Suggesting that the differences between “whites” and “blacks” is remotely comparable to the differences between greyhounds and chihuahuas is utterly asinine.
BTW, since you keep using the term “blacks” and “whites” perhaps it would be helpful to define those terms since so many people have difference concepts of what is a “white person” and what is a “black person”.
So, how do you classify a “black person” and how do you classify a “white person”?
Prettyvacant, you’ve stumbled into the deep left recesses of The Straight Dope. You mentioned race and suggested that there might actually be physical differences. That’s crazy.
It’s amusing to read through the nitpicking about how the slave owners would have carefully noted their breeding and attended weekly meeting of Ye Olde Slave Eugenics Club if the theory you reference had any validity.
Of course it make sense that the owners would breed their healthiest and most productive. It’s just silly posturing to deny that. And of course cultural influences play a large part in who dominates what sport.
It’s so predictable how any suggestion, a mere hint, that people of difference races may have their own strengths, weaknesses, and differences, prompts such vigorous, hysterical denials.
So, how did they do it? Give some specifics for how this worked, keeping in mind that even slaves were not just each put in separate cages and human females do not go into estrus.
Wait…this is part of a strategy to irritate me off the Board again, right? (Good news; it will probably work.)
You asked the same question in post #633, IN THIS THREAD, and I answered it then.
As to the chihuahuas and greyhounds…the point being made is that we can figure out what is genetic by normalizing for nurture. We don’t have to identify an allele before we can surmise that a given difference between any two groups is genetic. That argument is a strawman, trotted out in desperation by those clinging to the Religion of Genetic Equality.
Get rid of your Creationist bias and work it over in your mind, slowly, slowly…if normalizing nurture does not eliminate differences, there is a reasonable supposition the residual difference is genetic.
More garbage accusations of Creationism… and beyond that, you’ve not come close to “normalizing nurture” with regards to human populations.
Ok, one more time, with slo-o-o-wness…
Two possibilities for differences: Nature and nurture. Normalize nurture; what’s left is nature. Genes, in other words.
I am not aware that the starting pool for tennis wannabes is larger for blacks (proportionally) than it is for whites. Nor do I think the nurturing for black tennis wannabes is substantially better. So I am not surprised that whites outrepresent (proportionately) blacks in the better tennis ranks. I suspect the tennis difference is cultural, yes.
For basketball, I think there are substantially more white kids who pick up a basketball than black kids. In the USA, for instance, the ratio of non-hispanic whites to blacks is about 5:1, and pretty much every white kid has some exposure along the way. Of those whites, any with any shred of raw potential have an overwhelming nurturing advantage all along the way: family structure; coaching; opportunity; support; reinforcement…On average (remember we are always talking about averages here) the black kid has way more hurdles to conquer to make it into a functioning NBA-level adulthood. Yet at the top of the game, the whites fall off, currently being disproportionately under-represented at the playing level in the NBA. Did they get lazy and stop practicing? Did they just decide to be salesmen instead of NBA stars? Did they give up their hoop dreams in favor of medicine? Well…maybe. But I haven’t seen it, and I don’t buy it.
What is it about suggesting that these patterns are genetic that produces such a blind spot in accepting the obvious? In which country/political system/national history/culture do the whites and asians dominate sprinting and basketball while the blacks dominate the STEM fields over their white counterparts? It doesn’t seem to matter which population is in the majority; which politics is in control; which programs are in place. Across every boundary, the pattern is going to be repeated, and if you’d like a visual, turn on the Olympics and check out sprinting, or NASA TV and check out who put Curiosity on Mars. Or just check your own backyard, whereever that might be. I’m confident the pattern will be repeated there as well.
Or, alternatively, I’ll wait for the Inuit to take over basketball and agree to congratulate you on your insight when that happens. You can wait for the cows to come home.
Ah yes, I’d forgotten. Your definition was anyone who “self-identified as white” and anyone who “self-identifies as black”.
So then does that mean we shouldn’t call Woody Allen white if he insists, “I’m not white I’m Jewish”?
Similarly, are you saying we shouldn’t classify David Ortiz as “black” because he doesn’t identify as black. http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/mlb/players/full/3748.png&w=350&h=254
While, we should classify Harold Ford as black because that’s how he identifies.
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/haroldford2-245x300.jpg
Please explain why it makes scientific sense to classify Harold Ford as “black” while insisting that David Ortiz is not. I invite everyone to look at at those pictures.
Similarly, I recommend explaining why it would make scientific sense to classify Woody Allen as “non-white” if he said he wasn’t.
No arguments comparing the differences between greyhounds and chihuahuas on the one hand to blacks and whites on the other is an example of how the so-called race realists don’t understand just how useless from a biological perspective “blacks” and “whites” are.
The fact is that if “blacks” and “whites” are going to compared to dogs they should be compared to “mutts” not to any purebred dog.
I know the Creationist thing stings a bit, because they are so anti-science and we want so desperately for science to support our Religion of Genetic Equality. Still, you gotta admit that if we humans showed up de novo 4,000 years ago, and if natural selection doesn’t drive descent with modification, it’s a tougher sell for me than if populations have diverged and migrated over tens of thousands of years. The Religion of Genetic Equality aligns itself squarely with the Creationist viewpoint that humans are a uniform, un-evolved family with minimal genetic variation.
On the normalization of nurturing…perhaps a few sentences from you on how black sprinters across the globe have an overwhelming cultural drive exceeding their white peers, coupled with vastly superior training and coaching for blacks, while their white counterparts won the races in kiddie garter but were pressured to drop out of competitive sprinting before they could really shine? Also, a brief note from you how white kids don’t dream of making the NBA? Perhaps a short treatise on the nurturing disadvantages of being a basketball-talented white kid with NBA hopes?
Your Creationist-crap accusations are akin to “my side” accusing you of Nazi-like thoughts. It’s ridiculous and offensive and not worth any more consideration.
As to the “normalization of nurture”- does it explain how “whites” dominate tennis, golf, and hockey?
I don’t need to offer anything at all- not even a plausible explanation for why it’s not genetic. I’m not making any claims at all. I’m just saying you’ve not come close to proving, or even providing solid evidence, that the best explanation for “black” domination of sprinting is genetic. Apparently your evidence is “blacks dominate sprinting”- therefore, blacks have better genetics for sprinting. That’s laughable. To demonstrate “normalization of nurture”, you’d have to account for everything single other variable in the upbringing of populations- economics, discrimination, local facilities, encouragement/guidance from parents, etc. You have not done this, not even close. I think “your side” would find it far, far more productive to look for the genetics of sprinting then the obviously gargantuan task that would be showing “normalization of nurture”.
Well…no. No; not at all.
We are reasonably intermixed, especially here in the US. We have many many examples of at least 50% admixture of european and subsaharan ancestry, and many many examples of many other admixtures of many populations.
But as it turns out, we haven’t achieved mutt-dom. If we did, we’d all more or less look equally similar/dissimilar and the social construct itself would probably fade away. One of the insidious things about racism is that folks get categorized based on appearance. So it’s pretty easy to argue there must be some preservation of ancestral genetic pools across large groups. In fact, even our (socially constructed) black SIRE group is about 70% sub-saharan (which can of course be further divided in several populations).
DNA analysis reasonably predict if that individual would have self-identified as black or white. Think about that for a moment before you jump on the bandwagon that we’re all mutts, as if we all had an equal chance at birth to the exact same superset of genes. Or try to explain why a “purely social” construct of “black” substantially increases your odds of carrying HbS and a social construct of “white” substantially increases your odds of carrying ΔF508.
Want to bet on it? Unsurprisingly, there are people who would bet on it. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna
Are you familiar with how slavery works? “You, see that healthy slave woman over there? If she’s not pregnant before long, you’re gonna get a whipping you’ll never forget.”
So, it is your contention that a man who would keep careful records of stock breeding in order to sell cattle or swine for $300 would never bother to keep similar records for a slave to be sold for $1800? And not only would one man not do it, but every single breeder of cattle and slave owner would engage in the identical behavior of tracking blood lines among the cattle while, somehow, forgetting to do the same for his much more valuable “stock,” (“stock” in which he would have to invest fifteen to twenty years to recoup his investment).
Silly posturing is what one does when one makes an absurd claim based on zero evidence, just because one needs to believe it to be true.
Your weak sarcasm about eugenics clubs is duly noted. More to the point, since no such club was proposed, it is noted that your straw man is supported by NO EVIDENCE in the records of any sale or auction, any diary, any correspondence, or any ledger records that have been examined by hundreds of historians and genealogists for well over a hundred years. There is no evidence that your silly proposal happened even once, much less the hundreds of times that it would have needed to occur in order for the nonsense quoted in the OP, (or the nonsense you espouse), to have occurred. In contrast, there are extensive records of the breeding lines of cattle, swine, horses, and other stock that brought far less at auction than a slave.
In addition to this complete lack of evidence for selective breeding among slaves, there’s the immense difficulty. If you own hundreds of humans- men and women- how do you ensure that only the strongest (or fastest or whatever) mate? You can’t just put them in the corral, or in the barn. They’re humans- unless you chain them up at all times (which did not happen for obvious reasons), they’re going to sneak off for trysts, form couples (in secret if necessary), etc. In short, they’re going to behave like people behave. They’ll have sex with each other- some promiscuously, some in faithful relationships, and it would require superhuman effort to make sure that the biggest and strongest man among the slaves was the only one that was allowed to have sex with the slave women (not to mention the fact that this big, strong man may prefer a monogamous partnership).
I know how chattel slavery in the US worked, yes, and it’s not the same thing as selective breeding. With selective breeding, you need to ensure mating, ensure that the female is not exposed to non-selected males, and keep records.
Imagining that there was some sort of forced rape at gun… er, whip point is not the same thing as actually showing that it happened, that it happened regularly, and that it somehow happened without any records of it happening.
You all seem hung up on the idea that if it happened at all, it must have been highly organized, done in the most effective manner, and documented. Why do you insist that it didn’t happen because a) it’s difficult, b) it’s imperfect, and c) they didn’t keep records of it? That would rule out a lot of things in history that we’re pretty sure happened.
I’m not trying to claim that this was a highly organized program of breeding, just that it makes sense that a slave owner would do this at least in a casual, haphazard, poorly documented way. Why wouldn’t he?
I suppose someone has already posted this Wikipedia page that says slave breeding was very common: Slave breeding in the United States - Wikipedia
It’s very curious why this elicits such a strong reaction. Or then again, maybe not.
There’s no evidence for it. But even if he did, such a poor “program” of selective breeding would essentially be random.
Yes, slaves were bred to make more slaves- to make more property. But there’s no evidence of any selective breeding at all- much less enough selective breeding to result in significant genetic differences. The strong reaction comes when claims are made without evidence.
Because you’re not talking about one slave owner. Your position is that there was widespread intent to create better slaves, so widespread that we see the results today in faster sprinting times in one race. Can’t you see the type of effort this would cause?
The wikipedia article doesn’t talk about an attempt at selective breeding, just breeding. Note that one of the methods is for the “master” to impregnate the slave women.
These dudes were trying for quantity, not quality. They didn’t care who was impregnating the women, and they didn’t care which women were being impregnated, only that someone was. This is not selective breeding; this is unselective breeding. The “less quality” slave women who maybe are too weak or small to produce big, strapping slaves, are still breeding. The “less quality” slave men still ahve access to women. And these high quality slave genes are being adulterated by inferior (for athleticism, since that’s the argument) slaveowner genes.
Selective breeding is selecting which ones to breed and which ones not to breed. Selective breeding is controlling the breeding.
Why would he? As noted, the effort to actually manage such a program requires scrupulous records for a payout that is only worthwhile, IF it is successful, fifteen to twenty years later.
Actually, no one has. It is pretty much of a fluff piece that provides no serious information. The first thing that I note is that in that entire article, (an article that at no point actually supports your claim that breeding was “very common”), there is only a single anecdotal reference to the practice of “breeding.”
As it happens, that anecdote does touch on a practice that did occur–that of forcing black women to submit to sex to breed babies. However, that practice had more to do with the desire of slave owners to increase the number of slaves, not the quality of slave stock. (Even your Wikipedia article notes the fact that the impetus for breeding was based on a desire for more slaves, not improving the quality of laborers.) Without actually keeping records, it is not possible to breed for superior offspring. Picking a “healthy” man and having him impregnate multiple women simply fails to produce “improved” offspring. This is particularly true when so many others were allowed to pick their own mates and when no culling was performed. And, while even a few instances of such brutality are too many, it still seems to have been rather rare. White on black rape was possibly as common or more common than the use of “stockmen.”
There is nothing curious about it, at all. Claims of “breeding” are popular among a number of people to try to make claims about why “black” people have one trait or another. The fact that there never was a “breeding” program, (in the sense of trying to improve the physical attributes of black slaves), means that whatever odd speculation occurs in regards to such “breeding” is based on false information, making it worthless, and any conclusions drawn from it misleading, thus worse than useless.
Lay off parroting Jimmy Snyder, would you?
I got enough problems arguing my position without this sort of distracting inanity. Not to mention there is little evidence that US blacks are particularly more accomplished at sprinting than their fellow descendants elsewhere in the world from the same ancestral populations…
In the environment of the time, I can’t think why an owner would allow a stable pony anywhere near a mare when he had stallions aplenty?
