# Sensitive racism question: looking for research



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Okay, in brief the topic is selective breeding during slavery in the US.

Expanded:
A handful (or more) of years ago a semi-famous sports figure (like a retired player turned coach or announcer) who is white got into a ton of hot water for saying something publicly to the effect that 'Of course blacks excel at sports. They are physically superior as a result of breeding programs among slaves.' He was roundly castigated as a racist.

I have since heard the same idea from a few other people online who I already considered to be racists based on previous comments. When I asked them to show me some proof that such breeding programs existed they fell back on "Duh... it's obvious, you expletive deleted bleeding heart liberal!"

So I tried to find some information one way or the other. The closest I was able to find on a pretty hard target first pass was some information about how some slave women were intentionally sent to brothels for a time to get them pregnant... which is nothing like breeding the strongest together intentionally. It is really more about quantity that 'quality' as it gives half the genetic contribution to whichever random white man happened to have the price at the right time to impregnate any particular woman. A plan of action like that seems to be more directed at getting a lot of women pregnant and having them earn cash until they are.

So at that point I wrote the whole thing off as a twisted racist fantasy. When I would try to wrap my mind around the logistics of making it work I was amazed at how much trouble it would actually be for the slaveholders to accomplish, not to mention that it would, under the mores of the day, have been a highly unseemly undertaking. In addition, there are plenty records from that time available that have been closely examined and if such a thing happened surely it would be known and documented as fact.

Which brings me to now. The other night I caught Chris Rock's new HBO special. And he trots this "fact" out. My jaw dropped. I happen to think Rock is a very, very sharp man and I am always impressed by how he blends razor sharp social commentary with piss your pants funny. He is not dumb and he is not a racist. So now I am back at square one. Is this true? Where can I look to find better information?

Let me close by saying I apologize to anyone to whom this question, the context or anything I have said is offensive. I am a white woman raised in a racist society trying to learn better so I can do better. If I have misspoken or overstepped, please tell me.

Thanks in advance to anyone who read this far.


----------



## 1jooj (Apr 8, 2002)

Was it another layer in his social commentary--i.e., painting a picture by using this "fact?"

I mean, was he putting this statement in a context that would only highlight its offensiveness? Intentionally discrediting?

I think you know what I mean because you're smart, obviously not because I'm well spoken...


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Okay, this is a fascinating question! In fact, it may be enough to get my huge, pregnant butt out to a library sometime in the near future. I have heard this before, and I'm fairly certian that it's true. Not only were people 'bred' to be strong, loyal, whatever, but women were often 'bred' for having twins (which is one of the reason that to this day black women are more likely to have twins than white women) and for lighter skin (they were raped by plantation owners & their sons to produce lighter skinned children). I'm really not sure where to start looking, though. I would guess on a university campus at the library, or by writing to a professor of African American studies. (I happen to know a guy who's mother is the head of the AA studies department at a local university.. if I can find him, I'll ask his mom.)


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

....eilowny, I'm not so sure about the "breeding" thing, as I've seen advertisments placed in newspapers selling a female slave "no fault except pregnant", or wording very similar, time and time again.

Also, until the slave trade/importation was stopped, there was no incentive to do any selective breeding. Africa had an inexhaustible supply, in the slavers' minds, and they just worked them to death. More production for less expense than anything involved in a breeding program.

The intervening years between halting the importation (1807) and the end of the Civil War and Emancipation (1865) would not have been enough to permit any widespread breeding program. Hmmm. 58 years. Even if the females were impregnated as early as possible (let's say 14 on average, allowing for later menstruation than there is now) that only allows for, at most, 3.5 generations. Nope. Can't do it. You need six or seven generations for cattle. Humans are much more complicated.

I've always chalked it up to another one of "those" theories.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Jooj... fair enough question but it seemed like a pretty straight comment to me.

Eilowny, how could they have bred for twins? Rape was a form of breeding program? I guess I just figured rape was rape. Why would lighter skinned slaves have been desirable? (Seriously asking here... it seems to me that if their 'otherness' was what made it 'okay' to enslave them you would want to preserve and accentuate that, not diminish it.) If you have some ideas where to research that is great! Thank you!


----------



## Katie Bugs Mama (Feb 1, 2004)

I did a little bit of poking around on the net, and what I came up with generally supports what Sohj said. Basically, the stuff fell into two categories: 1) websites that repeated the claim about breeding programs without offering any support and 2) websites that talked about how female slaves were expected to have as many babies as possible in order to replace those that died (after 1808 when importation was outlawed.)

One website said that female slaves were sometimes promised their freedom if they had a certain number of children (usually 15) but made it clear that not many women survived the ordeal of having so many children under those conditions so very few women claimed their "reward." Another site quoted a slave-owner's journal in which he attributed his financial success to buying adult males so that he never had to worry about the expense of feeding pregnant women and growing children. He clearly wasn't interested in a breeding program. Another site quoted an Abolitionist's journal in which he described a system in which particularly strong male slaves were forced to live with one woman until she became pregnant and then were moved to another woman's cabin until she became pregnant. However, this journal (and the site that it was published on) didn't give any further information.

In short, I didn't find any evidence of a wide-spread "breeding program" and, like Sohj says, there wouldn't have been enough time for such a program to have made a lasting difference on the general population anyway.

And on the subject of breeding "for" lighter skin color, I didn't find any information about that, but my gut reaction is to be skeptical: the lighter a slave's skin, the easier it could be for him or her to hid if he or she ever escaped. This doesn't seem to be a trait that the slaveowners would try to breed for. Also, in the racist thinking of the day, darker skin was associated with being more animal-like and more suitable for the relentless work that slaves were forced to perform; I'm guessing that the flip side of this belief could have been that lighter-skinned slaves were less suitable for the work and thus less desirable. I suspect that the slaveowners raped the slaves because they could







rather than because of a breeding agenda.


----------



## Gentlegreen (Mar 14, 2003)

I remember that guy. I believe his stated that black people were more physically powerful in this country because only the strongest of the slaves survived the arduous trip over from Africa, not because of an active "breeding" (ugh) program.

He got slammed and rightfully so. He thought he was actually being complementary, but the real message was "you are good at sports only because of what happened to your ancestors, thanks to whites, not because of any inherent power or talent."


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

hhmm... I coulda sworn he said it was selective breeding. I'm not sure how to try to verify without a name. Might have been Jimmy the Greek of "black people don't float" fame.


----------



## AmyB (Nov 21, 2001)

The "breeding program" thing isounds pretty racist. In fact, runners from Kenya seem to have an advantage over other runners, and scientists have studied them to try to find out why.

But what that means is that people of African descent may have some kind of inherited athletic superiority, not that former slaves do.

--AmyB

Kenyan dominance in distance running.
Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2003 Sep;136(1):161-70. Review.

Kenyan runners from the Rift Valley (2,000 metres above sea level) have dominated world middle and endurance events for thirty years.
J Sci Med Sport. 2000 Dec;3(4):v-vi. No abstract available.

Training and bioenergetic characteristics in elite male and female Kenyan runners.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Feb;35(2):297-304; discussion 305-6.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

look what happened to the late TV gambling maven Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, who tried - albeit ungracefully - to address black supremacy on the field. "The black is a better athlete because he's been bred to be that way," Snyder said one fateful January evening in 1988. "During slave trading, the slave owner would breed his big woman so that he would have a big black kid, see. That's where it all started."

The reaction was swift and merciless. For his tipsy candor, Snyder was immediately fired and banished from the public eye. He died years later lonely and bitter about his exile.
http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/dai...onstructed.htm

In poking around online about this I am coming up with many references to a book by John Entine called "Taboo".


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

total random hearsay memory - but i do recall hearing something - in one of my many research binges - that they did try to get lighter skinned house slaves. Usually the owner's children with the women who worked in the house.

BUt like i said - i have nothing to back it up. And no clue where i got it from.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Women of the Yoruba tribe in Nigeria have the highest incidence of fraternal twinning in the world - about 5% of all births (FWIW, Japanese women have the lowest, although I don't remember the exact incidence). The incidence of identical twins is the same for everyone...

Many of the people brought over here as slaves were Yoruba.

Here's an interesting link of breeding:
http://www.africana.com/research/bla...30210breed.asp

I agree that there wasn't enough time or organization for a true breeding program, although it seems clear that certain slaves were at very least coerced into having sexual relations with each other, and with the slaveowners.

Dar


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
it seems clear that certain slaves were at very least coerced into having sexual relations with each other

How does that seem clear? I'm not trying to nitpick. I just don't see it as obvious at all.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

One way to learn about life in slavery is by reading slave narratives. Many of these first-person memoirs, written originally to motivate the abolitionist movement, have been reprinted. This website has excerpts from slave narratives and from secondary sources on slavery in the US. Here is what they quote about the subject of "breeding."

You can learn a lot about sexual/reproductive coercion, including slave "owners" abrogating to themselves the right of decision about who would marry whom, in slave narratives. When Dar said "It seems clear" I was assuming she meant "from historical sources."

I think when people call it "breeding slaves" it's a mystification. If you think about the Romanian pro-natalist policy of the 1980s but more intense and with less choice, that seems more like it to me. In Romania in the 1980s, there was no available contraception, abortion was suddenly made illegal, and the state began to reward women who had children with financial incentives--but at the same time would punish with prison women who terminated pregnancies and would investigate miscarriages. Now imagine that the state is incarnated in the person of your "owner", who can supervise you really really closely, and has the legal right to rape you and impregnate you.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kama'aina mama*
How does that seem clear? I'm not trying to nitpick. I just don't see it as obvious at all.

Sorry, I was unclear... I meant it seemed clear from the website I'd posted. Here's a quote:

"A slave breeder would select a group of healthy young black women and lock them up with some healthy black men who were strengthened by having been fed meat, not in the usual slave rations. After a few days it was hoped that the women would be pregnant."

I think it's a really interesting site, just to browse around...

Dar


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

I'm sorry Dar... I was having trouble with that link at first. I would actually like to try and track sown more on that Eubie Blake story and John Hope Franklin's writings. But what you quote... no offense but with some kind of footnote it's just "stuff on the web", ya know? I'm looking for specific info from slave journals, records of attempts and successes, etc by slave holders. At the risk of sounding crude... breeders keep records. There is enough of a paper trail from that period that there almost has to be evidence if this occurred... particularly if it was widespread.

All I can find so far is info like Capt O linked to... indications that slaves were encouraged/forced to breed frequently but not of selective breeding.


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

My theory on the sports issue (which is justy MY THEORY and not meant as offensive to anyone, and is based on very very broad generalizations), is that in general in the US, blacks were/are poorer and more disadvantaged than whites, and it is far easier and cheaper to buy a baseball/bat, basketball, soccer ball or to run, than to buy hockey equipment or equestrian equipment, etc. that (not all) whites could afford. So therefore it is economics and not genetics that makes blacks good at baseball, basketball, soccer, and not, say, hockey.

If this sounds offensive to anyone (and it is not meant that way), please let me know and I will delete.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Backing up Adina here, I think I've heard as well- sorry, no hard sources!- that lighter skinned slaves were used as house slaves, & darker skinned slaves were used as field hands. Altho if you spent all your days under the harsh sun you'd naturally go darker, wouldn't you? And if you spent all your days in the dark laundry scrubbing away, you'd naturally go lighter, so I dunno......

Interesting theory you're onto, Kama....

I agree that in 3 or 4 generations you wouldn't really see any sort of difference from some sort of breeding program. And please remember that the concept of inheritance was introduced first (I believe) by Darwin in 1857. And the concept of genes came even later with the research of Gregor Mendel. But just because a breeding program wouldn't necessarily show results doesn't mean that some slave owners didn't try it....

If there is any sort of race-based athletic superiority, it prolly goes back to the region of orgin (i.e. Africa), where the ability evolved there under particular environmental conditions (altitude, for example). I guess you could just celebrate it as a wonderful example of the diversity of the human species, from a biological & evolutionary perspective....

Anyway, that's my two bobs worth.....


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Um... how are you defining "a generation"? The average slave girl had her first pregnancy by the age of 13, from what I recall. There also seems to be an implication that it was easier to buy slaves fresh off the boat than to breed them here, and that's totally false. From the earliest days of slavery, plantation owners noticed that slaves who were born into it were easier to control than African-born slaves. They were interested in breeding and selling American born slaves long before the importation of slaves from Africa was prohibited.

Twins are easy.. you get a woman who *is* a fraternal twin and then encourage her to have babies. Women who are (fraternal) twins are more likely to have twins themselves (I'll find someplace online to back that up, but it's pretty well documented).

Lighter skinned slaves were desireable for breeding and for housework for many reasons, but not for fieldwork. It also depended on how much say the Lady of the House had, because they were more inclined to choose darker women for house slaves. Lighter ones were reminders of all sorts of unpleasant things. I wish I could find one of those books about "the beautiful but tragic mulatto women"; it was quite a popular genre back in the day. I promise to go looking just as soon as I can walk around comfortably again.

Was it easier for light skinned slaves to "pass"? Absolutely. That's why there were so many convoluted ways of determining whether or not someone was black. Haven't you ever wondered where the "One Drop" mentality came from? Still, a slave was a slave, though some of them were more "white" than "black". Thomas Jefferson had a child by his (slave) mistress who was reputed to look more like him than his white son. This sort of thing happened all the time on plantations (though more often through rape than any sort of 'relationship'). Mulatto (mixed) women tend to be very attractive, and white men were (are!!) especially intrigued by them. Where do you think the words "mulatto", "quadroon", and "octaroon" came from? The children would just keep getting lighter and lighter, and they'd still remain in slavery even with their blue eyes and their straight hair.


----------



## Katie Bugs Mama (Feb 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum*
I agree that in 3 or 4 generations you wouldn't really see any sort of difference from some sort of breeding program. And please remember that the concept of inheritance was introduced first (I believe) by Darwin in 1857. And the concept of genes came even later with the research of Gregor Mendel. But just because a breeding program wouldn't necessarily show results doesn't mean that some slave owners didn't try it....

You're right (as far as I know) that the science of genetics (and eugenics for that matter) didn't really even begin to come into being until the middle of the 1800's at the earliest. However, people did know a lot about breeding animals for certain traits. It's not outside the realm of possibility that a slaveowner who viewed his human chattel as being pretty much the same as his canine or equine chattel might have tried to breed the slaves for certain desirable traits the same way that he would have tried to breed particularly good hunting dogs or particularly fast race horses.


----------



## mahdokht (Dec 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Irishmommy*
My theory on the sports issue (which is justy MY THEORY and not meant as offensive to anyone, and is based on very very broad generalizations), is that in general in the US, blacks were/are poorer and more disadvantaged than whites, and it is far easier and cheaper to buy a baseball/bat, basketball, soccer ball or to run, than to buy hockey equipment or equestrian equipment, etc. that (not all) whites could afford. So therefore it is economics and not genetics that makes blacks good at baseball, basketball, soccer, and not, say, hockey.

If this sounds offensive to anyone (and it is not meant that way), please let me know and I will delete.


Not only that, but one factor that few people seem to mention or even realize is PRACTICE. These kids pracitce 24/7 they play and play and play, they watch it on TV, go to local games. If you want to be a poet you must read poetry and write poetry, the same with any skill that you want to acquire. They acquire that level of mastery from hard work.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mahdokht*
Not only that, but one factor that few people seem to mention or even realize is PRACTICE. These kids pracitce 24/7 they play and play and play, they watch it on TV, go to local games. If you want to be a poet you must read poetry and write poetry, the same with any skill that you want to acquire. They acquire that level of mastery from hard work.

YES! This is the POINT!









To me, historical material about "slave breeding" isn't a way of explaining people's physical characteristics or talents. It's an aspect of the oppressiveness of slavery, a way of understanding the slaveholders' intentional dehumanization of African Americans. Ditto all the colorist stuff about the "beautiful but tragic mulatto women"--(_vey iz mir_, you aren't buying into that are you? You've gotta be ironic there--Geez, Alice Walker blasted trope that out of the water in the 1970s...)


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Good point Eilonwy, about slaveholders wanting a 'home-grown' slave production program way before the end of slave trade. Remember, people kidnapped out of Africa & other places would not speak English & would have an entire cultural history that would 'get in the way' of being a 'good' slave. Not that American born slaves wouldn't have that, but it would be different because they wouldn't have experienced a different way of life (free) first hand.

KatieBugsmama, yep, the slave owners would definitely have known about breeding animals, even without understanding the genetics aspect. Which is what makes me think they would have at least tried to breed for certain traits they held desirable...... because I don't think they actually viewed Africans as 'human' but as 'animals'...... Nevermind the fact that we all are actually 'animals'.....

Does anybody else feel a little weird writing stuff like this on a public board? Feels strange & distasteful to talk about these things, yet I know we shouldn't hide from this sort of discussion......... learn from the past & all that.......

And Mahdokht, so true..... practice anything long enough & you'll become reasonably good at it, & those with a true 'gift' will really stand out as spectacular from all that practice........


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
Ditto all the colorist stuff about the "beautiful but tragic mulatto women"--(_vey iz mir_, you aren't buying into that are you? You've gotta be ironic there--Geez, Alice Walker blasted trope that out of the water in the 1970s...)

:LOL







You've never seen my picture in my sig link, eh? Being a "beautiful but tragic mulatto woman" myself, no, I don't really buy into that crap. :LOL Still, it's an aspect of racism which most people will never have to deal with: the antagonism within the black community towards light-skinned people, particularly women. Colorism is an issue unto itself... a subset of racism, if you will. And now, we have totally ventured







T. :LOL


----------



## menudo (May 21, 2002)

Interesting thread. Isn't it funny at how we still have trouble even discussing these topics? Scary.

Not much to contribute but a good read.


----------



## Marsupialmom (Sep 28, 2003)

You can find information on animal breeding in the bible. If I remember correctly Abraham does this.

Jimmy the Geek was a moron for saying what he did, but most likely it was because of what he was taught. He got in a lot of trouble for it because he was white.

But there is a Black Coach that said something just as moronic and he gets away with it because he is black (hipocracy). http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...07-baker_x.htm

As for controlling sexual partners with in slavery could have served more than "better" breeding issue.

If there were week emotional ties between father and off spring the father would be less likely to defend (escape) child and woman (or that could have been one of the thinking).

Lack of fatherly/husband loyalty would make him more for himself and if he would run it would me he would run by himself.

Think about the perceived advantages of having women with babies from many/more than one father. Who is going to help her escape? This makes her more dependent and afraid to leave the "umbrella" (perceived protection) of a slave owner.

Interfering with love/family bonds interferes with what bonds people together. (At least some owners could perceive this. If you interfere with bonds they will less likely form a group and rebel/rise against you.

Africans made good slaves not just because they were plenty but they could not blend in and European germs did not kill them. When Native American was the slave majority they could easily escape and blend in receiving protection from similar looking people. Africans just did not have that protection. They were in foreign lands with foreign languages and very little bonds with others.

So even though there could be the animal husbandry aspects of controlled sex partners there could have been many psychological reasoning. Does that make since? It could have been a way to opress and control their slave "stock".


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

And while we're on such a grim topic, my understanding is that slave owners would sell off children at a young age to also break the family bonds. Really, if I let the whole meaning of that sort of behaviour sit in my brain for a minute..... it's unspeakable. The kind of reality that is just very difficult to confront......

Don't really want to go too deep there today- I'm enjoying feeling okay with the world for the mo.....

And so, on a lighter note, the baseball/football? coach in Marsupialmoms link..........







He should meet my hubby (of Irish descent). Honestly, as if I could get the man to move anywhere where it even frosts, much less snows!!! He puts his woolly beanie on if the temperature drops below 15 deg Celcius & claims that he's going to freeze to death. That is just too funny!!

However, I have heard that the adaptability to cold/hot climates has more to do with your blood. When you live in a hot climate, your blood becomes somewhat thinner, & when you live in a cold climate, blood becomes thicker. It seems that's why a lot of people who come from the northern hemisphere/cold places to visit Australia in the summer sometimes drop over & pass out when they step off the plane into a humid wall of heat. And perhaps that's why Aussies don't seem to do to well in the Winter Olympics! So maybe the coach was onto something- only it's not race, but where the players of a particular race have grown up ie: the South (in the northern hemi), perhaps???


----------



## maatmama (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't have much time to fully respond (I want to and will) but I will post this link for info. WARNING EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE http://www.afrocentricnews.com/html/lynch.htm
BTW the lightskinned/darkskinned differences served as a divider for people of African ancestry if you were lightskinned you worked in the house close to the master (your skin "proof" of your genetic closeness) and were somehow better than the "savage" that worked in the field.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

I tracked down the back story on what maatmama linked to. I was unfamiliar with this before. It seems strange to say thank you for having been exposed to something so ugly, but thank you.

Quote:

The following has been credited to William Lynch, a White slave owner, who reportedly made the speech on the banks of the James River in 1712. It was quoted at length by Minister Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March where it stunned m any in the audience because of the cold-blooded way it described how the minds of African-Americans could be enslaved.
According to an essay appearing in "Brother Man- The Odyssey of Black Men in America- An Anthology" Lynch was a British slave owner in the West Indies who came to the United States to tell American slave owners how to keep their slaves under control. The term "lynching" is derived from Lynch's name.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum*

However, I have heard that the adaptability to cold/hot climates has more to do with your blood. When you live in a hot climate, your blood becomes somewhat thinner, & when you live in a cold climate, blood becomes thicker.









T Actually, it has to do with a special layer of fat rather than with your blood. If you live in a hot climate (or are forced to wear a sweater/jacket when you're not cold) these fat cells will be killed off (unlike other fat cells, they totally disappear when they're not utilized) so you will have a lower threshold for cold tolerance than someone raised in a cold climate and not overdressed. This is why you should never force your child to wear a sweater/jacket/whatever just because you're cold; eventually, you'll force them to *need* one.


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

This might seem offensive, but it's a sincere question:

If the slave owners considered the slaves not human, why would they even consider sleeping with them? Were they all into bestiality? I don't get it.


----------



## lab (Jun 11, 2003)

Interesting thread.

Someone mentioned that slave owners wouldn't have had a 'breeding program' in place because it would have only been carried out for about 3 or 4 generations..... Just wanted to point out that if a 'breeding program' was started, the slave owner would not have known he had a time constraint. While I do think it is despicable, a property owner would have wanted the best 'stock'. Come on, these people were raping these woman, they would have no compunction whatsoever in selecting their mate.....

I'm not trying to argue whether the practice has had any effect on current African Americans, my point is that I do believe it is plausible that a program was in place.

Gosh this is so offensive to even type. UGH!


----------



## sharksmum (Dec 31, 2003)

I tried to post this last night but lost it, grrr.
I'm taking this info from a great book: "A Shining Thread of Hope: The History of Black Women in America" by Darlene Clark Hine and Kathleen Thompson.

(Quote) "So long as it was possible to buy slaves easily and fairly cheaply, black women were not pressured to produce children...Because the masters valued their productive labor more than their reproductive capacities, women workers seldom experienced love and family life as we understand it."

Later, women slaves became valued more for their reproductive capacities. (In the mind of a slave owner, a continuous supply of free slaves) There is significant research that shows that women were sexually and reproductively abused and exploited both directly by slave owners and by forced reproduction with selected male slaves.

(Slave narrative quoted in the same book) "Master would sometimes go and get a large, hale, hearty ***** man from some other plantation to go to his ***** woman. He would ask the other master to let this man come over to his place to go to his slave girls. A slave girl was expected to have children as soon as she became a woman."

That said, I hardly think that the rudimentary eugenics (ie big strong man + big strong woman = big strong baby) practices by slave owners can be used to explain blacks proficiency at sports today.

I think we'd be better off looking at possible socio-economic factors. Black people have been systematically shut out of political and economic life in the US for most of its history. To me its not surprising that they have excelled in the specific areas reserved for them within an extremely racist society. In addition, through scholarships, sports have successfully been used as a tool to gain access to higher education that otherwise would have been unavailable to them. Had the opportunities to become lawyers, professors and politicians been available to black people on the same level as whites throughout American history, they would have excelled at these pursuits other than sports.

Thanks for letting me jump in. It's an interesting discussion.
Jess


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Thank you for taking the time to type that sharksmum. Okay... I guess it was done... maybe not everywhere all the time. But it was done. Oh man this topic sucks.

Oh, and just to be clear... I am in no way endorsing or supporting the theory that eugenics has anything to do with how African Americans perform in athletic contests now. I simply wanted to get to the bottom of "everyone _knows_ slaveowners engaged in selective breeding..."


----------



## Katie Bugs Mama (Feb 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maatmama*
I don't have much time to fully respond (I want to and will) but I will post this link for info. WARNING EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE http://www.afrocentricnews.com/html/lynch.htm
BTW the lightskinned/darkskinned differences served as a divider for people of African ancestry if you were lightskinned you worked in the house close to the master (your skin "proof" of your genetic closeness) and were somehow better than the "savage" that worked in the field.

Check out this article: http://www.africana.com/articles/dai...30929lynch.asp

William Jelani Cobb, a professor of History at Spelman College, argues very persuasively that this speech supposedly given by a slave-owner named Willie Lynch is a hoax.


----------



## Susu (May 31, 2002)

hmmm









fwiw, this is what i was told in school as the possible theory. (jr high i think):
the process of bringing slaves over from africa was torturous. it involved a sometimes lengthy stay in a crowded holding cell along the west coast of africa followed by obscenely cruel conditions on board a transport ship. Many many were killed in the process. The ones who survived such conditions were considered to be unusually strong and resilient. African americans are descendents of these people.


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

Quote:

Black people have been systematically shut out of political and economic life in the US for most of its history. To me its not surprising that they have excelled in the specific areas reserved for them within an extremely racist society. In addition, through scholarships, sports have successfully been used as a tool to gain access to higher education that otherwise would have been unavailable to them. Had the opportunities to become lawyers, professors and politicians been available to black people on the same level as whites throughout American history, they would have excelled at these pursuits other than sports.
this is what i'm thinking, too. also that african american kids are fed the image of sports star thru the contemporary media, and wish to emulate it, and do. and like
mahdokht pointed out, thru constant practice, become very very good at their chosen sport.

interesting thread.


----------



## mahdokht (Dec 2, 2002)

http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/mulatto/

this has been a very interesting thread. i thought that the above article was informative, though slightly off topic.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Mahdokht, that was interesting.... continuing the OT-ness for a seccy...... with possibly a very stupid question, but here goes......

Do you reckon there are many people in the US who are still willing to 'pass' as 'white', knowing that they are also 'black'? I guess to me it seems a rather weird concept, even knowing what little I do about American race politics..... how can you only be one or the other, when a person is plainly both? I mean, I have a good mate who is mixed race- part English, part Papua New Guinean..... & he is both races, KWIM? I also know he's copped a lot of shit over the years about being mixed, but he 'claims' both.....

BTW, kama, how's the research on physiology & athleticism going? Or have we gone so far OT that you've given up??


----------



## menudo (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

how can you only be one or the other, when a person is plainly both?
Exactly. Some people say "because you will be assumed the non white side of you, that's what you live and claim". I disagree with this way of thinking for so many reasons. I say BE PROUD, but don't deny any of you, in any form. I worry, my DD is assumed white, but DH is dark brown skinned assumed African American. People sware I lied and he ain't Daddy (they look alike!!). They also tell him he must be "mixed" and no way he is from 2 Latino parents.

Americans are really obsessed with the concept of race, which is pure BS, a tool of oppression! In other countries it is religion, tribe, etnicity, etc. Here we are color obsessed.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

T I think there are lots of people willing to pass as white, but not so many as before. It's cool to be mixed these days.







: Still there are people out there passing. Most of them are older, but there are younger ones around.

How can you only be one or the other when you're plainly both? Um, not everyone is plainly both. Not by a long stretch. I'm certainly light enough to pass for white; even with my hair curly, I can do it. I have a sister who wouldn't appear mixed to any but the most careful observer... I have a son with blue eyes, straight hair, and no mongolian spots. People without experience with mixed babies (and quite a few with) have a hard time believing that he's not white. There are lots and lots and lots of mixed people out there who don't "look mixed". Lots of us look like one or the other, and lots feel a need to identify one way or another. It's a real conundrum for those of us who have to deal with it.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Eilonwy, yes, I see what you mean. I was thinking of my mate, who is clearly 'both' to me, but certainly it's not always going to be that straight-forward, is it?? And how I see things is not necessarily how others see things either, particularly if you don't actually know a person's family background........


----------

