Oxymoron wrote:My question is this; number one is it possible to breed human beings?
Yes, but human traits don't select quite as well as other species like dogs.
Oxymoron wrote:My question is this; number one is it possible to breed human beings?
Of course. However, this was done with the same approach as it was to plant cultivation and animal husbandry. Selective breeding has been around for millenia. However, they didn't have Gregor Mendel's theory--an Augustianian friar. A lot of scientists were deeply religious. Of course, they had no concept of DNA either. Selective Breeding: History
Selective breeding of both plants and animals has been practiced since early prehistory; key species such as wheat, rice, and dogs have been significantly different from their wild ancestors for millennia, and maize, which required especially large changes from teosinte, its wild form, was selectively bred in Mesoamerica.
So while there is little doubt that human selective breeding was practiced by slave owners on slaves, it was also practiced by aristocracies intermarrying. The caste system in India can also be thought of in this way, as people were typically precluded from marrying outside of their caste. I've stated for some time that a major purpose of elite colleges and universities is to act as a breeding ground for the very smart and the very rich. Education is often very much secondary.
mikema63 wrote:In principle yes but it takes a lot of generations of deliberate breeding on large scales to do anything more than cosmetic. Human generation times are too long for this to be practically done and too long for it to have been done in the time period of American slavery.
Well this cannot be understood to have happened with a scientifically specific end in mind, since they were just using tried and true breeding as they understood it from practical experience and recorded wisdom. However, classes have been interbreeding for a very long time. It's not uncommon for the rich to marry other rich people and for their children to do better than the poor.
The Immortal Goon wrote:Part of the reason that the Atlantic slave trade was so expansive was because a lot of them died and it didn't matter how many were lost as it was cheaper to go get more than to keep slaves in safe conditions.
Part of the reason is that many more whites died than blacks under contracts of indentured servitude. A slave or servant that lasted more than one year was considered "seasoned." Since indentured servants got their freedom at the end of their term, but typically died in the first year, it was simply more profitable to enslave blacks because they did so much better under the Southern US climate than the pasty white folks of the British Isles.
The Immortal Goon wrote:In 1833, when the British outlawed slavery and tried to police the slave trade (conveniently after they had been kicked out of most of their slave colonies) there was a forced attempt to create more slaves in the given area.
The British Empire didn't get rid of the indentured labor system until 1920.
mikema63 wrote:Yes, animal welfare as we do it today was almost entirely non existent. If you have ever seen what a horse rescued from the Amish looks like you'd know how people used to treat animals.
So was treatment of humans for the most part. For example, if you rustled cattle you'd be jailed. If you stole someone's horse, by contrast, you could be hung. Now, a car thief will spend very little time in jail.
SolarCross wrote: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.
Arranged marriages are still common in much of the world. I have an Sikh buddy whose first marriage was arranged by their respective parents. She was kind of hot, but they weren't in love. In the US culture, they divorced and he married a much less hot girl that he did love.
Oxymoron wrote: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.
Sure, but let's not assume they had anything approaching a scientific mindset. They were mostly farmers and breeding, grafting, etc. has been common for a very long time. This is why controlling women and who they marry mattered until very recently.
The Immortal Goon wrote: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.
Yes, but with the political aims of the class that funds science being hostile to anything but their universal brotherhood of man, science has to reflect the political views of its patrons. We can find lots of older peer reviewed stuff that says otherwise, and will lead to a discussion that such papers have been "discredited."
Rich wrote:Such is the incredible volume of anti White propaganda, that it seems to be forgotten that White people rarely enslaved Black people.
Very true indeed.
Rich wrote: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.
This is also true, but ignores the fact that white people have persistently done better economically whether there was a Jim Crow system and segregation or not. Marxism plies its trade on envy. So ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of whites did not own slaves and inventing newer notions like "white privilege" as a guilt-inducing form of white supremacy is intended to try to engage in a government sponsored wealth transfer.
Suntzu wrote: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.
Yes. That's all true. They can also tell what geographic regions your haplogroups originated from.
ThirdTerm wrote:Nordic people mostly carry haplogroup I, while haplogroup J is primarily found in the Middle East and Southern Europe.
Yep. I'm haplogroup I1.
The Immortal Goon wrote:If you mean were they raped, yes, yes they were.
The Immortal Goon wrote:You also peppered in words for emotional validation like, "rape," and whatnot which I certainly did not use.
Did I miss something here?
Rape at that time was forcibly having sexual intercourse with someone who was not your spouse. Generally, since women were the chattel property of men, it was a crime enforced by men against other men for messing with their property. Heck, even in the 20th Century (1938), Frank Sinatra
was charged for sleeping with a married woman.
Rape, in the Megyn Kelly and the feminists sense of the word, bears no relationship to what rape meant in the past. Rape was serious because it was a crime against the property of another man. Women who slept around were of ill repute, and claiming rape was a way not just to punish sexual aggressors, but to save one's own reputation among the man who owned her. That's why terms like "marital rape" are absolutely comical, since marriage literally means to have heterosexual sex, and the primary purpose of a marriage vow is to consummate the marital act. All this whishy washy sentimentalism is a fairly recent development.
Thunderhawk wrote:The Atlantic transit probably killed off the genetically frail (as well as the sick and injured).
True. It's also as true of whites as it was of blacks, even more so in actual fact when you control for indentured servitude.
Thunderhawk wrote:Slavery itself was probably selected against stupidity and aggression.
I disagree here. Many slave holders didn't want their slaves to be literate, but they wanted them to be physically strong which often correlates with testosterone levels, aggression, etc.
Thunderhawk wrote:Producing a breed isn't a snap of the fingers, it takes multiple generations with huge positive and negative pressures for desired traits to become fixed (strict control over who mates with who, culling off most members for being undesirable) in a gene pool, and then ramping up production of offspring once those desired traits are fixed.
Yes, but you make a good point on the transatlantic slave trade. Also, the first year of slavery is where most people died. It was those who lasted longer that were considered "seasoned." Hence, it is reasonable to speculate that they were the most successful reproducers. This is also true of white indentured servants who died in higher percentage numbers to the point where the indentured servant market stopped using them for field work. They ended up at best as house servants or trade apprentices.
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:Personally I attribute the still alleged (as nobody has cited any data) IQ gap mostly to lack of access to education, educational resources, and nutrition.
It's cited regularly. However, opponents of this idea claim it is all "discredited" and oppose any funding going to look at the issue with strong controls. The Flynn Effect does have merit, but it does not answer everything.
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:Plus I think there is a certain amount of cultural bias to IQ testing.
Historically, that is true. However, race-normed IQ tests still showed difference. Further, there is evidence to suggest that part of the difference in intelligence isn't being "super smart" as such, but rather learning to conform to social norms. I have high non-verbal IQ according to my genetic profile, which is different high verbal IQ. As we learn more, we find out that IQ isn't a singular trait. In fact, it is this conforming to social norms portion of IQ that I think goes a long way to distinguishing "rule follower" liberals from "libertarian" conservatives. The "rule follower" believes in the maxim that for every wrong there is a remedy. Hence, every car accident must find someone at fault. Every economic misadventure must have a regulation to stop it, and so forth. These are the people who think gun control will stop gun violence. It seems like a sensible notion, but it does not stand up to empirical scrutiny.
Frollein wrote:Intelligence is inherited from the mother so you can definitely breed for it.
Most of it is, but some does come from the father too. X is quite a bit more complex than Y. Women have two x chromosomes, and men only one. That said, if Barack Obama's father were white and his mother black, I'm guessing he wouldn't have been as bright.
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:Yeah but when you do that with people we call that eugenics. I should know, Americans practically invented it. We were sterilizing undesirables before the Germans thought it was cool.
Eugenic abortion does the same thing, before we decided it wasn't cool to use the term "Eugenic" whilst still retaining the practice.
Frollein wrote:Yeah but when you do that with people we call that eugenics. I should know, Americans practically invented it. We were sterilizing undesirables before the Germans thought it was cool.