Hold on now, people. I don't think we need to get so polarized here. The young man merely raised a point for discussion, no need to get cranky.
I think there is a certain validity to his point. Consider the following factors:
1) The people capturing negros for slavery would obviously avoid any individual who was malformed, very weak or sick. They needed people who could work.
2) The trip to the new world was often harsh, which would kill off the weaker individuals.
3) The hard life as a slave would work as a selective pressure on the slaves, preferring the strong.
I have some trouble with the 3rd point, though. Since slaves are property, and no one needlessly destroy their own property, is would seem unlikely that the slave owners should start killing slaves left and right.
As long as the slave behaved halfway decent, the worst he would get was a whipping, but he would be alive to pass on his genes.
So, the third point is wobbly, but the first two stand.
Further, of course, we are talking about a specific population of negros, the ones who were taken from Africa to the new world, survived and had children, not negros as a race.
Finally, the point is that this selection may have had some influence on the gene pool, causing the African-Americans to have a higher rate of potential athletes (people with a combination of good genes) than a standard population.
Of course, the other factors mentioned above (social and economic pressures) will also have an influence, and most likely, the phenomenon (if it is a true phenomenon. Does anyone have some statistics?) is caused by a combination of these factors.
Kenyan long distance runners. In the Nandi district alone, a population of just 500,000 claim 20% of the top endurance races in the world. This must be partly due to physiological differences.
But is this due to being black? Does the ammount of pigment in the Kenyan's skin have any effect on their running skills? Surely it's partky due to the harsh environment? If the population was the same in every way, except they were white, would it make a difference?
Obviously not. As is proven by the fact that we are talking about Kenyans and not Africans in generel, we are talking about a specific population of Africans, living in the Nandi district (apparently :?).
Their skin pigmentation has nothing to do with their running skill, but the two genetic characteristics do overlap.
The physiological differences mentioned are their greater running ability.
On could imagine a scenario where you interbred the best runners with white runners, continuing to 'add white' (so to speak). You would likely end up with a population of white people with the Kenyans' genes for greater endurance.
a) Slavery has positive effects on the enslaved, and
b) white slavers deserve to take the credit for modern sporting acheivements by blacks.
Thank you, Legba, for skewering so succinctly and elegantly the thing I couldn't put my finger on that was making me uncomfortable in the framing of this thread.
Well, that's your problem, don't take it out on anyone else. The thread starter has not made any value judgement as far as I can see. He didn't go "Slavery made black Americans stronger, so that means slavery's ok."
He merely made a simply point concerning the fact that the selective pressures involved in generations of slavery, could have had an effect on the athletic ability of black people today.
It seems strange to me to have a problem with a) Slavery has positive effects on the enslaved. It seems obvious to me that this is the case.
If you continually expose a population to selective pressures favoring the strong, through many generations, you will end up with a population of relatively stronger people.
This must be seen as a positve event (provided that other genes have not been affected (immunities lost, recessive genes concentrated)).
No, this one positive effect does not in any way make up for the humongous minus of enslaving and killing goddess knows how many people. If African-Americans today were all supermen, it would not make up for it, and the people resposible should still be punished (or rather, should have been, it's a little late now).
Regarding b) white slavers deserve to take the credit for modern sporting acheivements by blacks.
That is in no way a given conclusion. One could choose to see it as an ironic twist of fate. After centuries of trying to keep the black man down, they only ended up making him stronger. BLACK POWER! FREE MANDELA! AMANDLA AWETU!
ahem,
I think I'll just stop here.
Sweet Mother of Rain! I need a joint! |
