Isn't her theory essentially your theory - an abnormal immigrant experience ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 15, 2005 2:40 PM

Lamarckism might work too.

There was no racism before 1859?

Only a fool, a coward, or someone completely unfamiliar with livestock management would believe that slavery had no impact on the genetic makeup and social traditions of those human livestock. The brutal and all-too-human processes of capturing, shipping, domesticating, breeding, and disciplining those unfortunate souls must have left a mark on both their genes and their culture.

Sounds like an excuse for crap behaviour.

More babbling resulting from the confusion of biological with social evolution.

The only argument for biological differentiation due to the slave experience would be that the dumb, slow ones are the ones that lost the wars back in Africa and got themselves caught.

What is wrong with this line is that the offspring of the first generations of captives would regress* back to the norm for the entire pre-captivity population. (*"regress" in the genetic sense, although the regression would be in the direction of greater intellingence and speed)

As to social traits, we should agree somewhat with ghostcat. This phenomenen explains a tendency toward dependency--toward socialism, really, that we sometimes see among African-Americans to a greater extent that those of similar racial background from other locations.

Social selection selection also neatly accounts for the achievement gap between African-American and African immigrants to America. The latter group has self-selected for intelligence and industry, having trekked forth--having become voortrekkers, joining all the rest of us.

I'm not up on my Darwin, but wouldn't the harsh working conditions coupled with a desire of the owners to select the hardiest for purchase and future breeding lead to the hardiest reproducing at a greater rate? I'd appreciate someone taking this REAL SLOW for me.

The predisposition of Sickle Cell Anemia among slave descendants has been traced to the brutal experience of the slave ships. Apparently the same gene that codes for the condition also gave the holder an increased ability to withstand heat and dehydration.

Since behavior is what is being discussed, wouldn't one first check to see whether the behaviors in the US, Brazil, Carribean West African population differs from that of Africans.

Regarding Sickle cell anemia. It is common in people from countries with a high incidence of malaria, and especially in West Africa, or in descendents from those people., which means that it predates slave ships.

Regarding breeding, would not obedience, passivity, be the traits sought. If it is the plantation owners did a sh*t job of it.

What's wrong with it is the ideav that behavior is a function of genes rather than culture.

Isn't almost all of present day black Africa also dependent on others to feed them?

OJ

There has never been any doubt that behavior relates to genes. As witness the higher incarceration rates of males versus females, as well other behaviors. Yes I understand you are referring to the various races, but as an opening hypothesis there would be no reason to arbitrarily say it is "wrong".

carter:

Yes, racism is a rather modern phenomenon.

h:

Gender isn't genes--it's hormones.

Hormone levels would follow from the makeup of the genes (as would the rest of your physical attributes).

Among which race are incarceration rates higher for women?

obc:

Not because of race but governance.

Lou Gots (or anyone else more knowledgeable than I about genetics) -

The closest four-legged analog of the human slave is probably the domestic cow ... or possibly the ox. Certainly not the horse, the cat or the dog ... all of which are prized for their wild spirit. Would the progeny of my neighbor's Guernsey revert to Auroch behavior in a generation or two?

If you mean racism in the sense of "prejudice based on race" then I would agree that that is a modern phenomenon, though not one arising from Darwinism.

If you mean racism in the sense of "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others", then I would disagree, because that has always existed.

ghostcat: Wow! Where could we start?

For one thing, we need a lot more than a generation or two for these traits to reappear.

Then, too, the domestication of your Guernsey cow has taken millenia. Stand a wilder breed, such as the Longhorn, next to the Aurochs, and it might not seem so distant.

With respect to the humans so unfortunate to have been captured into slavery, that one-time selection took place a very small number of generations ago, and its genetic effects should be minimal.

Google may greatly expand understanding of this mechanism. Try "Galton's law of felial regression."

oj:

Agreed - it's governance and not race. Similarly, the party that they vote for has kept them down. That too is governance.

Lou -

Longhorns have not been bred with the same objective ... docility ... as cows and oxen. I concede your point on the required millenia, though.

Without forcing me to learn genetics in depth: are you saying that the culling effects of capture, slave ship survival, selective breeding, and (relatedly) murdering "uppity" slaves had no lasting effect on genetic endowment?

Before we lapse too far into a really regrettable discussion, let's remember that black families and communities were relatively stable, albeit not as stable as white families, until the introduction of AFDC, when the government declared war against black social stability.

ghostcat

The closest four-legged analog of the human slave is probably the domestic cow

Yes, there is nothing I find more achingly moving than to go to a concert and hear a really good choir sing a collection of cow spirituals. I pray I will live to see the days that a bovine Martin Luther King surfaces to free them.

Thanks all, you've just put another nail in darwinism's coffin.

David the thread became regrettable from the beginning. Rather than revealing much about the subject of the article it reveals much about the writers points of view. It's no wonder Americans of African descent avoid the Republican party. If this thread represents the Brothers readership, then it's obvious they, the blacks, are pretty damn smart to do so.

It does though prove the point of the post though: Darwinism is just a justification for Racism.