Did slave breeding actually exist?

[Kobe24]

Look it up your gonna be feelin mighty stupid

 

[Samori Toure]

My answer would probably be no, because the White men were to busy raping the slave women themselves.

 

[Ghost Utmost]

You must don't watch sports.... I posted some in this thread off the top of my head that have no slave ancestry.....

There are SOME white boys in the NBA/NFL too. There's Chinese in the NBA.

What is the porportion? Anything less than like 25% would not point toward this being normal for Africans.

And I like the Cavs when LeBron is on the team but that's about as far as my fandom reaches.

 

[tmonster]

 

[Samori Toure]

Your a smart guy tho, there is a reason America has the best athletes.

Then why does Jamaica have sprinters that are just as fast as the Americans?

In all likelihood what probably happened is that ethic groups that would not have likely intermarried in Africa; probably intermarried in America and in places like Jamaica and Haiti; with the new gene pools came different attributes. So you may have had Mandinka person marrying a Bantu person; or Akan person marrying a Fulani or a Kaba person; on and on and on. By bringing those new genes into the gene pool you likely created stronger more diverse genes. If you look it up you will see that Africans are the most genetically diverse people in the World, but that continent is so large that many of the groups might never encounter each other except in a forced situation like slavery. So in all likelihood just through the course of regular marriage many slaves were passing on stronger genes.

Study Finds Africans More Genetically Diverse Than Other Populations
The Best Kept Secret in Populaton Genetics, or Truth about African Genetic Diversity
Genetic diversity of Sub-Saharan Africa revealed - BBC News

 

[The Blind Man]

This!
The research and finding that the Nazi scientists did is considered groundbreaking, even by today's standards. Of course for ethical reasons they can't be replicated, but best believe some of the most groundbreaking work, especially in pharmacology, genetics and human anatomy/physiology is based on Nazi research and findings. Even today (some) scientists use the Nazi research results as facts to build upon.
Medical schools in the USA (not just the south) snatched slave bodies for dissections and experiments.

Bodies in the Basement: The Forgotten Stolen Bones of America's Medical Schools

The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments | Jewish Virtual Library

Night Doctors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said I enjoy building on a lot of topics that I have no certified knowledge so I prefer to tread carefully.

Unsustainable reactionary opinions have no place at the table, I do appreciate cognitive bias excludes many from discussions like this I do find this to be regrettable as we can learn so much, even, no especially, from ignorance. Ma Dukes taught me there's a jewel in everything.

Props for the links breh.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

There are SOME white boys in the NBA/NFL too. There's Chinese in the NBA.

What is the porportion? Anything less than like 25% would not point toward this being normal for Africans.

And I like the Cavs when LeBron is on the team but that's about as far as my fandom reaches.

What other nation has the infrastructure for sports like the U.S.

That is the most important factor... Talent has to be nurtured......... so of course AAs are gonna be the biggest representation because we are the overwhelming majority...

1st generation of African immigrants probably make up less than 3% of the black population.... and your example of white boys in the NBA...

Name me a white boy that was as good as Hakeem, or have the raw ability of an Emblid or Mudiay....... I'll wait...

Robert Nkemdiche is an athletic freak born to Nigerian immigrants and is a 1st round lock barring injury........... NURTURE....

 

[Samori Toure]

What other nation has the infrastructure for sports like the U.S.

That is the most important factor... Talent has to be nurtured......... so of course AAs are gonna be the biggest representation because we are the overwhelming majority...

1st generation of African immigrants probably make up less than 3% of the black population.... and your example of white boys in the NBA...

Name me a white boy that was as good as Hakeem, or have the raw ability of an Emblid or Mudiay....... I'll wait...

People that talk about African Americans always seem to forget other people in slavery like the Jamaicans. Jamaicans have just as good of athletes as the USA.

What people are likely missing is that it is not slave breeding the way that they thinking; but it is likely the just plain old exchanging genes in regular marriages between the slaves. People don't seem to realize that Africans are from different ethnic groups and some of those groups wouldn't have typically encountered each other in Africa, but they would have in slavery. So if you look at the athletes that Ghana produces and and the athletes out of say the Congo; then you can see what would have if there were marriages between those groups of people. Or if there was marriage between a Mandingo and someone from the Beti-Fang people. The Fang of modern Cameroon and the Mandingo of modern Senegal are known for their physiques; but they would not have likely be intermarrying in Africa due to where they both are geographically. But they would have in slavery in the Western Hemisphere.

 

[godkiller]

I feel like this thread has veered off the original topic and some of ya'll are arguing points that's been proven pages back.
With that being said, this is what I've learned thru my own research and some posts in this thread:

1. (selective)Slave breeding did occur. FACT. The disagreement is about the extent of it and how of it was "scientifically" based. Just b/c we didn't have the current scientific and genetic knowledge at the time doesn't mean they didn't know that breeding one big person with another big person will yield a big offspring (in general, more likely than getting a big offspring from 2 small parents). The general principle of breeding for certain traits has been around hundreds (if not thousands) of yrs before slavery.

Slavemasters did variously breed slaves (not always but sometimes), but for numbers, not traits. For any genetic selection to generalize across the AA population, the population would have to be subjected to specific and continuous breeding for traits over a long period of time, which would involve coordination between slavemasters and a knowledge of Darwinian genetics. Neither of the aforementioned conditions were met in the American slavemaster and slave breeding context, thus slave breeding for traits African Americans have today probably did not happen.

2. The number of slaves IMPORTED to the US is in the 100,000s, not millions. Since the gov. outlawed slave imports in 1808, it would make sense that the slave industry would try to maximize their current stock. Mostly this meant trying to improve productivity by increasing the # of offspring slaves as opposed to specifically breeding for a certain trait(s), but lets not act like they didn't intentionally breed strong with strong for that very reason. Some male slaves were specifically bought for that purpose, and the females for their reproductive potential.

Although it is true the number of blacks brought specifically to the USA was in the hundreds of thousands, there is no prepondernace of evidence which supposes the black population rose as a function of slave breeding rather than just normal breeding. Blacks and black countries normally breed at higher rates than white and white countries anyway.

3. The effects of these selective breedings today is negligible in terms of A.As being more physically and athletically dominant compared to other (West) Africans. This is due to the fact that the selective breedings didn't happen over a long enough time period to successfully, consistently select for certain traits. Since slaves were generally bred for #, the few cases of breeding for traits wouldn't necessarily have an impact on the population as a whole. Plus the (relatively) lack of scientific knowledge in terms of genetics, evolution etc. It's not like they were doing blood and DNA tests to see if they had certain genes, traits, etc. It was purely based on how they looked physically; which is not to say that wasn't selective breeding on some level b/c our genotype determines our phenotype.

You have no proof any selective breeding actually happened, now or then. And the rest of your post is pretty much
what I have said.

 

[godkiller]

Then why does Jamaica have sprinters that are just as fast as the Americans?

In all likelihood what probably happened is that ethic groups that would not have likely intermarried in Africa; probably intermarried in America and in places like Jamaica and Haiti; with the new gene pools came different attributes. So you may have had Mandinka person marrying a Bantu person; or Akan person marrying a Fulani or a Kaba person; on and on and on. By bringing those new genes into the gene pool you likely created stronger more diverse genes. If you look it up you will see that Africans are the most genetically diverse people in the World, but that continent is so large that many of the groups might never encounter each other except in a forced situation like slavery. So in all likelihood just through the course of regular marriage many slaves were passing on stronger genes.

Study Finds Africans More Genetically Diverse Than Other Populations
The Best Kept Secret in Populaton Genetics, or Truth about African Genetic Diversity
Genetic diversity of Sub-Saharan Africa revealed - BBC News

Studies have shown that the Africans are only diverse when groups like North Africans and East Africans are included. This is where the diversity comes from--non-black groups and admixtire. Groups like the black tribes you list have low genetic diversity between them. The genetic diversity between most of West and Central Africa is presumably not very high at all.

 

[Samori Toure]

I feel like this thread has veered off the original topic and some of ya'll are arguing points that's been proven pages back.
With that being said, this is what I've learned thru my own research and some posts in this thread:

1. (selective)Slave breeding did occur. FACT. The disagreement is about the extent of it and how of it was "scientifically" based. Just b/c we didn't have the current scientific and genetic knowledge at the time doesn't mean they didn't know that breeding one big person with another big person will yield a big offspring (in general, more likely than getting a big offspring from 2 small parents). The general principle of breeding for certain traits has been around hundreds (if not thousands) of yrs before slavery.

2. The number of slaves IMPORTED to the US is in the 100,000s, not millions. Since the gov. outlawed slave imports in 1808, it would make sense that the slave industry would try to maximize their current stock. Mostly this meant trying to improve productivity by increasing the # of offspring slaves as opposed to specifically breeding for a certain trait(s), but lets not act like they didn't intentionally breed strong with strong for that very reason. Some male slaves were specifically bought for that purpose, and the females for their reproductive potential.

3. The effects of these selective breedings today is negligible in terms of A.As being more physically and athletically dominant compared to other (West) Africans. This is due to the fact that the selective breedings didn't happen over a long enough time period to successfully, consistently select for certain traits. Since slaves were generally bred for #, the few cases of breeding for traits wouldn't necessarily have an impact on the population as a whole. Plus the (relatively) lack of scientific knowledge in terms of genetics, evolution etc. It's not like they were doing blood and DNA tests to see if they had certain genes, traits, etc. It was purely based on how they looked physically; which is not to say that wasn't selective breeding on some level b/c our genotype determines our phenotype.
TL;DR if selective breeding happened, it wasn't on a long enough timeline or selective enough to have an impact on the A.A population today.

Add on and let me know what parts you disagree with (with proof or at least logic). This is an interesting topic depending on how you approach it and there's been some good posts on here whether I agree with them or not.

To me you just hit the major point in bold. Not all slaves in the USA were from West Africa. Many of them were from Central Africa, specifically the Congo and Angola. What people don't seem to understand is that African Americans and for that matter Jamaicans, Hatians, etc.; are from different ethnic groups in West and Central Africa. Many of the Central Africans are also related to East and South Africans; due to their Bantu roots.

Those different regions of Africa had different ethnic groups. African Americans are a composite of many African ethnic groups and they have actual physical traits from many groups. So the breeding that actually occurred is not what people think. It is likely that the people that would have never intermarried in Africa due to geography; ended up doing so in the Americas due to slavery. That is why African Americans don't typically look like one specific African ethnic group; but they fit physically into many.

 

[Samori Toure]

Studies have shown that the Africans are only diverse when groups like North Africans and East Africans are included. This is where the diversity comes from--non-black groups and admixtire. Groups like the black tribes you list have low genetic diversity between them. The genetic diversity between most of West and Central Africa is presumably not very high at all.

What studies? I just linked three articles for you showing that Africans are the most genetically diverse people on Earth. The people in North Africa are also related to the people in West Africa.

You should know what you are writing is wrong, because the Bantu people and the Nilo Saharan people are completely different ethnic groups. There are also people like the Pygmies and the Khosian people.

 

[25YOUTHS!!]

Slavemasters did variously breed slaves (not always but sometimes), but for numbers, not traits. For any genetic selection to generalize across the AA population, the population would have to be subjected to specific and continuous breeding for traits over a long period of time, which would involve coordination between slavemasters and a knowledge of Darwinian genetics. Neither of the aforementioned conditions were met in the American slavemaster and slave breeding context, thus slave breeding for traits African Americans have today probably did not happen.

That was my point..so we agree?


Although it is true the number of blacks brought specifically to the USA was in the hundreds of thousands, there is no prepondernace of evidence which supposes the black population rose as a function of slave breeding rather than just normal breeding. Blacks and black countries normally breed at higher rates than white and white countries anyway.

FALSE. See graph (link) below showing blacks as a % of the population...It was almost 20% during the height of slavery and dropped to 13% after, and is only about 14% today. Unless you're trying to say the reproduction practices for AA were "normal" during slavery as opposed to after.

You have no proof any selective breeding actually happened, now or then. And the rest of your post is pretty much
what I have said.

I'm trying to figure out if you're trolling or really that dense
So you agree with all my points except that selective breeding happened? Even tho you admitted breeding (usually for #) DID happen? That would still be a form of selective breeding. Also there IS proof that selective breeding based on traits DID happen, there were slaves called stockmen.... specifically used for breeding and moved from plantation to plantation.
How you gon demand proof from people and you over here saying all kinds of BS w/o any evidence to back it up?

http://blackdemographics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Population-2-chart-1790-to-2012.jpg

Slave breeding in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[25YOUTHS!!]

Studies have shown that the Africans are only diverse when groups like North Africans and East Africans are included. This is where the diversity comes from--non-black groups and admixtire. Groups like the black tribes you list have low genetic diversity between them. The genetic diversity between most of West and Central Africa is presumably not very high at all.

So north and east Africa is not a part of Africa?
Imma need receipts for these claims breh

 

[IAmGettingAMailOrderBride]

They make all the weaker slaves do the fusion dance to make more stronger slaves


- blackierobinson