OP, what the hell are you talking about? Where in the hell did we not congratulate or "tarnish" the Kenyan-born runners who made the team?
We wrote, "The U.S. men’s team for World XC should be quite strong as the top four will all be going to Uganda and they’re clearly all very fit (they beat Derrick, who ran 27:38 on the track in November, though Derrick won’t be at World XC)."
It amazes me that the so called open minded people on the left - who in terms of public policy are obsessed with classifying people by race, gender, etc. to make sure that all outcomes are equal - get irate when we mention place of birth in a meet recap. What's wrong with saying the winners of the race were born in Africa? It's a factual statement. If the top 4 in the men's race and the women's winner were from California (almost the same population as Kenya), you can bet your butt we'd mention it was a great day for the people from California. You see place of birth talked about all the time in college football recruiting.
Again, what's wrong with it? Please tell me.
In my mind, nothing. I guess you don't like it as it scares you to think that some people might be better at different things. Why? That's called common sense. If you truly like diversity, you should be celebrating it. Every human has his or her own strength or weaknesses. I would make a horrible NFl lineman . But all NFL linemen would make horrible distance runners But we all come together and make amazing contributions.
-Rojo
PS. With all of the talk about white privilege, maybe the thing that bothers you is you don't like to consider that there might be such a thing as "black privilege" in running. Although it really has nothing to do with being black. "East African descent" privilege would be a better term. Just as if you are over 7 feet tall, you are much more likely to be an NBA center (1/4 are the odds I believe), if you are born in East Africa there is a way better chance that you'll break 2:10 in the marathon. It's a fact. Get over it.