Why is it A BIG DEAL the Jeremy Wariner is white?

you're right: it's not. It's a big deal that someone not of west-african descent won a sprints gold medal. If he were japanese or kenyan it would be just as intriguing as winning while "white."

I assume that he is not of west-african descent, in saying this, of course. Do we know this for certain?

It is common knowledge that white guys typically don't excel in the sprints. So it is, of course, of interest to most track fans that a white american wins gold in the 400. How is it racism? It's uncommon so people are surprised, that's all. If a white guy broke the 100m record, people (including yourself) would be shocked. However, I was more surprised at the fact that Jeremy is so young rather than the fact that he is white.

We make distinctions based on race in the USA. The 1st Asin-American . . . , the 1st African-American . . . , whatever. It's been a long time since an Anglo-American has won a sprint title so we just have to make a big deal about it. It's silly (maybe even stupid in this day and age), but we like to label people in this country, and skin color makes for an easy label.

Lets see. If a non black runner can;

a. win gold in the mens 400m

b. win gold in the womens 100m

c. win gold in the womens marathon

d. win bronze in the womens marathon

Maybe ethinicity has nothing to do with success at sprinting or distance running.

Nonsense.

If a white anglo won a medal in table tennis, journalist would report the distinction.

Up and coming white boxers are appropriately named 'great white hope' without any accusation of racism, because there are no up and coming white boxers.

The Jamaican Bobsled team was, by all accounts, made up of black guys.

If it's not the norm; it's news and valid to note.

People need to get over this idea that it's being racist to make a big deal of a white guy excelling in something like the 400m. It's just a point of interest, in exactly the same way as it would be if a 7ft tall guy won - it's not discriminating against him, it's just noting that it's not the norm.

It's a story, that is a fact, and if you're gonna take the moral high ground and not pretend the fact that Wariner's white adds a little bit of interest to the 400m, then that's fine. But it's so blindingly obvious that it's unusual, so people are gonna talk about it - they're not being racist at all.

Wariner ran a great race tonight by the way, it's good to see the event moving on again after a few down years. Congrats to Otis Harris too, if I were told beforehand he'd run 44.16 (?) I'd have been pretty certain that would take gold

It is a big deal just like it was a big deal for Maritza Correia to be the 1st black US swimmer to compete in the Olympics even though it was only a relay spot. It encourages youngsters to pursue their dreams regardless of their race....

Apple Cider Vinegar wrote:

It encourages youngsters to pursue their dreams regardless of their race....

No, IGNORING race encourages people to do things regardless, not "in spite of", race. Which would you rather aspire to be: A fast white man or a fast man who happens to be white?

Ignoring race is dillusional.

We should acknowledge and embrace race and diversity, not ignore it. It is impossible to ignore race.

Apple Cider Vinegar wrote:

Ignoring race is dillusional.

no, its not; be a bit more open minded. "double edged sword": if you are celebrating that a WHITE guy won a 'sprint', then i could look it at the other way, you being happy BLACK guys lost.

Oh Brother wrote:

We should acknowledge and embrace race and diversity, not ignore it. It is impossible to ignore race.

Right, i'm not saying ignore race altogether, but dont celebrate things just due to race...especially caucasian male americans as a base for celebration? silly no matter what the arena or context.

White medal winners in women's Olympic marathon:

1984 - Samuelson, Waitz (NOR) and Mota (POR)

1988 - Rosa Mota (Portugal) silver to Lisa Martin (Aus)

1992 - Yegorova (CIS) and Moller (NZE) (bronze)

1996 - Yegorova (silver)

2000 - Simon (ROM) (silver)

Ok, so now we've got all of your bases covered.

We're talking about US sprints. What does female distance runners have anything to do with anything?

Oh Brother wrote:

We're talking about US sprints. What does female distance runners have anything to do with anything?

agreed.

further, i don't think the original poster is racist by any means. it is an "arguable" fact that black athletes have a stronger propensity towards sprints (i.e. are faster over shorter distances)... i think there have been studies, but i'm not prepared to quote any. looking at it in that light, it is surprising that a thin little white guy beat a couple of ripped black guys (and yes, size has also historically been deciding factor in whether or not one is a good sprinter) over 400m. so if i'd have phrased my shock by saying a thin guy one the 400m, would you call me prejudiced towards the muscularly-ripped-challenged (p.c. for thin)? if not, you're admitting that it's the unusual nature of a particular type of body (white and thin) winning that race that has most of us amazed, and not our rampant racism.

Obviously you didn't pay attention to the message I was replying to in my post. The initial message said that if a white woman can get either a gold or bronze in the marathon, as well as a white man getting gold in the 400 and a white woman getting gold in the 100, then maybe we can say that race is not a factor in sprints. In response I posted the results of past Olympic marathons and said, ok, so we've covered all the bases. According to the initial post, once all those results had been achieved then we could maybe argue that race isn't a factor.

Common sense wrote:

Obviously you didn't pay attention to the message I was replying to in my post. The initial message said that if a white woman can get either a gold or bronze in the marathon, as well as a white man getting gold in the 400 and a white woman getting gold in the 100, then maybe we can say that race is not a factor in sprints. In response I posted the results of past Olympic marathons and said, ok, so we've covered all the bases. According to the initial post, once all those results had been achieved then we could maybe argue that race isn't a factor.

but it doesn't necessarily go both ways. you're beggin the question with your statement. you first have to prove you're assumption of reciprocity holds before you make that argument.

Ok, now you're not reading the posts. I didn't start this thread.

I bet it wouldn't go unnoticed if a black man were to become President of the US. You can't honestly tell me that no one would mention the color of his skin. Get over your "political correctness". He's white and people notice. There is nothing wrong with that!