Is Human Breeding possible? Where African slaves bred during their captivity? - Page 5 - 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.
#14791987
The Immortal Goon wrote:But, really, I don't understand this narrative. Something bad happened to Africans.

No something wonderful happened to Black people, the arrival of White people. As a result, there are far, far more Black people alive living far higher standards of living. Just go Africa today and its filled with the technologies that White people invented. Black Africa was going nowhere before White people arrived to liberate it from its own backwardness and barbarism and from exploitation by Muslims.

The Transatlantic Slave trade was a boon for Africa, allowing them to trade surplice people (given their low level of agricultural productivity), for technology and advanced goods that they lacked. Kick starting Black African development.
#14792002
Rich wrote:No something wonderful happened to Black people, the arrival of White people.


Even if we are to accept everything you said as great, this doesn't track. It would be like me saying, "being crippled sucks," and you responding, "No you were born and get to experience dessert, which tastes amazing!"

Suntzu wrote: Slavery existed in Africa long before the arrival of the White man.


And sickness existed in the Americas before contact with Afroeurasia. I guess that means the virgin soil epidemic doesn't exist.
#14792005
Slavery has been a part of society from the very beginning. The only ones who seem to have suffered permanent damage are Africans.

This is because of the sheer scale of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Nothing comparable to it had ever occurred before in human history. Vast swathes of Africa were almost entirely depopulated of the most productive segments of the population. And the brutality with which the slaves were treated was also something new - in ancient Rome, a slave might be adopted by his or her master, and even be made his legal heir if he had no son to inherit his property. Can you imagine a white plantation owner in the Deep South doing such a thing? In fact, the trans-Atlantic slave trade gave slavery a bad name, and is the main reason it is now outlawed in almost all nations of the world. Slavery in the ancient world actually had a lot to recommend it, and was a more humane way of dealing with captured enemy warriors than simply massacring them all. It also permitted the construction of large-scale public works before modern machinery or technology. The scale and brutality of the trans-Atlantic slave trade (not to mention the development of industrial capitalism and modern machinery) ruined slavery for everybody else. Lol.
#14792008
Slavery has damaged Africans the most because multiple empires joined in, not only Europeans but also Arab, Egyptian, Turkish, and rival African empires and kingdoms all participated in expanding it.
The reason Africans are poor today is not because they're inferior but because other nations had centuries to develop while they were destroyed over and over again until finally starting the process of building their nations in the 20th century.

'm not a westerner and i frankly wouldn't mind if western civilization collapsed over night, but nevertheless i still think its quite annoying and dishonest by many to deny the role of others in the suffering of Africans today and in the past.

If you were an African slave, its far better for you to be in the trans-atlantic slave trade, as horrible as it is, than be held a slave by the Arab empires.
Heck, if we weren't ourselves an empire and capable of fighting off the Arabs and Turks through many centuries of frequent wars with them, they would've enslaved and made us into far worse status than Africans are today.


Ofcourse needless to say, our imperial legacy is far better and more honorable than everyone else in the world. Across our history slavery, or more accurately mass slavery has never been a thing. Though slavery existed in some of the nations we conquered but never by us.
If we didn't like a group of people, we just killed them off. Enslaving nations was and is a big No No for us. :lol: :p
#14792107
Thunderhawk wrote: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.

"Farm animals" is a great point, because they were domesticated--selectively bred not to rise up and kill you. That takes generations of selective breeding. I think it works both ways too. We develop innate traits for animal husbandry or hunting, and pass that down. I'm I1, which is Nordic, and they were traditional hunter people. While I cannot provide a completely rational explanation for you, I have an absolute uncanny knack for dogs, and they for me. A few weeks ago I was up in Oregon. Both of my sisters are from California, but bought houses in a subdivision within a few blocks of each other as they intend to retire there in the future. So I went up for a visit, staying at my older sister's. All of the dogs love me, but my younger sister's German shephard loves me so much, when she was let out to pee in the morning, she ran across the subdivision to my older sister's house, tried to open the front door, and kept working it until my older sister opened the door. The dog ran up the stairs looking for me, found me, jumped on the bed and started licking me. That dog is genetically quite similar to a wolf. Yet, she's domesticated and doesn't try to kill me. In fact, she sought me out knowing only for a brief moment the night before that I was there and at my older sister's house. She had otherwise never seen me there before--only in California.

Domesticated animals have a better chance at reproduction; hence, the disincentive to rebel. My sisters pour affection on the dogs, but I "play" with them and make them fetch. I encourage them to chase birds, squirrels, lizards, rabbits, etc. That's what they're bred to do. That's when they are the happiest--and of course, I share meat with them too.

Thunderhawk wrote: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.

Agreed. However, I don't think direct mistreatment of slaves, such as whipping or chaining people up, is what developed these traits. Rather, I think the "seasoning" process effectively weeded out those with little or no endurance... both blacks and whites.

The Immortal Goon wrote: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.

Blacks were mostly taken as slaves, and whites as indentured servants. It's not a narrative. It's a fact. Indentured servants working fields in the North tended to fair a bit better than in the South, where the climate was much more hostile to people acclimated to Northern Europe. So out in the tobacco fields, white indentured servants died at a per-capita higher rate far higher than black slaves. Seasoning basically meant that a person who had survived a tropical disease was more likely to live longer, and thus would command a higher price. The economics of slavery (ownership of person and their posterity) versus indentured servitude (bound servant for a duration, no interest in posterity), and the differences between blacks (acclimated to tropical conditions, some with sickle cell which helps survive malaria) and whites (acclimated to temperate and nordic climates, no natural acclimation or adaptation to tropical or subtropical climates) dictated the driving forces in the adoption and expansion of slavery in the South whereas indentured servitude continued primarily in the North and persisted with trade skills.

The OP asks whether human breeding is possible. Selective breeding is certainly possible, but the life spans of humans and the environments they are adapted to play a role. The fact that so many died while others survived suggests that slavery and indentured servitude weeded out some of the genetically weak in America--perhaps what made America such a hearty people for such a long time.

Interbreeding with whites--which you characterized as rape--may have something to do with blacks in America having marginally higher IQ than blacks in other parts of the world.

I have not offered sympathy or moral support here, nor any moral outrage or justification. I have, however, clarified that terms like "rape" did not involve the feminist re-interpretation of that term, and as such was not seen in that light in those times.

The Immortal Goon wrote: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.

You can acknowledge whatever your imagination generates. That doesn't change the facts. There was a deliberate practice of "seasoning," in addition to the many people who died during the journey. The casualties in transit is more a function of natural selection, while the "seasoning" part can be thought of as unwitting selective breeding. The OP asks whether it is possible, and whether or not there was a deliberate practice. There is evidence to suggest that it did occur, but was not as widespread as suggested as the post-ban on the transatlantic slave trade produced a pronatalism sentiment among slave holders. Natalism was common in early America.

Rich wrote:No something wonderful happened to Black people, the arrival of White people. As a result, there are far, far more Black people alive living far higher standards of living. Just go Africa today and its filled with the technologies that White people invented. Black Africa was going nowhere before White people arrived to liberate it from its own backwardness and barbarism and from exploitation by Muslims.

That's true for the people as a whole, but not necessarily for individuals. When people like TiG are talking about "terrible things," they are talking about the effects on individuals. The British Empire was a huge boon for human civilization, but a lot of people hated it.

The Immortal Goon wrote:It would be like me saying, "being crippled sucks," and you responding, "No you were born and get to experience dessert, which tastes amazing!"

No. It's more like you saying, "I'm so hungry. I don't have enough to eat," and he responds, "Yes, but you survived child birth, early infant years, and grew. A hundred years ago, you'd probably have been stillborn."

Potemkin wrote:Vast swathes of Africa were almost entirely depopulated of the most productive segments of the population.

That's overstating things a bit.

Potemkin wrote:Can you imagine a white plantation owner in the Deep South doing such a thing?

How deep? Not every slave master was cruel to his slaves. A few even let slaves buy their freedom. Emancipation

Potemkin wrote:In fact, the trans-Atlantic slave trade gave slavery a bad name, and is the main reason it is now outlawed in almost all nations of the world.

Well, that's kinda sorta the case. Our trading relationship with China, for example, is about enslaving Chinese kids to make our tennis shoes. China goes along with it, as the real Great Leap Forward was MFN trading status with the US followed by accession to the WTO. The tolerance for illegal aliens is that it allows free American blacks to languish on welfare instead of taking unpleasant jobs serving white people. Hispanics fill those roles now, and many of them are illegally resident in the US.

anasawad wrote:The reason Africans are poor today is not because they're inferior but because other nations had centuries to develop while they were destroyed over and over again until finally starting the process of building their nations in the 20th century.

Africans were never even close to developing modern nation states themselves. The Scramble for Africa occurred because it became possible with quinine for whites to survive inland. Before that time, they wouldn't set foot inside the African continent as it surely meant death.
#14792141
Blackjack21 wrote:Blacks were mostly taken as slaves, and whites as indentured servants. It's not a narrative. It's a fact.


I didn't say it was "narrative." Nor did I say that there were no indentured servants. Just that it doesn't have anything to do with anything anybody said at all. But I understand, you don't feel that the spotlight is on you right now.

Hey everyone, we have someone that is bringing up what a victim he is. Let's go ahead and acknowledge Blackjack's hurt feelings, and maybe he'll discuss the topic and stop bringing up his blubbering victimhood.

Blackjack21 wrote:No. It's more like you saying, "I'm so hungry. I don't have enough to eat," and he responds, "Yes, but you survived child birth, early infant years, and grew. A hundred years ago, you'd probably have been stillborn."


That would be a more proper response if someone had stated that the Black Plague was the best thing to happen to Europe.

Blackjack21 wrote:You can acknowledge whatever your imagination generates. That doesn't change the facts.


It is technically true that irrelevant facts are still facts. But this does not change the fact that they are irrelevant.

Suntzu wrote:African empire = collection of mud huts.


Image
#14792168
LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX wrote:Question to anybody celebrating slavery: would you want to be a slave? If not, why not? And why doesn't that logic that you apply to yourself apply to black people?


No one that slaughters a sheep for her meat wants to be lamb stew either. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", to paraphrase your argument, is not a realistic moral position, it is just a cheap psychological trick.
#14792192
blackjack21 wrote:Blacks were mostly taken as slaves, and whites as indentured servants.


It is worth stating that the reason for that is that white slaves were completely unavailable because at the time of colonisation of the Americas slavery had long been be abolished throughout Europe (possibly due to the influence of Christianity). In contrast Africa had no such prohibitions. Hence why slaves were available from Africa but not from Europe.
#14792214
SolarCross wrote:No one that slaughters a sheep for her meat wants to be lamb stew either. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", to paraphrase your argument, is not a realistic moral position, it is just a cheap psychological trick.


Are you saying that slavery was a bad thing, and that people would not like being slaves?
#14792221
Pants-of-dog wrote:re you saying that slavery was a bad thing, and that people would not like being slaves?


While there probably were some slaves that had more comfortable lives than some free people I would say it is generally true that slavery is a considerably more unpleasant condition to be in than to be free. I certainly wouldn't want to live under communism for example. Isn't that obvious?
#14792227
So we agree with LV's implied argument that slavery is bad, and that those people who are arguing that slavery was a good thing are wrong.

Slavery was a very good thing for the slave-owners, but a very bad thing for the slaves. Whether something is 'good' or 'bad' really depends on one's point of view, which is to say, one's relation to the mode of production, wouldn't you say, PoD?
#14792228
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree with LV's implied argument that slavery is bad, and that those people who are arguing that slavery was a good thing are wrong.


I'll politely ignore the fact that you sound like a toddler and point out that slavery is "bad" from the perspective of slaves and those that genuinely sympathise with them. It presumably looks "good" from the perspective of the slaver. By analogy you probably think eating meat is "good" but I am not sure the animal you are eating would agree. Value, as ever, is subjective.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

And more complex regional and local identities. […]

The Evolution Fraud

What I'm asking is, which beliefs are we supposed[…]

I think any extradition would set a bad precedent[…]

YouTube functions as a platform, not a publisher,[…]