Michael Johnson says Slave Breeding led to Slavery Descendants being better athletes

It grossly overstates the ability for humans to over a short period of time selectively control. As CaseyH points out, it also leads people to unproductive arguments about slavery. Additionally, while we could conceivably breed for certain traits like we do in dogs (bigger, smaller, squished faces, more hair, less hair), it's not clear to me that slave owners actively tried to selectively breed traits (apathy toward the wellbeing of one's slaves is not to me indicative of great interest in selective breeding). This is about as important to modern day sports as the idea that modern medicine has actively allowed some of those who would otherwise have died to pass on their genes.

Not only is it erroneous conclusion, it doesn't lead to any worthwhile discussions, and does not address the more meaningful social impacts that slavery has had on this country.

If we want to talk about our growing understanding of the effect that genetics has on individuals and what it means for how we structure our society and how we think about nature/nurture, I'm all for talking about that, but not from this starting point.

 

Life is a strange riddle.

 

There's also the argument that before the 1700's, there's virtually all naturally selection throughout the world. It wasn't an easy world to live in back then. AND if you make the same argument as the article, you can conclude that slaves weren't selected for their intelligence. I believe we're so close together genetically together, 99% of it is cosmetic.

An example. Obama looks more like his white grandfather than his actually black father IMO. Yet we're choose to identify him as more black.

 

Intelligent, ambitious blacks were shut out of education, property and business ownership and the professional work; and for a hell of a lot longer than all other immigrants to this country (who married and bred their way out of the underclass and compounded the exclusion and suppression of blacks).

The only occupations they were allowed to succeed at were sports and entertainment; which have always been low-skill, but were originally also low-wage, blue-collar jobs before distribution networks and copyright laws made them more lucrative.

That's the whole ******* story guys, no genetics, no nothing.

 

You can't immediately tell an American black from an African black or an Australian white from a British white? Sometimes these things happen quickly over a few generations -- it's like geology. People used to think it took eons to form the world's largest formations -- now we know those things actually form quickly in short bursts like the Grand Canyon.

 

Sorry, I should have been more specific. While some phenotypic traits are more easily controlled for due to an ability to see a morphological difference, more general traits like "intelligence" or "physical ability," "endurance" operate through less understood mechanisms and are not normally morphologically evident. Changes in skin color or facial features are a far cry from far reaching changes like "intelligence," "physical ability," or "endurance." To say that slave owner's indifference (or even active effort) somehow operated to selecting for any of these broad traits and thus influenced the distribution of these traits in a population is fanciful.

 

Anyone who knows about selective breeding knows that a conspiracy of some concerted effort to create a super slave is fiction.

 

It wasn't just selective breeding. That boat ride to the Americas served as a weed out journey. Only the fittest slaves made it. And only the creme de la creme made it past two years active duty. This was true of all the Americas.

Portuguese and Spanish colonies worked their blacks until death and replaced them with new recruits. Southern states had to deal with the ban on new slaves by selectively breeding them.

In synthesis, the south should pray to Jesus blessing the north and their progressive liberal ideas or their college football teams would look and play like Wyoming St.

 

This is an example of someone who knows little to nothing about selective breeding and fits the persona of ' look how evil and hitler like slave owners were'

It fits his model

 

I'm confused about this. So slave owners and Hitler aren't evil or didn't act in an evil manner? I need to rethink my understanding of what is evil, I guess. Maybe you are just using the term differently from the common usage. Also what does evilness have to do with what he said?

 

Hitler is most famous for a massive effort to eliminate a race of people from the earth at all costs including his war effort. This is the type of effort that would be required in a unified strategy of the majority of slave owners to even attempt altering the slave population. All signs point to them being merely indifferent to their slaves as machines with motives of profit.

Profit conflicting directly with selective breeding isn't the only or even most convincing reason to completely dismiss this subject as impossible.

 

So Hitler did act in an evil manner because he sought to eliminate a "race" (Jews are not a race of people, more like a cultural or religious subset AFAIK) of people from the areas he controlled, but slave owners are not evil because they did not seek to do the same? Is that what you are saying? I'm just really confused by what you are talking about - maybe it is a topic for another thread or from another thread. Your discussion about whether slave owners were evil just seems to be unrelated to the issue here which is whether American Blacks have been selectively bred through the incidents of slavery to be more "physically able."

 

Do you not agree there are shades of evil based on motivations and actions? Do you agree Hitler is widely accepted as one of the most evil persons used in examples?

 

Sure, but what does that discussion have to do with the discussion of whether the incidents of slavery selected for better athletes?

 

I was using Hitler as an example of evil. I could have easily said Satan. Perhaps I said it better 'Makes white slave owners look more evil and maniacal.'

 

Genetically Modified Athletes.

 

This is likely a failure on my part, but I still think you are missing my question and the topic. So, what does the above quoted idea have to do with whether the incidents of slavery selected for better athletes?

 

Slaves were certainly selectively bred and only a few males were typically allowed to stud. Further, 400 years is roughly 9-10 generations, which is enough to enhance selective traits.

To me the real question is whether or not slave owners would necessarily want fast twitch athletes over slow twitch athletes when you are talking about long hours of work.

This topic opens up all kinds of possible controversial issues. If we assume selective breeding by slave masters, can we assume that they would select more obedient and less intellectual slaves to prevent defiance?

 

Ah I see. The reasoning in talking about it in this thread is discussing why people tend to believe things that under any scrutiny appear foolish. If facts fit someone preconceived notion of how the world is they are less likely to examine the proof or reasoning behind it.

 

Explain this...

Spoiler