Do white people swim faster than black people, or is it just a myth?
If it is only a myth, why are the majority of swimmers white, and most
world records in swimming are set by white people?

Perhaps, because of economic factors, caucasians typically have more
access to swimming pools and swimming lessons.

I agree with Pinkfreud. 

World records are set by people who have a lifetime of coaching,
access to training facilities, backing by their community, the freedom
to commit their lives to the sport, huge financial resources, and a
country that is willing to sponsor a team at the world level. Those
things are not available to everyone equally.

Remember, people used to ponder the same question with golf -- then we
met Tiger Woods. :-)

-K~

braddalton --

I have no expertise on this subject, but I do know that a serious,
inevitably controversial book has recently been written on the general
subject of the role of ethnicity in elite athletics and may be of
interest to you.  Here is a link to the Amazon.com page that includes
editorial reviews of the book:
 
Amazon.com: Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're
Afraid to Talk About It
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/158648026X/qid=1074521720/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-0734425-2807104?v=glance&s=books


And here is a link to a piece by the author of that book, Jon Entine,
that is posted on a Web site devoted to running and sets forth some of
his findings and conclusions.

Run-Down: The Story Behind the Amazing Success of Black Athletes, by Jon Entine
http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p1.php


Here are two excerpts from this piece that are specifically related to swimming:

"Studies have shown that athletes of West African origin hit a
biomechanical wall after about 45 seconds of intense, anaerobic
activity (distances longer than 400-meters in sprinting and all
measurable distances in swimming, in which Africans are believed to be
genetically disadvantage on average) when aerobic skills come into
play."  (about 2/3s down the first page of the piece).


"Relative advantages in these physiological and biomechanical
characteristics are a gold mine for athletes who compete in such
anaerobic activities as football, basketball, and sprinting, sports in
which West African blacks clearly excel. However, they also pose
problems for athletes who might want to compete as swimmers (heavier
skeletons and smaller chest cavities could be drags on performance) or
in cold-weather and endurance sports." (third paragraph from the
bottom of the first page)


""Amongst competitors in both track and field events there are large
significant racial differences," Tanner wrote. As nature would have
it, different populations are better suited to excel at anaerobic
activities such as sprinting, jumping, and lifting, than at aerobic
sports such as distance running, cycling, and swimming." (about 1/3
down page two at the above link)

Finally, and importantly, Entine emphasizes the following
qualification of his conclusions:


"[Arthur] Ashe of course is only recognizing what we all intuitively
know unequivocally: Population genetics and ancestry matter, a lot.
Yet it should never be forgotten that genes are not the ultimate
factors in elite performance. While genetics will determine if you
have a chance to be an elite athlete, intelligence, dedication, and
serendipity are the final arbiters of who wins and loses."  (near the
bottom of the second page at the above link).


markj-ga

Water never makes any difference between Black or White.
Its depends on the swimmer to overcome the density of water.
So there no question of "swiming" slow or fast
The swiming speed does not depend on colour of swimmer but it depends
on the stamina, style of the swimmer.

The controversial book mentioned above might be correct, if you
consider the 100m sprint in athletics. Black men dominate the event,
and I doubt there could be any cultural, demographic or financial
factors involved. That a few white men also do well at 100m means that
race/genes are a big factor, but not the be-all and end-all.

Re: markj's post... 
The discussion reminds a bit of Murray & Herrnstein's "The Bell
Curve", who tried to link ethnicy to general mental ability (IQ), and
the excellent rebuttal to that book, Jacoby & Glaubermann's (editors)
"The Bell Curve Debate".

I do not recall all arguments presented against the assumption that
"population genetics ... matter a lot", but I would like to point out
what I consider a logical gap in Entine's argument:

Theory: "As nature would have it, different populations are better
suited to excel at anaerobic activities such as sprinting, jumping,
and lifting, than at aerobic sports such as distance running, cycling,
and swimming."

Hypothesis: Caucasians suck at swimming and long distance running (and
kick ass when it comes to sprinting), or vice versa. Africans should
excel at swimming and long distance running and suck at sprinting, or
vice versa. Whatever category one ethnic group falls into regarding
one aerobic sport, it should fall into the other category for all
anaerobic sports.

Observation: Caucasians suck at both sprinting (anaerobic) and long
distance running (aerobic) ( - remember, we are talking elite sports
here - ), but are better at swimming.

Conclusion: Entine's proposed explanation for what ethnic group kicks
ass in what type of sports sucks. Social-economic factors (pinkfreud,
knowledge_seeker) remain a more plausible approach to explain the
differences.

Thanks for listening. ;-)
Hans from Germany

Anthony Nesty of Surinam was the first black gold medal winner in the
1988 Olympic games His official record: RECORD: 1988 OLYMPIC GAMES:
gold (100m butterfly), 8th (200m butterfly); 1992 OLYMPIC GAMES:
bronze (100m butterfly); 1986 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS: 5th (100m
butterfly); 1991 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS: gold (100m butterfly); 1994
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS: 7th (100m butterfly); 1987 PAN AMERICAN GAMES:
gold (100m butterfly), bronze (200m butterfly); 1991 PAN AMERICAN
GAMES: gold (100m butterfly), silver (200m)