[Oxymoron]

My question was on a practical and historical nature, as I was curious to learn from people who might have researched this topic.

I am just assuming that some natural selection was at work during the crossing over, but I wanted to see if there was actual planned breeding by the slave owners.

[The Immortal Goon]

Okay it may be that I am just a little dim but I can't quite connect up what you are saying with what I asked. Perhaps it is paradigm issue; you are trying to bang the square pegs of your concepts into the round holes in my mind.

Yes it is a debating tactic, and yes to does work, to refer to your initial question.

But my goal isn't necessarily to persuade anyone to my side in this particular case. It was, and usually is, to wipe away all the unverifiable opinion based experience arguments out of the way. Which, in this case, seems to have worked. After about half a page of throwing up the kind of arguments I'm attempting to stem, the user had to go back and restate something from the first page. Now, this got sidetracked by our own little chat, but the integrity of the initial argument was maintained without a lot of postmodernist claptrap.

That is the tactic I'm using because it is just as impossible to engage if we're sitting around like first year college students saying, "What is freedom?" Free from any context, or if we're like the more latter-day rightwing movement (or the Interwar European one) where it's a discussion of personal experience and our feelings about the experience.

In either case, even if one were here simply for boredom, there is nothing to speak about in this kind of framework. This would, essentially, just be a blog without responses and counter-responses were we to accept completely the postmodern framework.

We must have some kind of common ground on which to speak to each other. I think the whole notion of postmodernism is pretty silly (as is typical for a Marxist) but, if it helps:

Postmodernism

A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.

Postmodernism is "post" because it is denies the existence of any ultimate principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody - a characterisitic of the so-called "modern" mind. The paradox of the postmodern position is that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of its skepticism, it must realize that even its own principles are not beyond questioning. As the philospher Richard Tarnas states, postmodernism "cannot on its own principles ultimately justify itself any more than can the various metaphysical overviews against which the postmodern mind has defined itself."

My question was on a practical and historical nature, as I was curious to learn from people who might have researched this topic.

I am just assuming that some natural selection was at work during the crossing over, but I wanted to see if there was actual planned breeding by the slave owners.

There isn't enough genetic variation within human beings in general for there to have been, "some natural selection...at work during the crossing over."

So far as I have ever seen, there was no attempt to make a planned breeding program. This, in part, probably stems from the conception that "African" was a category unto itself and you already had that in the population.

[Suntzu]

There is as much genetic variation is human beings as their is in dogs.

If you were a slave owner and half, quarter and eighth Blacks fetched more money than pure Blacks would you exploit the market? I think a lot of the interbreeding was done by the plantation post pubescent White boys tired of heifers.

[mikema63]

That isn't true at all.

In a 2004 paper in Science, Parker et al. showed that very accurate classification is possible (410 of 414 dogs were correctly assigned to their breed). They also showed by Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA, a technique often used for estimating genetic variability using microsattelites and repeats, although it can also be used for SNPs) that 27% of genetic variance is between breeds. Using SNP data, they calculated an Fst distance between the breeds of 0.33. A recent paper on a genome-wide SNP analysis on 919 dogs from 85 breeds, showed by AMOVA that 65.1% of genetic variance was within breeds, 31.1% between breeds, and 3.8% between breed groups (they defined 10 different groups: Spaniels, Retrievers, etc.). They also that as few as 20 diagnostic SNPs can be used to accurately classify dogs into their breeds.

How does the genetic variation in dogs compare to that of humans? AMOVA analysis of humans shows that approximately 85% of variance is between individuals, 5% is between populations in the same racial group, and 10% is interracial (btw, this number is also close to the updated Fst measurement of Xing et al.). The average Fst distance between human races is approximately 0.15.

Link to the article quoted

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/debunking_a_racialist_myth_about_the_genetic_variation_between_dog_breeds/

Links to papers

https://www.princeton.edu/genomics/krug ... enetic.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08837.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 5627/1877b

[Suntzu]

Human beings can be racially classified with 99% accuracy using DNA.

[Decky]

[B0ycey]

Is this a self portrait Decky?

[Decky]

How did you guess?

[mikema63]

@suntzu so? I can accurately identify a single person from their mother using DNA. That tells us nothing.

[B0ycey]

How did you guess?

Lol. At least you have a sense of humour.

[Decky]

@suntzu so? I can accurately identify a single person from their mother using DNA. That tells us nothing.

DNA is a liberal myth. If you look at the nucleus of a cell through a microscope what you really see is god. Not that I would ever do such a thing, if god had wanted us to obverse his creation so minutely he would have made us smaller.

Lol. At least you have a sense of humour.

Of course, what did you think I was, German?

[The Immortal Goon]

@SolarCross

Since this thread has taken a recent diversion to the style of debate I've been employing, I'd like to point out that—again—we have one sentence phrases with no references, based only upon someone's feelings, going against five peer-reviewed citations.

I would suspect that the user in question actually has no idea that he is simply regurgitating post-modern clap-trap about his precious perspective being just as valid an interpretation of reality as the combined knowledge of humankind.

Would it not be effective here to, not only throw the citations out there, but also point out that the origin of his own argument is based upon nothing but his apparent perspective or feeling about the issue?

[Rich]

What a great example. Frederick Douglas sure felt he was fortunate to have been a slave.

Such is the incredible volume of anti White propaganda, that it seems to be forgotten that White people rarely enslaved Black people. If Frederick Douglas was unhappy being a slave then he should blame the Black people back in Africa who enslaved his ancestors, or indeed his ancestors who allowed themselves to get enslaved. So the useful comparison is between the descendants of slaves brought to the United States and the descendants of slaves who remained in Black Africa and the descendants who were imported into the Muslim lands.

What seems beyond doubt is that the United States Black population is incredibly privileged over the descendants of slaves who remained in Black Africa or who were taken to the Muslim lands. In the latter cases there may not be many surviving descendants at all, let alone with the average prosperity of the United States Black population. US Blacks have great reason to be grateful for the Atlantic slave Trade, although their gratitude seems in short supply.

[Suntzu]

@suntzu so? I can accurately identify a single person from their mother using DNA. That tells us nothing.

My daughter graduated from Baylor with a degree in forensic anthropology. She claims that with a DNA sample she can tell your race, sex, hair color, eye color, blood type and a multitude of other characteristics. When it comes to mixed race folks it can become a bit muddled. How do you think they determined that American Blacks were 20% White.

[Suntzu]

Such is the incredible volume of anti White propaganda, that it seems to be forgotten that White people rarely enslaved Black people. If Frederick Douglas was unhappy being a slave then he should blame the Black people back in Africa who enslaved his ancestors, or indeed his ancestors who allowed themselves to get enslaved. So the useful comparison is between the descendants of slaves brought to the United States and the descendants of slaves who remained in Black Africa and the descendants who were imported into the Muslim lands.

What seems beyond doubt is that the United States Black population is incredibly privileged over the descendants of slaves who remained in Black Africa or who were taken to the Muslim lands. In the latter cases there may not be many surviving descendants at all, let alone with the average prosperity of the United States Black population. US Blacks have great reason to be grateful for the Atlantic slave Trade, although their gratitude seems in short supply.

Yeah, I think the Arabs routinely castrated their male African slaves.

[SolarCross]

@SolarCross

Since this thread has taken a recent diversion to the style of debate I've been employing, I'd like to point out that—again—we have one sentence phrases with no references, based only upon someone's feelings, going against five peer-reviewed citations.

I would suspect that the user in question actually has no idea that he is simply regurgitating post-modern clap-trap about his precious perspective being just as valid an interpretation of reality as the combined knowledge of humankind.

Would it not be effective here to, not only throw the citations out there, but also point out that the origin of his own argument is based upon nothing but his apparent perspective or feeling about the issue?

Sure Sun-Tzu's posts are garbage, I agree. Start at the beginning, Oxymoron asks the interesting question:

My question is this; number one is it possible to breed human beings?
Since we can mate all year round, and even slaves have had much more opportunity to freely matedoes this make it that much harder/impossible. So taking the example of the American south, were there attempts to breed slaves to produce better workers?

Related information is welcome.

And Sun Tzu is the first to reply:

American Blacks are about 20%. It happened. Was it on purpose? Slaves were used in the field but also as personal servants, skilled labor (black smiths, farriers).

20% of what? What happened? Was what on purpose? So slaves weren't just working in the fields, fine but what has that got to do with anything?

I ignored that post as it was empty of content. Oxymoron tried to query what the "20%" was referring to but was flatly ignored by Sun-Tzu.

Sun Tzu then mentions someone called Fredrick Douglas to what purpose is not clear but it seems the fact that he is not pure black seems to have something to do with it. Then disjointedly he makes a brief case that slaves may not always have been mistreated because they were property and people generally look after their property. So far this doesn't address the OP at all, unless Sun Tzu is confusing breeding as performed by agricultural technicians on livestock with interracial procreation.

I address the OP thusly:

It is possible, our genes work the same way the genes of other animals do and other animals can be consciously bred and have been since the year dot.

One doesn't even necessarily need to reduce people to slavery to have enough control over them to cultivate their genes. Selective marriage licences might be enough. There may come a day where certain genes are weeded out through prohibiting carriers from procreating.

There is an american black comedian called Chris Rock who once asserted that blacks were subjected to some breeding; he claimed particularly buff blacks were put out to stud like a prized bull might be and that is why american blacks are such very accomplished athletes.

It doesn't seem impossible but who knows?

Then you jump in screaming rape and throw down a narrative made by a former slave which reveals some pretty vile treatment but this is as much missing the point of the topic as Sun Tzu.

Sun Tzu once more puts forth an argument against the mistreatment of slaves based on a narrative handed down from his family apparently.

It is at this point you lose your shit and start accusing him of being emotional and such:

So last page, Frederick Douglass was a wonderful example of the virtues of slavery.

Now that you know anything about Douglass, he can't possibly be trusted because your grandfather said his parents were nice to his slaves

Typical rightwinger: your precious snowflake feelings have been hurt, so it's time to try and change reality to accommodate your demand to be a victim.

Do you need a hug? Should we all stop and acknowledge how much you feel like you have suffered?

Your defence of this is that it is for countering post-modernism which is pretty bizarre as it stands.

[ThirdTerm]

The average Fst distance between human races is approximately 0.15.

Using Y-DNA haplotypes, we now know that human variation was caused by haplogroup mutations. The average Fst distance between human races is only half of that of dogs because we differentiated ourselves in the last 50,000 years or so, a very short time-frame on an evolutionary time scale. On the chart above, Y-chromosome Adam represents our common ancestor. Europeans split from Africans with haplogroup E and Asians carrying haplogroups C and D with the emergence of haplogroup F around 45,000 BP. Nordic people mostly carry haplogroup I, while haplogroup J is primarily found in the Middle East and Southern Europe. Haplogroup R is the Indo-European haplotype, while its sister haplogroup Q is common among Native Americans. Haplogroup O is typically East Asian and the majority of East Asians belong to haplogroup O. Its sister haplogroup N is a Finno-Ugric haplotype common in Finland and Russia, which shows that East Asians are genetically close to Northern Europeans.

[mikema63]

@Suntzu

Single nucleotide polymorphisms, small mutations of a single nucleotide in regions of DNA that repeat the same nucleotide sequence thousands of times. These mutations are neutral so they accumulate over time without being weeded out. We can examine population groups to identify signature mutations that happened at different times and then we're passed on to their descendants. That's how we identify different haplogroups.

[Suntzu]

Using Y-DNA haplotypes, we now know that human variation was caused by haplogroup mutations. The average Fst distance between human races is only half of that of dogs because we differentiated ourselves in the last 50,000 years or so, a very short time-frame on an evolutionary time scale. On the chart above, Y-chromosome Adam represents our common ancestor. Europeans split from Africans with haplogroup E and Asians carrying haplogroups C and D with the emergence of haplogroup F around 45,000 BP. Nordic people mostly carry haplogroup I, while haplogroup J is primarily found in the Middle East and Southern Europe. Haplogroup R is the Indo-European haplotype, while its sister haplogroup Q is common among Native Americans. Haplogroup O is typically East Asian and the majority of East Asians belong to haplogroup O. Its sister haplogroup N is a Finno-Ugric haplotype common in Finland and Russia, which shows that East Asians are genetically close to Northern Europeans.

So 17 races instead of 4. The 17 can be put into the four "races"

[mikema63]

I suspect your being deliberately obtuse.