re: Gavin Long 'Melanin Superiority'- Blacks and Physical Genetics

What a loser.

quote:

---

Running high and jumping fast is hereditary. However, intelligence and competency are not.

---

Intelligence has been consistently shown to have hereditary component (about 50%). It's just like any other trait that had biologically inmate aspects. Why would it be different?

quote:

---

Are you intentional that ingorant? The implication is obviously referring to physical traits.

---

So, what physical traits make a slave handy for both sugar cultivation and rice cultivation? What percentage of each would have been ideal for the slaveholder to breed?

quote:

---

Once again, total ignorance. Slaveholders/owners didn't even need to attempt to breed what they wanted. It occurred naturally. Slave owners rarely bought slaves who didn't meet certain standards. The big, strong slaves were put into the fields and the field houses where they naturally mated with each other.

Slaves of higher intelligence or other beneficial characteristics (one being soft hands) were used inside the home and housed close to or inside the home.

---

So explain again the relevance or your dubious assumption to the point that they weren't dealing from the top of the deck to begin with. If anything, you're arguing that they did not breed them.

Moreover, you ignore the psychological impact of slavery in which slaves, regardless of physical attributes, engaged in accommodationist behaviors - such as appearing docile and willing to do the master's bidding - in order to win appointment to less dangerous assignments. In other words, labor gradations weren't based solely upon physical attributes, which tends to argue against your point. In addition, only on the massive plantations would you find slave quarters divided by job tasks and only on the massive plantations would you find slaves who were strictly relegated to single occupations. All of which, again, tends to prove your argument false.

On top of all that, the nature of the internal slave trade wasn't so much based upon growing monster slaves, like John Deere trying to increase horsepower to gain a market edge. The natural increase from the upper South was sold South by men such as Isaac Franklin. The others who were sold South were the ones that were problematic because of their refusal to submit/obey. The only part of that which would support a portion of the argument here is that such policy might have meant that Louisiana and east Texas were worked by slaves who tended to be more rebellious than those further East.

Finally, as for natural selection...the very same forces were at work on the white population. If anything, the fact that whites were not confined to single farms in their quest for mates should mean that whites would have developed more significantly than blacks.