Yo Duece, I was 10 yrs old when that jumped off. I had to look dude up. He gave those folks that work.
Hidden History: Slave breeding in the United States
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
I give up. Hey, if the myth makes you feel better about blk ppl playing in the NBA and NFL, more power to you.
you claim myth without arguing facts or statistics?
you insist on clinging to faith and feelings?
you, like millions of others are stuck in faith tradition and good feelings
probably believe in talking snakes, Santa and the pope too - because you want to
There are no facts that prove the myth. None at all.
But enlighten me, how did slave masters know which slaves were the fastest and jumped the highest?
Also, where are the documents showing the lineage of "super slaves" from birth that would later be bred with other "super slaves"? Did the slave masters also feed these "super slaves" healthy and nutritious foods to help them perform at optimal capacity? Were the scraps of chicken and pig carcasses somehow a super food that we ignore in current times?
How did picking cotton determine if a woman could produce a future 4.4 40 yd. dash runner?
1865 slavery is over. Did former slaves continue this breeding practice for the next 50 years? Did they make sure the biggest woman have sex with the biggest man still? What if dude liked small skinny women?
What about today's athletes with white ancestry? Shouldn't they be slower than the "pure" blks?
Please provide all of the so called facts or even a reasonable explanation of the above.
I just now saw this post you made. Where did you get your resources from? This to me is sick what they are doing and I cannot see how a person can call himself a man and do this. But King Herod was an enemy of Jesus so why are these so called Jews doing what he did when they claim to be descendants of Jesus?Yea I think the king herod thing was to suck the babies penis, those jews do it
today, they cirucmcise baby boys and suck their penises....
In Jonestown most of the men and women had already been fucked by Jim Jones. If they had kept their experiment going on without any interruption they may have had everyone coming up to have sex with Jim Jones. Some of the people were still like outsiders and not completely brainwashed. The goal was to have the whole city completely brainwashed. America and all white power is built off of this model. The Washington monument was suppose to be a statue of an erect white penis. I had read it in some book about sex and the bible a long time ago. The only reason why the Washington monument was not built like an erect penis was because the people were not asleep enough at the time. But there was a period in history where they had penis worship.
Unknowing to the public every president sworn into office they have to reveal secrets to that person about black people.
Top 2 hitters ever were both Black with Barry Bonds coming in 3rd.
Yea and dont sleep on the vatican they control a lot more shit than most people tbink
all of your questions were already addressed in this thread....
Your mind is still wrapped around someway giving credit to slave masters - when I'm saying look at the horror of the system they created look at what they got away with. Its not a good thing that we were bred for work - NONE of it should have ever happened!
I gave you a fact that you chose to cower from and ignore: there is a much higher concentration of fast-twitch muscle fibers (and Actinen A) (+/- 70%) in populations of North American and Caribbean slave descendants than any other group
fyi - there are no pure blacks... we all have varying degrees of white ancestors - but there are recessive genetic traits and then dominant genetic traits, most of the west african traits are dominant, selective breeding worked real hard to make desired dominant traits the common traits (more likely to occur). preventing slaves from reproducing if they appeared to carry the recessive traits was very effective.
With hard living conditions and malnutrition -if a male didn't develop he was castrated by 15... if a female wasn't developed or strong enough to bear children she died trying or never had children- that meant only the heartiest of us were allowed to pass on our genes - so do you know that TODAY that even with the poor nutrition and medical care in the hoods and rural areas on average we still develop muscle and bone with higher density than any other race or group? higher than SubSaharan Africans too.
Also studies show that nutrition directly impacts a child's ability to learn, but on average even with poor nutrition, when taught at the same level as the privileged our kids still excelled or held status quo while the dirt poor whites given the same opportunity failed to compete.
If you truly wanted to debate this or wanted answers - you would read the 2 posts I quoted or even better read this thread - @geechiedan (who agrees with you) unwittingly answered some of your questions by posting records of husbandry and common practices of selective breeding
your reply doesn't sound like you know that the slave trade lasted for almost 4 centuries? (how many generations is that?) vs slaves being freed only 150 years ago (how many generations since 1865?) Do you think that the effects of selective breeding will change in such a short time? Genetics doesn't work like that
(by what logic would you ask about slave masters and future athletes?) They weren't breeding to create athletes, they wanted profits - so they bred for what fetched the best price and made the most production - strength size and fertility - but the unintended results of that are clearly seen in today's athletes - also - they kept very detailed records of each slave's productivity.
Last edited:
Caucasions need to believe that because it makes the fact they are genetically inferior
More acceptable.
Europeans we're the first slaves and they simply couldn't handle the work.
Were as melanin rich people were able to endure and produce from the jump.
And we're slaves bred for strength or for speed.
.most slaves were not "bred" there was far more babies from couples hooking up then from being "bred"
Euros just cannot accept our genetic dominance.
And that's cool.
Sigh...fast twitch fibers are from being descended from West Africa not slave breeding. West Africans have the same fibers. I still am amazed that people still believe this breeding fallacy. Like it is truly astounding.
thats because you don't read...
NO ONE ever said fast twitch traits are not descended from West Africa--it was posted in this thread many times.
but
Today the second highest occurrence of fast twitch muscle is in west African / sub Saharan populations - BUT the highest occurrence of fast twitch muscles fibers (+70%) in population is in North American and Caribbean blacks -
Western Africa has a lower occurrence because of the selective breeding in North America and Caribbean during slavery
cacs do everything they can to hide this history
yes -we were brought over here already superior...
what history is showing is that because of cruelty and greed - we were forced to become even stronger.
As many babies as you think were born from hook ups, many more were born from breeding farms - the entire island of Barbados was dedicated for decades to breeding slave not crops not raw material, just slaves- the British colonies in the Caribbean, the monarchy paid a bonus in addition to tax breaks to slave owners based on how many babies their slaves produced...
We were treated no differently than livestock
Just to try and reiterate my own position, or lack thereof, I've never claimed that slavery contributed to the superiority of African Americans in sport. I have (I think) always admitted that I have no definite answers, but that it seemed plausible to believe that the slave trade could have altered genetics and unless someone told me why that couldn't be, then I'd continue suspecting it might be. But suspecting something might be true is not an actionable position, and shouldn't be viewed so harshly anyway; I suspect capital punishment is wrong, but I wouldn't cast a vote for or against it because I have not yet devoted the time/energy to come to a definite conclusion.
My inherited false line of reasoning went this way:
- Selection occurs gathering slaves in Africa (selection for strength, perhaps)
- Selection occurs transporting slaves to market in Africa (selection for strength, survival, perhaps)
- Selection occurs by traders in markets in Africa (selection for strength, perhaps)
- Selection occurs in transportation to the New World (selection for survival, strength, perhaps)
- Selection occurs by slave masters controlling resources and forcing or encouraging sexual matches (selection for strength, docility?, perhaps)
And here is the answer I finally found...
- Selection in Africa was largely the result of tribal conflicts and war. Those who became slaves were not selected for strength but were merely the survivors of conflict. Even if the people choosing who became a slave was selecting for apparent strength/health the basis of that strength/health was NOT genetic but was environmental/opportunistic, that person just happened to not be suffering from randomly acting disease/injury/malnutrition.
- Survival on the way to the slave markets was similarly not genetic but had to do with the slave's health at the beginning of the trip and specific events (disease exposure/nutrition/etc.) during the trip.
- Traders in markets in Africa may have selected for perceived strength/health, but again the basis for this selection was not primarily genetic, it had more to do with the "luck" of the slave to that point.
- Transportation to the New World was like the previous transportation, survival was primarily controlled by the environment and initial health conditions of the slave
- And while some slave masters did engage in eugenics their efforts were ineffectively crude, being incredibly limited in scale and inexactly uncontrolled. Further, even with a more controlled and widespread eugenics program, 250 years would not have been enough time for major genetic differences to emerge.
http://quinxy.com/politics/why-slavery-didnt-make-african-americans-superior-athletes/
Folks don't know about comrade Mark Essex. He couldn't take no mo' and acted accordingly.
So let me get this straight. Slave masters back in the 1600-1800s just so happen to breed fast twitch slave men with fast twitch slave women just by chance with NO KNOWLEDGE of said fast twitch fibers existing. So every time they made the slaves have sex, they just knew which ones had the most fast twitch fibers vs the one's who didn't?
Dude, like I said. Save yourself the embarrassment, don't go out in public spouting this madness. Mofos gonna look at you like you lost your mind. Especially in intellectual circles.
good post -Just to try and reiterate my own position, or lack thereof, I've never claimed that slavery contributed to the superiority of African Americans in sport. I have (I think) always admitted that I have no definite answers, but that it seemed plausible to believe that the slave trade could have altered genetics and unless someone told me why that couldn't be, then I'd continue suspecting it might be. But suspecting something might be true is not an actionable position, and shouldn't be viewed so harshly anyway; I suspect capital punishment is wrong, but I wouldn't cast a vote for or against it because I have not yet devoted the time/energy to come to a definite conclusion.
My inherited false line of reasoning went this way:
To a person with very modest knowledge of biology/genetics, a coffee table/cultural knowledge of evolution, that surely sounds perfectly reasonable. We see all sorts of variation within species, and under extreme pressure we see many of these variations introduced within a very, very short span of time. I am forever reminded of the program that completely transformed and domesticated Russian silver foxes in less than 40 years. So, all I wanted is for someone to tell me where that chain of reasoning failed.
- Selection occurs gathering slaves in Africa (selection for strength, perhaps)
- Selection occurs transporting slaves to market in Africa (selection for strength, survival, perhaps)
- Selection occurs by traders in markets in Africa (selection for strength, perhaps)
- Selection occurs in transportation to the New World (selection for survival, strength, perhaps)
- Selection occurs by slave masters controlling resources and forcing or encouraging sexual matches (selection for strength, docility?, perhaps)
And here is the answer I finally found...
That is all the answer I wanted. It is perfectly reasonable, makes absolute sense, and therefore I believe it. Why couldn't someone have just told this to me 23 years ago? If the goal on everyone's part is to stamp out racism and ignorance, it really doesn't help when everyone refuses to share the details of their enlightenment.
- Selection in Africa was largely the result of tribal conflicts and war. Those who became slaves were not selected for strength but were merely the survivors of conflict. Even if the people choosing who became a slave was selecting for apparent strength/health the basis of that strength/health was NOT genetic but was environmental/opportunistic, that person just happened to not be suffering from randomly acting disease/injury/malnutrition.
- Survival on the way to the slave markets was similarly not genetic but had to do with the slave's health at the beginning of the trip and specific events (disease exposure/nutrition/etc.) during the trip.
- Traders in markets in Africa may have selected for perceived strength/health, but again the basis for this selection was not primarily genetic, it had more to do with the "luck" of the slave to that point.
- Transportation to the New World was like the previous transportation, survival was primarily controlled by the environment and initial health conditions of the slave
- And while some slave masters did engage in eugenics their efforts were ineffectively crude, being incredibly limited in scale and inexactly uncontrolled. Further, even with a more controlled and widespread eugenics program, 250 years would not have been enough time for major genetic differences to emerge.
http://quinxy.com/politics/why-slavery-didnt-make-african-americans-superior-athletes/
first any who truly studied knew that selection had nothing to do with how slaves were gathered
That person's opinion glosses over and minimizes the hazard of transit and how much the individual slave's physiology factored into that slave's survival - and worse yet it completely ignores the data, documented evidence from today. People accept or get this explaination because many are ignorant of science in general especially genetics
Here is the 1 question that they dodge, avoid, and do their best to hide data on:
Why do fast twitch muscle fibers in blacks in North America and Caribbean occur at a higher rate than in West Africa?
If what this person wrote about ineffective husbandry were true - the rates would be similar or lower for us not higher - and they are dead wrong about 250 yrs not being enough - you posted contrary data to that earlier in this thread
Last edited:
dude - in what post did I say anything like what you just wrote?
intellectuals look for evidence and facts - so far in this thread you have presented none and you keep running from this one fact:
fast twitch muscle fibers in blacks in North America and Caribbean occur at a higher rate than in West Africa.
Jackie Robinson is from none of those countries
Nice try tho
Well you said the reason for the high rate of fast twitch fibers in American and Caribbean was due to slave breeding. I asked how were the slave masters able to distinguish and match up the slaves with the most ft fibers together without knowing what a fast twitch fiber even was.
And American and Caribbean blacks having the "highest rate" of fast twitch fibers may be true (I need to research this further to see how someone came up with those numbers.) . But the cause of it being slave breeding hasn't been proven at all.
At best it's a poor theory. At worst pure nonsense with no historical data showing it directly affected the dominance of today's black athlete in major sports.
I said nothing of them being bred for fast twitch fibers - thats where you've been stuck for a few posts ...
they were bred for size strength and fertility...
the higher occurrence of fast twitch fibers is just the evidence of manipulation, if there were not outside factors the rate of occurrence should be the same in West Africa and North America
The only external factor evident is documented selective breeding including breeders' goals and results... maybe in future something currently unknown will pop up - but until then, that is where the evidence points
dude, if only the largest and strongest males were allowed to breed and all underdeveloped males were castrated, prevented from breeding - and that practice lasted for 20 30 generations in the end you are going to have a population likely to have dense structure as a common trait - period - its just genetics....
plant insect snake fish dog bird human -whateva - its all the same when it comes down to how traits are passed on to off spring through reproduction...
fast twitch data was collected through observation that included dissections / autopsies, medical and genome research.
There is no best or worse - this is where the evidence currently points
Do your own studying - I suggest you start with genetics
Dude slavery was far more evil than what
They are even trying to reveal....
I'm just gonna say there was more pedophilia
And cannibalism that they try hard as hell to cover up.
Not to mention there were more than a few super sick bastards into all types of sick cruelty...
Man I ain't even trying to get started...
Yes they did some breeding but those babies were not all meant to work plantations many went straight to the butcher shop..
Those sick fucks made pies out of our babies!
You see we don't study these cacs like they
Study us.
If we did we would know the major part cannibalism played in their culture....
So I understand what you are saying
I'm just saying there was more to this "breeding" than just making them strong Plantation workers
Respect
Last edited:
I'm not a biologist or anything like that..the things that happened in the atlantic slave trade were a coalescence of a bunch of factors much of which weren't thought out or planned beyond obtaining human beings from one region of the world to labor in another region.
The intermixing of ALL of these people in a new environment MAY produce minute variations from the original material but I think your mixing different scientific aspects to come to the answer you want to. Saying african genes are dominant and european genes are recessive may be true but that doesn't mean there will be a consistent result all the time on top of that you have the intermixing of the natives who were here before cacs and blacks arrived. Toss in environmental differences and cultural influences and you have a bunch of factors not controlled for that influence the issue.
youre saying black excellence in certain sports today is due to slave breeding when in reality its a whole array of factors and that being the case how can slave breeding be singled out as the most influential of those factors?
Still many BLACK people trying to discredit and deny this ever happened.
Think on that for a spell.
Think on that for a spell.
Nobody is better than Roberto and Jackie Robinson
The Big Hurt was a Beast also. Last player to win bak to back mvps
Please nam me 2 hitters better than Barry Bonds
You can't do it famo
His approach at the plate was insane
Ayo ima jump into this slave breeding convo cause I believe it
But I don't believe tht LeBron James had a cac give him his superior as a athlete.
Thomas Jefferson kids didn't produce bo jackson
In bout to be in this thread a lot, been 3 days and I been reading eventhing
But I don't believe tht LeBron James had a cac give him his superior as a athlete.
Thomas Jefferson kids didn't produce bo jackson
In bout to be in this thread a lot, been 3 days and I been reading eventhing
I don't think ppl are denying the practice of slave breeding. That did happen.
But this idea that it helped to produce great athletes is nonsense. Like there isn't any evidence DIRECTLY linking slave breeding to today's black athlete, only assumptions.
Trust me
there are MANY Black people who are denying...
sounding close to Bill O Reilly "slavery isn't that bad" bullshit.
Pay close attention if you here a so called Black person say they need MORE evidence and pictures that these atrocities actually took place?
there you go.
no - what I'm saying is our resilience is direct evidence of greed and a cruelty that the dominant culture claims never happened - many still try to spin the slave trade as a disney vacation meets charitable social project.
This doesn't lessen the achievements, hard work or brilliance of our athletes - if they didn't put in the work, they would have nothing
please read the information you posted yourself-
It doesn't matter that the results were inconsistent- BECAUSE THEY CASTRATED EVERY UNDERDEVELOPED MALE! for over 3 centuries -m a n y generations
Over simplified: If you shuffle 2 decks of cards 20 times and after each shuffle you throw off the top card if its an odd number or an ace - after this process if you put the 2 decks together, there are a lot cards that there will not be 2 of and a good number where there are none of, they just won't be there - then repeat the process millions of times over
white people gave us nothing- they didn't design or plan for a Lebron or Bo Jackson etc... or a race of them
they just wanted bigger stronger slaves for profits and they applied what they knew from animal husbandry into controlling/ manipulating our reproduction...
the same thing happens today all the time. How many reports do we see in he news daily where greed and the short sighted pursuit of profit causes unintended consequences in the environment in cities in politics etc
That is his opinion...but the fact of the matter is that Africans dominate running...further more none of those dominant africans has ever been from west Africa