowly revealed through pages of evidence, it is certainly clear that athletic capability cannot be explained in terms of black and white, but varying shades of gray. The reason behind the correlation between race and athletic prowess seems to be as fuzzy as the concept of race- blurred on the edges through time.

Taboo also covers unique ground, such as the "black scholar athlete" tradition, which many people do not realize underpins the black athletic tradition in the United States. A chapter about Jewish domination of basketball in the 1930s and how it compares to black domination today was particularly interesting. Overall, Taboo outlines all of the social factors that have contributed to the iconization of sports in the black community.

However, as Taboo makes clear, the social reasons don't seem to be enough of an explanation for the incredible disparity in performance between different populations (it's notable that Entine uses the word "populations," not "races," because of all of the social controversies and racist ideas associated with what he calls the folkloric concept of race).

Taboo particularly looks at track: 494 of the top 500 all time 100 meter sprinters are of West African ancestry. Running is competition in its purest form, without equipment or guidelines. Yet, as good as athletes of West African ancestry are at the sprints, they are not very good at distance races. The reverse holds true for East Africans: dominant distance runners, and terrible sprinters (the best time in the 100 meters by a Kenyan is 10.28 seconds). It all comes down to biologically-defined body type combined with cultural factors. It's certainly not a black/white difference. Entine's conclusion that population biology and culture influence the patterns of success in sports is clearly mainstream science at its best.

Taboo makes it clear that there are no clear-cut explanations to the success of black athletes. It's greatest contribution, I believe, is to frame the issue in such a way that discussions of genetics, and human differences in particular, can be discussed frankly and free from the hyseria of racists on the right and the PC types of the left. Taboo is a thoughtful and brave book.