- This topic has 7 voices and 53 replies.
-
Posts
-
It was a horrible thing to do take people from their homes ship them across the ocean and force them to work. However it did help the country grow by increasing the output of the plantations which increased trade with other nations. Back then slavery was all over the world not just in the USA. One of the reasons there are some really big black people is they used to breed the best of thier stock together to make stronger workers. Now a lot of professional sports players are black and this might just be because there was slavery in America.
Slavery has always existed in many different forms, some worse than others. I would argue that the sexual slavery that occurs today is in some ways worse than African slavery. today's slaves are simply killed when no longer useful, that never happened in America that I know of.
It was a horrible thing to do take people from their homes ship them across the ocean and force them to work. However it did help the country grow by increasing the output of the plantations which increased trade with other nations. Back then slavery was all over the world not just in the USA. One of the reasons there are some really big black people is they used to breed the best of thier stock together to make stronger workers. Now a lot of professional sports players are black and this might just be because there was slavery in America.
Uh, I don't think this argument is provable, nor do I think it's even worth proving. Tiger Woods isn't bigger than John Daly or Phil Mickelson, he's just a better golfer. He got that good because he practiced his butt off since the age of 5. I think the reason that minorities have such a strong representation in professional sports is because so many of them come from disadvantaged economic conditions and used sports as a way to greater success. In other words, they were more motivated because they saw sports as their best hope. So basically just having good athletic genes doesn't automatically give one overwhelming advantages....desire, skill, and a hard work ethic go with the physical gifts.
Wasnt there a sportscaster that got pilloried in the 80's for making a similar argument. I think Howard Cosell??
Ahh, that's right. I thought the argument was simplistic and insupportable then and have not changed my opinion. unfortunately I committed the error of not reading the original post all the way through at first and only responded to the beginning or I would have addressed that aspect of the post as well.
Here is Jimmy the Greek's statement:
The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way ? because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs. This goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trading, the owner ? the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid.
I'm trying to figure out if the controversy was over the sound of what he said or the content of it.
I think both statements are racism (with a poisitve spin…if you want to call it that 🙂If true, then why do blacks not dominate bicycle racing, soccer, rugby; sports that take incredible speed, endurance, and leg strength?
I think both statements are racism (with a poisitve spin...if you want to call it that 🙂If true, then why do blacks not dominate bicycle racing, soccer, rugby; sports that take incredible speed, endurance, and leg strength?
Because they are stereotypes... which means they are true just often enough for people to notice but are not the case 100% of the time. according to my old HS history teachers stereotypes exist because there is a degree of truth to them, not because they are true. 8)
Stereotypes are almost impossible to prove or disprove. By their very nature stereotypes are unscientific. It is like deuctive versus inductive logic.
http://homepage.interaccess.com/~netpol/POLISH/historia/HodowlaNiewolnikow.htmlI find this relevant to the discussion here, the original post is not out of the realm of possiblity.Please read this speech given by Willie Lynch in Virginia. This is a complex, well developed method for breaking the mind and will of a slave, ultimately creating a male with bodily strength and weakness of mind.
http://homepage.interaccess.com/~netpol/POLISH/historia/HodowlaNiewolnikow.htmlI find this relevant to the discussion here, the original post is not out of the realm of possiblity.Please read this speech given by Willie Lynch in Virginia. This is a complex, well developed method for breaking the mind and will of a slave, ultimately creating a male with bodily strength and weakness of mind.
First, What is the evidence that this method was adopted by southern slave owners?Second, if you analyze this speech within the context of the time it was given there is probably nothing exceptional about it. I don't understand why this should be shocking. Of course slaveowners were brutal, that is how you control people, the Russians did it in the Gulag, the Germans did it at Auschwitz, and come to think of it the Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, and many other slaveowning cultures did the same. I do not understand why Southern American slaveowners are singled out for opprobium while British and French ones are not. I have never come across a shred of evidence for the selective breeding of slaves despite not a little bit of time researching this. Just because the idea sounds appealing does not make it true.
There is a difference Scout, in the way Rome and other ancient empires treated slaves, in that many ultimately had a chance at freedom. Even so called 'free states' enforced the Fugitive Slave Act.Race didn't matter, slavery was a social class except in the Dutch colonies of the New World, slavery becomes a lot for dark skinned peoples of Africa, Carribean, Cuba etc.I don't say that male slaves were first bred to be strong for the sake of creating a master race of bohemoths, the point was to destroy the family and the unity shared by husband and wife, the connection of mother and child. Jefferson in his "Letters from the Farm, tells us the true value of the female slave is to reproduce, increasing the wealth of the slave owner, by the time J. wrote these letters slaves were no longer being taken from Africa, so reproduction was the best way to have more slaves.Frederick Douglass describes this alienation of family members quite clearly in his Narrative, that it was imperative to controlling a slave population, that they be turned against one another, to point where spys were set in among slaves and in response you see the psycological conditioning at work to the extreme of slaves praising masters who were likely to flogg a slave, as being superior.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
