@Mott-The-Hoople
Of course, 300 years of slavery has nothing to do with folks alive today, since you are on such a simplistic course,
If folks are suppressed as slaves for CENTURIES something happens to them where they experience greater health issues, job inequality and the like and it will take another 100 years of unrelenting anti-racism in the US to put those Americans on a footing with Asians and such.
@sonhouse
Slavery would result in a physically robust group. Those with health issues would not be allowed to breed for the next generation. Positive characteristics like strength and more athletic would be the result.
A more tangible trait passed on from slavery is the idea that you try to survive by doimg as little work as possible without getting punished. This would be a point of view passed on from generation to generation.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidSo you are saying that Massachusetts is full of racist white people? I thought such a liberal Democrat state would be less racist than Republican states.
Wouldn't help much if you retained the present system of implicit and explicit racism:
Here's median income among one-race households in Massachusetts:
Asian: $91,150
Black or African-American: $46,925
Non-Hispanic white: $84,988
Hispanic or Latino: $41,995
https://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2018/09/13/massachusetts-income-poverty-inequality
About the same rat ...[text shortened]... ds ($87,194).
https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/Medianincome/state/MS
Looks like we really need to do something to correct this racist Asian bias.
@eladar saidSo blacks are genetically lazy, is that what you are claiming?
@sonhouse
Slavery would result in a physically robust group. Those with health issues would not be allowed to breed for the next generation. Positive characteristics like strength and more athletic would be the result.
A more tangible trait passed on from slavery is the idea that you try to survive by doimg as little work as possible without getting punished. This would be a point of view passed on from generation to generation.
The health of slaves was pretty crappy regardless of racist stereotypes to the contrary:
" Due to harsh living conditions and various privations, she said that slaves fell victim to a range of diseases and an infant mortality rate double that of the white population, yet much of this was written out of history. In fact, she noted, George Rosen’s seminal “A History of Public Health” (1958) says nothing about race or slavery. “The history of the field you are studying makes no mention of this.”
"Also overlooked, she said, is the fact that the health of African Americans barely improved after emancipation, owing to the hurdles former slaves faced procuring adequate food, shelter, and clothing. This led to a disproportionate number of African Americans dying during the early 20th-century smallpox epidemic, fostering arguments in some circles that slavery was better for black welfare. Even in 1981, she said, a North Carolina study found a higher black mortality rate because of lack of access to health services. “The negroes died because they were inferior,” Hammonds said, “And they were inferior because they died.”
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/10/ramifications-of-slavery-persist-in-health-care-inequality/
All this really shows that Biden was correct; schools need to teach the real history of what blacks have experienced in the US, not the fairy tales Eldy and others believe.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidSo to survive their genetics must be stronger. Seriously, you are not very bright.
So blacks are genetically lazy, is that what you are claiming?
The health of slaves was pretty crappy regardless of racist stereotypes to the contrary:
" Due to harsh living conditions and various privations, she said that slaves fell victim to a range of diseases and an infant mortality rate double that of the white population, yet much of this was written out of h ...[text shortened]... real history of what blacks have experienced in the US, not the fairy tales Eldy and others believe.
Poor white people suffered more than poor blacks. Slave owners wanted their property to live, a dead slave is a terrible waste of money. Dead white trash costs nothing at all.
@eladar saidSeriously, you are incredibly ignorant of genetics. A population poorly fed, inadequately sheltered and excessively worked under brutal conditions does not transform into a more physically robust group in the space of a few generations.
So to survive their genetics must be stronger. Seriously, you are not very bright.
Poor white people suffered more than poor blacks. Slave owners wanted their property to live, a dead slave is a terrible waste of money. Dead white trash costs nothing at all.
That you believe a bunch of stupid, racist stereotypes does not mean they have any relation to reality. Poor whites in the South were treated far better than slaves and had higher life expectancy and fewer rates of infant mortality and disease.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou do not know much about survival of the fittest. Only the strong can survive under difficult conditions, then those superior genetics are passed on. Generation after generation of inferior genetics dying out and superior genenetics gets passed on, a superior group results.
Seriously, you are incredibly ignorant of genetics. A population poorly fed, inadequately sheltered and excessively worked under brutal conditions does not transform into a more physically robust group in the space of a few generations.
That you believe a bunch of stupid, racist stereotypes does not mean they have any relation to reality. Poor whites in the South wer ...[text shortened]... r better than slaves and had higher life expectancy and fewer rates of infant mortality and disease.
It is why you see black athletes dominate the NFL and the NBA.
Fastest man in the world is never a black man from any part of Africa. The fastest man in the world always come from a heritage of slavery.
It is called survival of the fittest, you might want to educate yourself on the topic.
7 edits
@eladar saidThat is an outdated term no longer used in evolutionary science.
You do not know much about survival of the fittest.
It not about being the "fittest" but how well-adapted organisms are to their environment. A larger, stronger animal may not be able to survive in areas where food is scarce; a weaker, smaller animal that can survive on less food in that area would be better adapted to that environment; or if that smaller animal can hide in and access places the larger animal can't reach, that could be an evolutionary advantage.
Blacks would be at a major disadvantage where they were the minority and the majority us actively oppressing, killing and enslaving them.
It is called survival of the fittest, you might want to educate yourself on the topic.
Follow your own advice.
@vivify saidsmall animal would be eaten by the larger animal...
That is an outdated term no longer used in evolutionary science.
It not about being the "fittest" but how well-adapted organisms are to their environment. A larger, stronger animal may not be able to survive in areas where food is scarce; a weaker, smaller animal that can survive on less food in that area would be better adapted to that environment; or if that smaller ...[text shortened]... survival of the fittest, you might want to educate yourself on the topic"
Follow your own advice.
@mott-the-hoople said"or if that smaller animal can hide in and access places the larger animal can't reach, that could be an evolutionary advantage."---Vivify
small animal would be eaten by the larger animal...
@vivify saidChange the term all you like, but those who survive pass on their genetics, those who so not survive do not.
That is an outdated term no longer used in evolutionary science.
It not about being the "fittest" but how well-adapted organisms are to their environment. A larger, stronger animal may not be able to survive in areas where food is scarce; a weaker, smaller animal that can survive on less food in that area would be better adapted to that environment; or if that smaller ...[text shortened]... ival of the fittest, you might want to educate yourself on the topic.[/b]
Follow your own advice.
If a group of people who are exposed to poor diet and disease, in a few generations that group will have a higher percentage of people who can survive with poor diets and exposed to those diseases. It makes the group stronger, not weaker.
@mott-the-hoople saidWho survived: the small mammals or the dinosaurs?
small animal would be eaten by the larger animal...
@eladar saidIt's really difficult to debate people so profoundly ignorant of the most basic concepts.
Change the term all you like, but those who survive pass on their genetics, those who so not survive do not.
If a group of people who are exposed to poor diet and disease, in a few generations that group will have a higher percentage of people who can survive with poor diets and exposed to those diseases. It makes the group stronger, not weaker.
No, starving people does not lead to a genetically stronger next generation nor does excessively working them nor does denying them adequate health care.
@eladar saiddinosaurs were not wiped out by other animals.
Change the term all you like, but those who survive pass on their genetics, those who so not survive do not.
If a group of people who are exposed to poor diet and disease, in a few generations that group will have a higher percentage of people who can survive with poor diets and exposed to those diseases. It makes the group stronger, not weaker.
@no1marauder saidignorance is not understanding the premise of “only the strong survive.”
It's really difficult to debate people so profoundly ignorant of the most basic concepts.
No, starving people does not lead to a genetically stronger next generation nor does excessively working them nor does denying them adequate health care.