[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 64263)
File  []
>> No. 64263 R4GE
8th November 2019
Friday 5:32 pm
64263 spacer
I'm well aware we're this is slippery slope territory... Someone at work today told me that the reason athletics is dominated by people whose ancestors were slaves is because their owners used to follow the principles of selective breeding in livestock, making the strongest breed with the strongest and so on. That's apparently why they do better than blacks whose ancestors weren't enslaved.

Is this true? I'm quite gullible. I'd have thought that the latter could simply be explained by America having much greater funding and resources than bongo bongo land.
Expand all images.
>> No. 64264 YubYub
8th November 2019
Friday 5:53 pm
64264 spacer
Why would people who want slaves to be good at picking cotton selectively breed fast runners?
>> No. 64265 YubYub
8th November 2019
Friday 6:09 pm
64265 spacer
Muscle memory.
>> No. 64267 Crabkiller
8th November 2019
Friday 7:59 pm
64267 spacer
I always assumed people from poorer backgrounds did better at sports where you need little to no equipment, because you can practice sprinting or long distance running provided you have legs, whereas tennis and golf require a whole infrastructure that is usually more accessable to wealthier people, who are more often white. Also cultural factors play a role, as I don't think Russians are just naturally bendy, but they have a long tradition of producing gymnasts, or how Brazil produces so many distinctly Brazilian footballers, or Chinese snooker players, and so on. I'm sure the genetics of a country do factor in, but I don't think it's the be all end all. I bet there is a Peruvian lass who could be the best female power lifter on the planet, but unless a Belarussian gym owner survives a plane crash and has to solo trek back to civilisation, at which point he happens upon her lifting many kilos of freshly harvested coffee with near-perfect form, no one will know.
>> No. 64270 Moralfag
8th November 2019
Friday 10:21 pm
64270 spacer
They didn't just breed cotton pickers, they bred mandingos and strong workers as well for fighting and lifting freight.

It's a higher percentage of fast twitch fibres, but this restricts them from being effective swimmers or endurance event competitors while their East African brethren who never left Africa are built for endurance.
>> No. 64272 Moralfag
8th November 2019
Friday 10:48 pm
64272 spacer
I've got a feeling this is the sort of bollocks perpetuated by race fetishists who insist the big black cock phenomenon is a real thing. That is to say, a basis in half truth black cocks are something like 0.2 inches bigger by statistical average but nowhere near as much of a distinction as it would seem on the face of it.

I've no doubt slave owners avoided "breeding" weak or frail slaves, but I doubt they wanted ones that were too strong either, in case they got any ideas about overturning their masters.
>> No. 64273 Searchfag
8th November 2019
Friday 11:02 pm
64273 spacer
Overturn them and run where? You're grossly underestimating the times and the culture, especially in the US. Escaped slaves had no safe harbour, rebellion was death there especially if you harmed a white person.

Breeding men for mandingo fights and to make stronger workers is a well documented part of the slave trade. It has nothing to do with race fetishism.
>> No. 64274 Anonymous
8th November 2019
Friday 11:26 pm
64274 spacer
Slavery only went on for 246 years which is 12 generations at most (nearly twice that if you ask the /lab/ paedo but lets stick with that) with a pretty small genepool to select from. ("according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.") Compare that to chickens which have been domesticated between 8,000 and 10,000 years. They can reproduce at about 18 weeks with some variation, lets call it 20, so 52*8,000/20=20,800 generations with a huge genepool ("in 2002, the United Nations FAO estimates that there were 19 billion chickens in the world, with China having the largest number, followed by the US, Indonesia, and Brazil. By this calculation, for every person in the world, there were three chickens. By 2009 the global chicken population was estimated to have climbed to 50 billion."). Look at the original wild chicken ancestor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallus_gallus_female_-_Kaeng_Krachan.jpg) and compare it to modern chickens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken#/media/File:Hen_with_chicks,_Raisen_district,_MP,_India.jpg), the difference is actually not a lot. It's notable but it's a 1,733x greater number of generations. There's no evidence to show that anyone was breeding humans with any more deliberate breeding plan than they have been doing for chickens, in fact the opposite is true as The Origin of Species was released only about 30 years before the abolition of slavery in the US but we've been breeding chickens continually since then. We can conclude that there just wasn't enough time to make any significant difference and that we learned some facts about chickens today that we don't really care about.

Even if we assume the absolute most human generations from those 246 years, 246/14 = 17 and the most conservative estimate for chicken domestication of 5,000 years with the oldest a chicken can lay eggs (anecdotally there's mention of one 17 year old chicken that could still lay eggs) that gives us 294 chicken generations to 17 human ones, which is coincidentally also 294/17 = 17 times as many chicken generations to human ones. I find it hard to believe that would make enough of a difference.
>> No. 64275 Billbob
8th November 2019
Friday 11:26 pm
64275 spacer
Nah, it would take far more generations with a smaller homogeneous population that doesn't mysteriously whiten. Black people do well in some sports from a mix of socio-economic reasons in >>64267 and ethnic groups holding a natural edge in certain areas to the detriment of others.

If you're a lanky lad from Kenya you're going to have an edge in running, if you're a stocky Nigerian then you're better off punching the Kenyan unconscious and then running the event.

Is this that thing where Congolese men self-report as having massive knobs? And the French somehow have much bigger ones than all their neighbours?
Yeah, well I can cook and I'm a good boy who can make a girl laugh.
>> No. 64276 Anonymous
8th November 2019
Friday 11:41 pm
64276 spacer
If you look at IQ studies, you have East Asians at the top, Ashkenazis in second place, white people in third, and blacks and various other races after that. Maybe if a race on the whole has a lower average IQ, they're more inclined to pursue, and therefore excel at, athletic pursuits?

As I'm typing this out it actually seems like an incredibly cogent theory to me. If you look at America as a kind of petri dish, it's full of Asians, Jews, Whites, and Blacks, but whites and blacks dominate its sports systems. It seems pretty obvious that Asians and Jews are generally just too smart too engage in this all this physical activity malarkey.
>> No. 64277 Anonymous
8th November 2019
Friday 11:51 pm
64277 spacer

The point is that it might be well documented but that doesn't mean it was real. they may have tried to breed fighters and stronger workers, but as otherlad points out they simply didn't have enough intergenerational resolution to work with.

if they thought they were making a difference, it was all placebo and environmental factors, not because they bred the hardest ones together and the resulting offspring were double hard.

it takes three generations for a dog breed to be considered new and distinct from it's parents. and dogs are perhaps the most diverse of domesticated animals, thanks to the way we've been genetically manipulating them for thousands of years. alabaman plantation owners didn't miraculously overcome that process and make a race of inherently more athletic Africans.
>> No. 64299 Anonymous
11th November 2019
Monday 11:55 am
64299 spacer

It's because of their melanin which imbues great powers, such as fast running speed and better sneaking in the dark.
The lightning god was not pleased about his people being taken from Africa so he gave them extra strong melanin powers so they could break free from their chains.
He then made the predominantly Jewish slave ship owners have to wear silly little round hats as punishment.
>> No. 64300 YubYub
11th November 2019
Monday 12:02 pm
64300 spacer
Why do Jews wear those hats? In my head it's because some grand high Jew back in those days wanted to hide his baldness. I also believe eskimo women wear burqas and that because some Arab king had a really ugly daughter and didn't want people to laugh at her.
>> No. 64301 YubYub
11th November 2019
Monday 3:06 pm
64301 spacer
Get ready to be banned by the humourless mods.
My home ip is banned still for stuff like this.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 64302 YubYub
11th November 2019
Monday 3:19 pm
64302 spacer
Think about all other traditional hats associated with a particular tribe, the Laotian wear lampshades to keep the sun off, the aussies wear cork hats to keep the flies away, the eskimos wear fur hats to keep warm. All have a practical use.
But the kippah has no practical use, it is entirely for show. It's only function is to broadcast how you are in a position of power or have a job inside the institutions, so you don't need protection from the elements while toiling outside all day.
>> No. 64303 YubYub
11th November 2019
Monday 4:02 pm
64303 spacer
I think I saw a video of you at Speakers Corner about a year ago.
>> No. 64304 R4GE
11th November 2019
Monday 5:52 pm
64304 spacer
Sure, it might be a reason but it's not the reason.
Also >They're only good because we made them good!
>> No. 64305 Anonymous
11th November 2019
Monday 6:29 pm
64305 spacer
That's odd, I appear to have stumbled onto the Other Place.
>> No. 64306 Are Moaty
11th November 2019
Monday 11:59 pm
64306 spacer
Enough of this nonsense.

Return ]

Delete Post []