If I were in the slave trade business, the one trait I’d least want my slaves to possess is the ability to run fast. Sprinting and enslavement do not go well together.
It’s got the population of Brooklyn.
Look at this list of fastest 100m times - the fastest time I can see run by a non-slave descendent is 55th.
Do you see a pattern that isn’t about Jamaica?
Jimmy? Is that you?
Historically this is the point where these threads start to go downhill: the OP proposes this theory, people point and laugh but also rebut the theory with cites and logic, and the OP unfortunately sticks with the theory. I didn’t see this documentary, PrettyVacant, but there’s nothing in your notes that has not been said many, many times. There’s no evidence of a genetic link between slavery and athletic performance. The numbers don’t work (there’s little to no evidence of controlled breeding among slaves and none on a large enough scale to justify your theory), the logic is dicey (particularly the bit about Jamaica - and like you with the face wrote, who wants slaves that run fast?), and the facts are just not there. Don’t take the mockery personally, but don’t double down on the theory.
Half the thread seems to think it’s culture.
I guess you could argue descendents of slaves are hugely over-represented in boxing, partic the heavier end of the scale. How about American football, basketball, field sports, etc, etc.
It’s absolutely symmetric with the Theory of Natural Selection.
Have you really got no further than ‘who would breed slaves to run fast?’ Really?
You are not getting this by at least 100m.
I always thought blacks ran faster because the guy holding the starting gun was white…ba dum pish…
Michael Johnson talked to a Prof from Cambridge Uni who’d studied this for 10 years and it was here they teased out the huge variety of the West African gene pool, from which the sprinters descend.
However, they didn’t explore one aspect of Johnson’s DNA - the point was made his origins lay primarily in modern day Senegal (around (70%), a partic valley in fact.
What they didn’t explore was his 10% European heritage (of which Johnson knew nothing but didn’t seem surprised).
So maybe the European component plays a role as great or greater than the diversity of the slave coast gene pool… or not at all…
You know, no one has ever heard that ‘joke’ before.
You could tell which runners were descended from slaves just by looking at that list? Please explain how that works.
Because they are black, they have white last names and they’re from the USA and the Caribbean - that ‘how that works’.
No, he’s reporting what a video said. And if you want to rebut it, you can’t be adverse to actually watching it.
When the first response to someone’s ideas is to make fun of them for having them, they are always going to double down. The pattern is because of how GD works.
I did also link to an article from the Jamaica Observer that makes the case better than I do. In fact, I’ll link to it again because that’s hat’s the kind of guy I am.
Feel free to click, folks:
Or if you want a white guy to outrun black guys, tell the white guy the black guys are chasing him.
My personal theory, melanin makes your skin slightly more slick, and whites who might otherwise be able to run at Olympic speeds drop out of training because of excess chafing.
Symmetric isn’t a word, and I didn’t say your theory was not “symmetric” with evolution. I said the logic doesn’t work and the facts don’t support it, which is true. Evolution and slave trade routes don’t explain Jamaican dominance in sprinting. The fact that Jamaicans love sprinting and have an exceptionally good national program (which is related to the first fact) does. This is the problem with theories of this type: they may sound plausible on the surface and people champion the theories for that reason, but the facts aren’t there.
I read the thread, so yes, I got much further than that. I also thought that post was funny. Like I said, people often try to use slavery as an explanation for the athletic performance of black people in the U.S. (or in this case black people in North America). I can see this is the first time you’ve encountered this idea, but it’s nothing new. The facts are not there. For starters, there’s no evidence of any kind of large scale “eugenics” program among slaves and there was, and is, a ton of interbreeding between slaves and non-slaves and the descendants of same, which makes it awfully hard to chalk this up to genetics. There are also some gaping holes in what you’ve posted, like “Presumably, the slave traders were at least somewhat particular” (I don’t think they were - they bought the people they could buy), point #7, the bit about Jamaica “allegedly” being the last dropping-off point, and all of #11. The entire theory is strung-together bits of speculation.
You cannot be serious-is this a joke thread?
How do you think the Slave masters should have recorded their breeding programs; maybe in an Excel spreadsheet? They were breeding animals ffs, using their stock to try and breed more stock. It wasn’t Little House on the Prairie.
Again, someone cites what I said at the very outset were my notes as if they’re some ‘theory’ - they are just haphazard notes I jotted down from memory the morning after watching the program.
Once more, please feel free to read the linked article from the Jamaica Observer.
Eh. I pointed out specific problems with the information presented. And there was no link to any video to watch (as if “watch this video” is some sort of reasonable OP anyway). The best way to avoid a laughing response from your audience is to not post laughable content.
The same way they kept track of breeding any of the animals they owned-- in ledgers. What evidence do you have to present here that there was any significant Eugenics program? Are you citing the lack of technology as the evidence?
Sure, I really believe all those African-Americans came to have Anglo-Saxon last names because they chose to change them by deed poll.
I’m not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your methodology there, Lou.