Is Human Breeding possible? Where African slaves bred during their captivity? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14789823
SolarCross wrote: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.


SolarCross wrote: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.


...And that former's slave was named Fredrick Douglas. Which reputiated Sun Tzu's "vile" narrative to that point.

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


Sure. He was being emotional in deciding that Frederick Douglas was no longer an acceptable example in reality, simply in Sun Tzu's feeling about him despite from reality.

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


That's not really what I said, but I guess that's a close enough approximation. But you asked whether I was using a tactic or not and implied you'd like to know why. So I explained and, in this post, I'm wrapping up an example.

But I don't think you're actually that interested in knowing why I framed the posts in the way that I did. I note that you neglected to mention my frist post in this topic which was researched, cited, and related to Oxy's OP. And you characterized my later responses with a classic, "I know you are...But what am I?" Defence, which is certainly what people go for when I point out that their ideological brethren are not making rational statements but are instead relying on a feeling* or emotion instead of acknowledging facts. You also peppered in words for emotional validation like, "rape," and whatnot which I certainly did not use.

But, nonetheless, you asked about my tactic (and implicitly my philosophy behind it) and this was the answer. I'm a little disappointed that you fell back on this, with all due respect (as I do think you're a respectable guy). But I guess that just shows that a rightwinger can't have a discussion without trying to pepper his responses with an emotional punch despite evidence clearly to the contrary in the same thread.

*Perhaps would it be helpful if I said, "gut feeling." I find this somewhat interesting as it seems to be the same thing, but people don't react in the same manner when the word, "gut" is included. I suspect that this may have something to do with a certain cue that comes from an anatomical preface, as if that separates a feeling it from the hysterical. However it is the exact same thing in practical language use.
#14791297
Back to breeding people, I think it is possible to breed individuals. There are many traits that are heritable, some stronger than others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao_Ming
Yao Ming is 2.29 m (7 ft 6 in). His parents were 6 ft 7 in (2.01 m) Yao Zhiyuan and 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) Fang Fengdi. Is any one surprised an unusually tall person was born from unusually tall parents? Intelligence, predisposition to cancer and diabetes, hair and eye colour, etc.. are traits with multiple causes, but they are traits that are known and could be bred for/against, as can many other physical traits. Animal husbandry is millennia old, and humans are animals.

Could the slaves have been bred? Sure.
I'll have a go at that argument.
The Atlantic transit probably killed off the genetically frail (as well as the sick and injured).
Slavery itself was probably selected against stupidity and aggression.
Social stratification (house/field slaves), rewards (women) and punishment (castration) also would have affected the gene pool.

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. I don't see those requirements being met during slavery, especially since culling off people who could be producing (or become) the next generation of slaves would be a huge loss to potential income, which was a motivating factors for having slaves in the first place.
#14791308
Humans are mammals just like dogs, horses, and pigs are. Of course it's possible to breed them for desired traits, and with the early pregnancy tests for trisomia, for example, abortions of defective fetuses are already increasing, which would be one example of weeding out undesired traits. The problem is that people won't self-breed, because everyone is horny as fuck and doesn't really care if they meet the breeding standards themselves. You'd need an outside enforcing agency to do that. One example could be Mars colonisation where you have to meet certain standards to be even selected for getting to Mars, which would result in a breeding stock, basically. And since pregnancies in low g environments will probably need heavy medical monitoring and intervention, the colonisation company can basically decide who gets to breed and who doesn't.

As for slaves, don't know, don't care.
#14791312
I think that human "breeding" is possible, but not of intelligence. 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. Plus I think there is a certain amount of cultural bias to IQ testing. If it happened on a level playing field people would be more likely to take it seriously as an argument. Plus again, I'm having trouble giving credence to anybody citing an IQ gap without a source because that means they could be citing decades old sources with sampling errors.

As far as physical characteristics, those are readily observed and it is a simple fact taught in schools all over the place. But again, if you're talking about athleticism or strength then you need to cite a specific trait. For instance, is average muscle size affected? Average height? Build?

Ok, well all of those traits are still varied in the supposed "African" race and the supposed "white" race. Lets also not forget about all the interracial babies that are supposedly black even though their mom or dad was white. Race is just a lazy way of classifying someone.

In the context of forensic anthropology, you always have to remember the profit motive. These forensic anthropologists make a lot of money off of making educated guesses and don't tend to take any blame when they get it wrong (which they obviously do from time to time). The problem with saying that you can tell the person's race by their genes is that it's a nonsensical statement. There's no "black", "Asian", "American Indian", etc gene, there are just lots of different little genes that you can correlate with this or that group. And furthermore the choices tend to be exaggerated. If a state is 95% white and you're in a small town that is 100% white, saying that the Jane or John Doe is white is a great guess but still just a guess.

Anyway this topic is very contentious, and I still think that part of forensic anthropology is controversial. I would just stress the profit motive again. These people are after the money of LEO's, who tend to think a certain way and place great value on identifying the victim at all cost. The most powerful tool is DNA, of course, but identifying specific features is not the usual route to making an ID. Most of the time you're looking for exact matches, not trying to suss out features from their DNA.

Humans are mammals just like dogs, horses, and pigs are. Of course it's possible to breed them for desired traits, and with the early pregnancy tests for trisomia, for example, abortions of defective fetuses are already increasing, which would be one example of weeding out undesired traits. The problem is that people won't self-breed, because everyone is horny as fuck and doesn't really care if they meet the breeding standards themselves. You'd need an outside enforcing agency to do that. One example could be Mars colonisation where you have to meet certain standards to be even selected for getting to Mars, which would result in a breeding stock, basically. And since pregnancies in low g environments will probably need heavy medical monitoring and intervention, the colonisation company can basically decide who gets to breed and who doesn't.

Yeah, the real question though is what the trait is and how many different genes are there in play for that specific trait you are isolating. Genetic disorders are relatively easy. Are you a carrier? Is your partner a carrier? If you both are, be prepared for the possibility or consider adoption.

In the case of intelligence it's not so simple. The genes at play for intelligence are not well-understood, and it's difficult if not impossible to isolate any that make you a genius or even above average.

edit: Even whiteness itself is a form of breeding. It's a genetic mutation that stuck around first out of utility and then out of cultural practice. But again, breeding is a very uncontroversial subject. It's all about what specific trait you are talking about that runs into contention. As always, the burden of proof is on the person talking about a trait to prove that it exists and what peptide/polypeptide sequence it correlates to. People do this for a living, by the way, I'm not just talking out of my ass. For instance, it was recently figured out what genes we absorbed from the neanderthals.

http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthal- ... se-1.20854

So while I want people to take caution about the claims that forensic anthropologists make, the role of DNA is becoming more understood (yet the consensus about race has remained unchanged).
#14791321
Intelligence is inherited from the mother so you can definitely breed for it.

Yeah, the real question though is what the trait is and how many different genes are there in play for that specific trait you are isolating. Genetic disorders are relatively easy. Are you a carrier? Is your partner a carrier? If you both are, be prepared for the possibility or consider adoption.


One has to wonder how people managed to breed dogs and horses for show or for work without all that advanced knowledge of genetics. I guess they went by the results, excluding those who didn't meet their standards.
#14791327
Frollein wrote:One has to wonder how people managed to breed dogs and horses for show or for work without all that advanced knowledge of genetics. I guess they went by the results, excluding those who didn't meet their standards.

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.
#14791357
Frollein wrote:Intelligence is inherited from the mother so you can definitely breed for it.

Just for clarification: it is the men who put that seed in the woman's belly. So it is seemingly from Mum but actually from Dad.
Let there be no misunderstanding about that.
Please proceed.
#14791371
Frollein wrote:It has nothing to do with who puts what where - the intelligence is inherited via the maternal line.


I was joking earlier, sorry.

But now I looked it up.
Here is Snopes.com

The three arguments used to make the claim about intelligence coming solely from your mother each fail as all-encompassing statements and rely on a flawed understanding of science, a misrepresentation of scientific consensus, or both. It is misleading, at best, to say that we know anything about which parent is (more) responsible for an offspring’s intelligence, let alone which genes.

Looking at the even bigger picture, we find that none of the assertions provided in any of the viral news stories took into account the interplay between genetics and environment, which scientists view as intrinsically important.

http://www.snopes.com/intelligence-is-i ... ur-mother/
#14791413
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.

Bingo!
#14791418
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.


That quote is from Prada boy, not me - I pointed out that today we have abortions, which is another way to do eugenics.
#14791428
blackjack21 wrote: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.

If you want muscle power on a farm you used a horse or an ox. Farm animals also had the bonus of not rising up and killing you in your sleep or sabotaging their output. I see a use for endurance, productivity and good health, all of which can be proxied by strength for the ignorant, but ignorant people rarely have large amounts of money. Castration of slaves and killing of problematic slaves was common in history and I suspect no different in America, so I expect those stupid enough to act out openly (rather than covertly) would be penalized.
#14791449
Suntzu wrote:Oh yeah, slaves were very valuable property. A slave could be worth as much as a house. A slave owner might castrate a problem slave but I doubt they would kill or disable them, just a money thang.

Best cost comparison I heard was that of a car: young and unknown - cheap. Experienced and reliable - nice car. Skilled in trade - luxury car. There were probably Lamborghini slaves too, and just as rare. Prices varied on time and economic situation.

Suntzu wrote:Ever try to teach a horse or mule to pick or hoe cotton? Blacks were considered livestock and bred and managed the same way.

You dont need much strength to pick cotton for 10 hours, just endurance. Were there stud slaves, rented by slave owners to bang their female slaves? Given human fertility and pregnancy is not obvious over a few days compared to estrus of other animals, a stud might take weeks to impregnate a woman. A large plantation with enough slaves in house could try animal husbandry to get an ideal slave but they wont stop the rest from fucking, causing the genepool to be a bit distorted but not trimmed.
#14791490
Blackjack21 wrote:Part of the reason is that many more whites died than blacks under contracts of indentured servitude.


And a lot more lived. There weren't many blacks under indentured servitude.

But, really, I don't understand this narrative. Something bad happened to Africans. Some people, especially right-wingers, feel the need to go screeching on about how they suffered so much and prostate themselves as victims for us all to see how precious their victimhood is. I really don't care, and since it's not particularly relevant, I'm not sure why else you'd even be bothering to bring it up.

Blackjack21 wrote:The British Empire didn't get rid of the indentured labor system until 1920.


This, again, has nothing to do with anything. But I must have triggered you. I acknowledge what a victim you must feel like. If you need a safe space, let me know.

Blackjack21 wrote: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."


Image
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8
The Paradox of Poverty

While I like your definition of Socialism, the re[…]

Trump and the Rule of Law

evidence for impeachment and braking of rules of […]

Firehosing

"Firehosing relies on pushing out as many li[…]

Ukrainegate

On Russia: that may or may not turn into somethin[…]