You're forgetting about acclimation and the African resistance to malaria and yellow fever, that white Europeans didn't have.
That's two genes. Out of what, tens of thousands?
This is an interesting comment. Aren't there fundamental biological differences? Skin. Hair. Eye color and shape. Size???
Then we get into why Mexicans and Kenyans win all the marathons. Why? Could it be that as a race they are more used to distance and heat? I don't know but I would not call talking about it or wondering about it racism.
Genetically speaking, these are very small differences. About as much as the different cat coats. Why? Because at any given time, they're only a generation or two from being diluted into a much larger gene pool. And don't forget about the nature vs. nurture debate.
You are so clueless about slavery.
The main reason for keeping the south in it was an AGRICULTURE BASED ECONOMY. Even today, Agriculture finds the dirt cheapest illegal immigrant labor to do its work. The north didn't have an agriculture based economy. The folks in the north were still about equally as racist as those in the south.
First of all, calm down. Your words come across as the product of someone who prefers bullying and power instead of logic and reason to get his points across. In case you haven't noticed by now, I don't play that game.
Second, though the relationship between race and slavery was complex during the early years, once it got rolling, the link between the two was unmistakable. If you deny that, then you need to review some of the pseudoscientific, political, and literature of the day that blatantly defended racism, which was needed to justify the cruelty of slavery.
Yes, there is. However, its not how they thought ONE-HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AGO. You have to view this in historical perspective. You can't apply modern moral principles to history spanning over a century and a half ago.
You're putting yourself on a rather high pedestal here. Why am I supposed to believe that you somehow have the correct perspective on history?
OMFG You still don't get it.
Come on, man. Learn to debate, eh? Critique my argument, concede it, or just plain ignore it. You have all of those options at your disposal.
Dude... It doesn't matter WHO bought them. They were up for sale by the conquering tribe. Which means if they were bought by whites, they surely would have been bought by the Arab nations who were ALSO involved in slave purchases.
Again, we're talking about two different things. You're talking about what got the slave industry started, I'm talking about what kept it going. We're debating apples and oranges here.
Hard to imagine an industrial economy that didn't have the need for MANY hands in hard conditions outlawed slavery while the agricultural economy that DID (and still does) have the need for many hands, working hard conditions, and doing it cheap as to maximize profits (and at the same time keep the costs of their products low) would need to keep slavery around.
Simple economics.
Again, you unintentionally post a scathing critique of unmitigated capitalism. There are these things called morals, you know, and unrestrained capitalism shatters them. But all people, I believe, have at least some standard of decency, a standard that would have caused Southerners to call their "peculiar institution" into great question. Racism was the vehicle that silenced those questions.
Oh no! I am racist against, myself!!!! :lol:
Honest question--does this mean you're black?
You have got to be kidding me. :doh You know what I mean and I don't care as "a rose by any other name."
Wait, you're denying that race is a social construct?
What the hell does "subspecies" and our "similarities" have to do with my statements? Nothing. The "Negro" has genetic differences from the "Caucasoid" and the "Mongoloid" "ethnicity." <--- Oh LMAO! PC gone mad.
Calm down, Glenn Beck. Genetic differences between human ethnicities are incredibly small.
This again has nothing to do with slavery or African genetics in the 1860's. It has nothing to do with the fact we were physically able to withstand the long hours in the field better than your average Native American, Asian or European. Which in the end contributed to blacks being in bondage whether you (in a PC tizzy) care to accept the truth or not.
Even if this dubious claim were true, are you seriously suggesting that this even partially justified slavery?
So far you got nothing man. A lot of hot air backed up by unimportant fallacy arguments that do not apply.
Need to up your game man.
Yep, the old classic tactic: If you're run out of logical points to make, engage in flaming instead. Right back at you.
Bodi. Stop. Now.
