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

How many west africans have won sprinting events?

 

Dude you are taking everything a little too literally. I don't think anyone can say with certainty how many human generations it would take to select xyz. I mean, what cut off are you using? Will that 10th generation be faster/stronger/more agile than the 1st generation? yes. to what degree is debatable.

And it was a hypothetical argument, in reality slavery wasn't an isolated population inbreeding. There were fresh people coming over all the time.

 

Agreed on no one knows but I think it is safe to say it will take more than 10 which was based on how long it took a fox from the example given.

Also agree on population wasn't controlled, which is just another setback. All of these added up allows us to totally dismiss this as fictional. You said it is scientifically possible which I agree it is, but under conditions that didn't and couldn't exist in the realities of slavery. Like you said, hypothetical.

The most compelling point is the fictional person behind all this would never choose height and strength as a trait to enhance. Picking cotton is harder for tall people, disease resistance gives you a longer return on investment, and breeding for a passive temperament would seem much more useful.

Also I don't think I was really disagreeing or debating with what you or False said. We just talked past each other and made different points.

 

That breakdown has the significant benefit of hindsite. Back then you just wanted the strongest/toughest people so they could survive the long boat ride and extreme labor conditions. It's coincident that height correlates with strength/toughness. 300 hundred years ago there was no concept of disease resistance and breeding for a passive temperment works a lot better in a species that can't communicate with one another.

Obviously now you'd want max all resistances, boost life (expectancy), and not worry about strength. You know giving them a ring or two with a rune to make them feel better wouldn't hurt either... what were we talking about?

 

Exactly.........I was about to rep him.

Glad I didn't

 

Well that and its just a culture thing. Black basketball players are generally better (duh), and IMO that has a lot to do with the way they were brought up. White kids have video games and 600 channels of TV. A lot of blacks don't have that, thus from a young age they tend to spend a lot of time playing basketball at all hours of the day.

Same thing with Hispanics and soccer. In a poor country like Mexico, what sport is easier to play then soccer, where you need a ball, and two goals painted on the side of a building? It's a culture thing.

How many whites in the world sprint on a daily basis, compared to Africans or blacks from Haiti or the Dom Republic. If you live it, you will excel at it.

 

As far as selective breeding goes, there's no denying its a factor. When you pay top dollar at a slave auction for the biggest most muscular males who can generally accomplish more physically, then breed (sounds bad that way but it is what it is) him with a woman of superior physical attributes as compared to other women, you get a physically superior child. Then the process continues. To say it hasn't been diluted over the last 150 years would probably be false, but to say the effects of this practice has altered the genetic makeup in a positive way is 100% true.

 

Aussie Aussie Aussie!

Oi! Oi! Oi!

 

There is plenty to deny that selective breeding of slaves is a factor. First as others have pointed out that selection based purely on traits of strength are difficult to control also consider that traits like strength aren't solely dependent on genetics but a variety of factors also play a role.

The second issue is that you we cannot separate the culture of slavery in the Americas from any discussion of the genetic heritage of the modern descendents. Slaves while treated like property weren't treated just the same as farm animals where breeding could be strictly controlled While it is likely that many slave owners attempted to selectively breed slaves to produce ones that were stronger it would be almost impossible for them to absolutely control the slaves behavior, and their own, for very long. Slaves would have sex with other slaves with or without the owners consent and the practice of slave owners having sex with slaves was widespread and persistent.

If we are talking about slavery playing a role in the genetic heritage of modern descendents of slaves I would guess the Middle Passage probably played a much larger role as many who were physically weak were weeded out on the trip over. I doubt though there is anything definitive to prove that.

 

I mean it is possible that the Middle Passage killed the "weak" slaves, but given that it only affected 1 generation, and that being able to survive being chained up in a ship ≠ "physical ability" or "athleticism," it probably didn't matter. And, even if somehow being surviving the Middle Passage did artificially select in some way for "physical ability" or "athleticism," things like nutrition (before,after and during) and chance (were you chained up next to the sick guy or did your chains cut into your flesh) would play a much greater role in each individual's survival. So no, it is exceedingly doubtful that the Middle Passage resulted in a bunch of athletes.

Neither would picking the big bulky slave out of slave auction likely have any affect on "physical ability" or "athleticism." How many of you have played ball against a tall guy who sucked or a built guy who sucked - these outwardly visible traits don't at all indicate the blanket traits of "physical ability" and "athleticism." You might however get some taller individuals if you always pick the tall slaves.

 

The breeding of our African ancestors has been greatly exaggerated. While this did happen on some of the larger plantations it didn't happen on all. Another thing that is forgotten is the internal slave trade in the western hemisphere. Only a handful of Africans were brought directly to the U.S. from Africa. Most were brought to the Caribbean/S.A and sold from there. There were different ways of running a WI plantation compared to an American one.

I feel that alot of the individuals taken from the Motherland were probably some of the most fit. The ones who actually arrived were "lucky" tbh.

The success of some Maafa descendants in athletics has more to do with their family history than it does with what a few european slave traders put them though.

 

It only affected one lineal generation at a time but it affect several generations since slaves were being imported for 100s of years. If the harshness of the middle passage weeded out slaves who were more disease prone then the gene pool of American slaves would start out already with a group of individuals that were more robust than the group back in the West Africa and would further get an infusion of individuals also selected for robustness. Better overall health and disease resistance could lead to better athletics.

Anyway I don't put a lot of stock in the argument that slavery due to breeding or the Middle Passage led to better athletes today and am just playing devil's advocate.

I agree. Surface traits such as size and strength may not reflect genetic fitness.

 

If anyone has any proof of something they seem so willing to believe I would love to see it. First hand accounts from slaves. Letters or notes on owners mentioning it. Anything?

I think this entire discussion of surviving a boat ride might be a bit moot considering this is a nation of immigrants that all had a desire to risk everything they have saying goodbye to everything they knew. Talk about artificial selection, why is the slave model better at selecting athletes than that? African americans are also not any more disease resistant and are on average the same height as caucasian americans.

This entire discussion belittles hard work, motivation and natural talent that all races have shown. They are over represented in the NFL, but not the majority, and under represented in MLB.

 

Nice job taking a statement out of context lol. I agree that the attempts to breed my enslaved ancestors have been greatly exaggerated, but it was attempted.

I can't think of a specific name, but I have read countless interviews of ex-slaves and a few of them talk about their fathers being migrant black and white workers paid in some form or fashion to father children. Like I said earlier it didn't happen in all cases and its effects have been greatly exaggerated but in the U.S. it was one of the ways to attempt to have a "homegrown" enslaved population.

 

Which is in no way related to this thread. We are not talking about labor shortages and replenishment which was a massive problem due to a number of factors.

We are talking about specific attempts to selectively breed slaves to enhance certain traits. The entire idea is rubbish.

 

No s***, and I will state (for at least the 3rd time) that I agree.

The statement you took out of context made sense......within its original sentence. Thats why I put it there.

 

my bad I was just scanning. I could replace your quote with at least quotes from three other posters. So I will transfer the question to them.

I know it is impossible slavery had any human controlled selective breeding effect on modern athletes. I doubt it ever happened, so am just very curious why they think it is a matter of fact it did.

 

It doesn't have to be selective breeding. Just the fact the passage here and brutal work left the strong to survive.

 

Its a interesting subject with no definite answers because we have simply lost so much. Much of what we have is based on oral histories gathered after the fact. Simply put, most slaves didn't leave memoirs or keep journals. However, the Federal Writer's Project has several interviews which mention the idea of slave breeding:

Jeptha (Doc) Choice-March 6, 1937

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/mesnbibfield(AUTHOR+@od1(Choice,+Jeptha))

Note: You'll have to go to a library to actually get access to the longer narratives because there doesn't seem to be an electronic upload. It does however give you the info you would need to find it.

CaseyH, I think it is clear that individual slave owners tried to breed their slaves for fitness. The written records we have from the time indicate that owners prized healthy slaves, so this corroborates the after the fact first-hand accounts that slaves were bred for perceived fitness. What is not clear is whether there were large breeding farms.

 

Some slave holders did try to select for certain traits....but it would take much longer than the time africans were enslaved in the new world for such attempts to have a chance at success. Most of us are only a few generations removed from the continent. It is the cut off from the culture of our ancestors that makes it seem so distant.