african american athletes..does their ability have anything to do with slavery?

[DudeistBelieve]

I would just like to point out a few things here:
1. This is not justifying slavery
2. Im not saying black athletes dont have to work as hard


I was just thinking that a huge majority of successful track and field athletes are african american/african Caribbean. Ive seen a few discussions on this and I was wondering if you guys think there is a causal link between generations of selective breeding and the athletic ability of these athletes. Im not saying athletes from this background dont train as hard as white or Asian people but there is certainly a trend that supports these claims

I dont want this to turn into a race war or even worse people justifying slavery which was horrible

I dont know how much you agree with the opinions in the link although there is evidence to support this argument. Personally im sceptical but I thought it would be a good grown up discussion

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/fourth-place-medal/michael-johnson-says-slavery-descendants-run-faster-because-155858303--oly.html

What I learned was after importing new Slaves in the U.S. was banned, the majority of new slaves created where from the slave owners (and those in position of power) raping slave women.

See, I thought the same thing to. That it would be Eugenics, but remember your talking the bible thumping south here. They didn't believed in evolution, and those that did stupidly used it to justify their racism.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Its mostly genetics, muscle and bone structure mainly and not slavery. Hip structure and the associated musculature is why they're able to run faster. That gives a distinct advantage. I learned a lot about how muscles and bones work together while in a massage therapy class and I suggest people learn a bit about how it all works together before making wild claims like that.
I myself have an odd hip structure, making me wonder what my genetic line is because I can run like hell for a white guy (despite my left knee being pretty well fucked from an injury). I only have about an inch clearance between my floating ribs and my iliac crest (the top of the hip).

The idea is that slavery worked as an artificial selection device, culling those with poor genetics and promoting reproduction between good genetics.

Did you really think we were entertaining the notion that slavery in and of itself was good for sports?

Nope, just that those traits were more than likely present prior to slavery, considering those traits still exist in many who weren't ferried across the ocean.

 

[Fox12]

I don't think slavery existed on nearly a large enough scale for people of African decent to be somehow genetically superior to other individuals. Keep in mind that slavery has existed since the dawn of time, and that it has traditionally included people from all over the world. Despite this, I am unaware of any group in history becoming more physically powerful as a result of systematic slavery.

 

[NeutralDrow]

That seems really doubtful, to be honest. Not only would it have been only a little over 200 years of "natural selection" (the first African slaves were imported to the U.S. in the 1600's), but they weren't considered chattel workers that whole time, and even after that became the norm not all slaves were field workers.

 

[Thaluikhain]

See, I thought the same thing to. That it would be Eugenics, but remember your talking the bible thumping south here. They didn't believed in evolution, and those that did stupidly used it to justify their racism.

Doesn't matter, they could still recognise selective breeding as a thing.

OTOH, really, no, slavery wouldn't have been able to have done this. Now, keep it up for a thousand years, and have all slaves doing hard labour and the weakest being culled, maybe. Though, basketball needs certain attributes not found in most physical labour, I'd have thought.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

See, I thought the same thing to. That it would be Eugenics, but remember your talking the bible thumping south here. They didn't believed in evolution, and those that did stupidly used it to justify their racism.

Doesn't matter, they could still recognise selective breeding as a thing.

OTOH, really, no, slavery wouldn't have been able to have done this. Now, keep it up for a thousand years, and have all slaves doing hard labour and the weakest being culled, maybe. Though, basketball needs certain attributes not found in most physical labour, I'd have thought.

Except again, the repopulation of slaves was primarily Whites raping black women.

And I'd find it hard to believe they were incorporating Eugenics into their rape. Hell, someone else can answer this, when did Eugenics become a widespread thing?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Except again, the repopulation of slaves was primarily Whites raping black women.

Not sure that it was, I was led to believe that they also got black males (including family members) to do that as well.

In any case, I'm not saying that they did selectively breed, but that they had the knowledge to do so if they wanted to, despite their religion.

And I'd find it hard to believe they were incorporating Eugenics into their rape. Hell, someone else can answer this, when did Eugenics become a widespread thing?

Depends what you mean. People have been selectively breeding livestock for millennia. If you were to breed slaves the same way you breed horses or cattle, you don't really need to understand the mechanism that well.

OTOH, there's a big problem in that the lifespan of the slave is the same as your own, you won't be around to see many generations of your breeding program.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Except again, the repopulation of slaves was primarily Whites raping black women.

Not sure that it was, I was led to believe that they also got black males (including family members) to do that as well.

In any case, I'm not saying that they did selectively breed, but that they had the knowledge to do so if they wanted to, despite their religion.

And I'd find it hard to believe they were incorporating Eugenics into their rape. Hell, someone else can answer this, when did Eugenics become a widespread thing?

Depends what you mean. People have been selectively breeding livestock for millennia. If you were to breed slaves the same way you breed horses or cattle, you don't really need to understand the mechanism that well.

OTOH, there's a big problem in that the lifespan of the slave is the same as your own, you won't be around to see many generations of your breeding program.

Not likely. Slavery was hell. If you were a slave would you want to bring a child into this world? Maybe some, but primarily it was plantation owners.

I just plain don't believe they would have that knowledge. The few scientific folk that supported racism thought black folk believed in junk science.

 

[DefunctTheory]

See, I thought the same thing to. That it would be Eugenics, but remember your talking the bible thumping south here. They didn't believed in evolution, and those that did stupidly used it to justify their racism.

Doesn't matter, they could still recognise selective breeding as a thing.

OTOH, really, no, slavery wouldn't have been able to have done this. Now, keep it up for a thousand years, and have all slaves doing hard labour and the weakest being culled, maybe. Though, basketball needs certain attributes not found in most physical labour, I'd have thought.

Except again, the repopulation of slaves was primarily Whites raping black women.

And I'd find it hard to believe they were incorporating Eugenics into their rape. Hell, someone else can answer this, when did Eugenics become a widespread thing?

Could you source that? Because everything I find indicates the opposite - that while rape did occur, the majority of slave re-population (breeding) was accomplished by incentivising pregnancy (Treating females that had children frequently less like crap then usual).

 

[EternallyBored]

See, I thought the same thing to. That it would be Eugenics, but remember your talking the bible thumping south here. They didn't believed in evolution, and those that did stupidly used it to justify their racism.

Doesn't matter, they could still recognise selective breeding as a thing.

OTOH, really, no, slavery wouldn't have been able to have done this. Now, keep it up for a thousand years, and have all slaves doing hard labour and the weakest being culled, maybe. Though, basketball needs certain attributes not found in most physical labour, I'd have thought.

That seems really doubtful, to be honest. Not only would it have been only a little over 200 years of "natural selection" (the first African slaves were imported to the U.S. in the 1600's), but they weren't considered chattel workers that whole time, and even after that became the norm not all slaves were field workers.

I don't think slavery existed on nearly a large enough scale for people of African decent to be somehow genetically superior to other individuals. Keep in mind that slavery has existed since the dawn of time, and that it has traditionally included people from all over the world. Despite this, I am unaware of any group in history becoming more physically powerful as a result of systematic slavery.

Pretty much this, mass organized slavery of Africans in a centralized area that would have been required to do something like what is being suggested here would have taken longer than 200 years.

Given the number of African players that play at the same level who were never descended from slaves (descended from families that immigrated to the U.S. after slavery ended) or are from another country entirely, what genetic physical differences there are would have existed quite a while before slavery. As the birthplace of humanity, Africa has an extensive amount of genetic diversity.

Also, as mentioned above, this demographic dominance seems to be pretty much limited to Basketball and American Football, which other demographics also hold over-representation in as well, Samoans are generally another overrepresented demographic in football as linemen, for their size. However, unlike Africans we don't turn to "slavery" as the explanation for this discrepancy, slavery smacks of merely a convenient, easy to grasp and compartmentalize excuse that doesn't really grasp that you need more than just a couple generations of possibly selective breeding to cause a permanent shift in a populations genetics to the extent that would explain the current over representation.

Combine that with social factors (sports being seen as one of the most popular ways for Urban youth to escape poverty), economic factors (poor people tend not to be able to afford electronic entertainment or sports with a high cost barrier to entry like skiing), and numerous other factors, subtle or overt, and it becomes very unlikely that a mere couple generations of slavery would be enough to explain the over-representation of African Americans in Football and Basketball.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

See, I thought the same thing to. That it would be Eugenics, but remember your talking the bible thumping south here. They didn't believed in evolution, and those that did stupidly used it to justify their racism.

Doesn't matter, they could still recognise selective breeding as a thing.

OTOH, really, no, slavery wouldn't have been able to have done this. Now, keep it up for a thousand years, and have all slaves doing hard labour and the weakest being culled, maybe. Though, basketball needs certain attributes not found in most physical labour, I'd have thought.

Except again, the repopulation of slaves was primarily Whites raping black women.

And I'd find it hard to believe they were incorporating Eugenics into their rape. Hell, someone else can answer this, when did Eugenics become a widespread thing?

Could you source that? Because everything I find indicates the opposite - that while rape did occur, the majority of slave re-population (breeding) was accomplished by incentivising pregnancy (Treating females that had children frequently less like crap then usual).

Probably could if I could be bothered too, certainly not now. I'm repeating what I learned studying in African American Lit the past couple years.

I am interested in finding out how one could incentivise pregnancy to a slave woman. "Yeah so, I want you to breed so I enslave your kids, and eventually sell them off so you never ever see them again."

I could be wrong. *shrug* but it's not what I've been taught.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Not likely. Slavery was hell. If you were a slave would you want to bring a child into this world? Maybe some, but primarily it was plantation owners.

Well, that's assuming the slaves had a choice. Read accounts (don't know how common it was, though) that slave owners would force black girls to have sex with whatever black male was handy as soon as they started having their periods.

I just plain don't believe they would have that knowledge. The few scientific folk that supported racism thought black folk believed in junk science.

Again, people have been breeding domestic animals that way for millennia. Why couldn't they apply it to slaves?

 

[V4Viewtiful]

I though the obvious answer was yes.

most if not all western Blacks where bred to be super slaves, which involved inbreeding and mixing with the white genes, the women where broodmares and the men where bucks, they intentionally culled weaker slaves as well.

Generations and generations of working in the hot son with few to no breaks, and running from white people, being trained for human cock fights have contributed to damn near every sport that isn't in the winter Olympics (sorry, had to put that in there )

 

[DefunctTheory]

Probably could if I could be bothered too, certainly not now. I'm repeating what I learned studying in African American Lit the past couple years.

Without a source, you can't keep jumping in and saying 'your wrong.' Please stop preaching absolute fact from what, as far as everyone not currently possessing your memories is concerned, is just things you're saying.

Wikipedia makes no note on what method of reproduction (Rape, forced sex, etc) was used most, and has no mention of mass rapes with the purpose of reproduction. While Wikipedia isn't the best source, its more then you got.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States

I am interested in finding out how one could incentivise pregnancy to a slave woman. "Yeah so, I want you to breed so I enslave your kids, and eventually sell them off so you never ever see them again."

You seem to think that slaves thought the same as free people from the 21st century Westerners. Which would be delightful, but not true, which is most obvious by the fact that slaves didn't beat their masters to death on a regular basis.

Slaves in the Southern US were treated, from birth, as slaves and property. From birth. The notion that someone who's lived their entire lives under the heel of another human being would have the same thought process as us is naive, at best.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Not likely. Slavery was hell. If you were a slave would you want to bring a child into this world? Maybe some, but primarily it was plantation owners.

I just plain don't believe they would have that knowledge. The few scientific folk that supported racism thought black folk believed in junk science.

Sorta, but if everyday was Hell then what would be then defined as Hell?

Slavery had generations of brainwashed people that thought it was there lot in life to produce children to praise the white man. There are some dumb-dumbs out there that like to drop in that even blacks own slaves not taking into account that a lot of that was in the north, many where family members anyway and others could only free other slaves that same way. But the rest where just as brainwashed as the plantation workers.
The thing you need to get is people want to carry on a legacy regardless of there situation, why do you think even poor or people from war torn countries continue to have kids, so their kids can see a better time.

The White dudes that raped the slaves where thinking both Eugenics and business, I mean If you thought you where superior you'd assume your genes would overpower their's, plus it's good for business.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Am I... am I the only one who thinks this thread is jaw-droppingly racist...?

Normally I'd post that Critical Miss comic, but no, you aren't.

But...everyone seems to have run with it as a good faith question, and discussing it on it's merits.

OTOH, yeah...if you accept the premise of the OP, a logical next question is "Are current black athletes/people in general better off due to past slavery?". This is a view that has a depressingly large amount of support.

 

[Thaluikhain]

that's cognitive bias thaluikhain.

like not believing "hitler liked children".

deliberately cognitively refusing to see any potential "positive" in a thing already deemed "negative".

Not what I meant. This sort of thing is often raised by people pushing an agenda about racism and black people now. It might be unfair, but if someone is going to claim that black people are better off now due to slavery in the past, I'm going to assume they aren't arguing in good faith, because it is most likely the case.