African Americans and Natural Selection?

Question

DISCLAIMER:
The following pertains to African Americans (AA) who are NOT recent immigrants from Africa or descendents of recent immigrants from Africa (recent meaning anytime in AT LEAST the last century).

The question is simple; do you or do you not agree with the following theory:
Let's set aside all political correctness and society's "need" to not stereotype--because all stereotypes are based on some truth.
Generally speaking, I have seen many more physically fit, young AA males than unfit, young AA males. I'm sure many of you have too. The ratio of fit to unfit AA males I think is greater than that of any other race in the US (caucasian, hispanic, asian, etc.)
This leads me to propose AA's have a genetic advantage in their physical structure that resulted from a process of natural selection in the colonial days.
Think about it. Only the physically strongest and toughest could survive the long journey from Africa to US and YEARS of slave labor. The weak slaves were...

weeded out, thus allowing only the most physical slaves to have their genes passed on in their offspring. In other words, AAs were in a way bred to be as physically strong and durable as possible over the years.

Have you noticed that recent African immigrants or descendents of recent African immigrants are not as physically fit as “true-blue” AAs?
An easy way to tell (albeit a little racist) is by the name.
James Brown probably is “true-blue” AA, while Ohini Onyinyechi probably isn’t.

What do you think of this theory?

zippychippy, your response is a bad one.
1) I'm trying to open up discussion on a touchy issue in a mature way, at least respond accordingly (which leads to...)
2) If you're going to criticize, then don't bash. At least say why you think it's wrong

larry_the_orc, your response is racist.
Not all AAs "don't want to go to a good college." Assuming that all of them just want to do physical labor for the rest of their lives is ignorant.

gamr326, you bring up a good point. But you can't just shrug off that the trip had little to do with it.
The conditions on that long and treacherous voyage were terrible. Many people died of starvation, hunger, and disease because they were too weak.

urbanbulldogge, not all AAs have white genes in them.
In fact, I'll go as far as to say the vast majority of them don't.
Why?
Because intterracial relationships were in the past and still are today looked at with disdain. (Rape is the exception.)
I understand that there are also socio-economic effects as well.
However, I am a minority (not AA) living in white suburbia, and I have noticed that almost all my AA male friends in the surrounding area are very physically fit.

bulldogge: Also, I forgot. There are many African American pop culture icons that are not fit. Look at "Biggie" or Big Pun, or Fat Joe, etc. They are all "rap stars," and yet are obsese.

aka DarthDad, you bring up an extremely good point.

My fault in the incorrect terminology of "natural" selection.

denimcap, if you were suffering from AIDS, I'm pretty sure your survival depended on the genetic makeup of your body and its ability to fight the disease--not spirit.
Likewise, a slave suffering from scurvy, regardless of how much spirit s/he has, will not survive unless his/her body is strong enough to withstand it.
And also, I'm not saying that "physically fit AA males are not cowards," so I don't know why you brought that up.

mdp, life expectancy is a different topic from physical makeup. And your statement is flawed. If you look at income levels by race, you would find that the majority of AAs are not that wealthy. And if you look at life expectances by income, you would find that generally speaking, as income rises, so does life expectancy.

dansmith54321, if what you say is true, then I would select your answer as the best because you were able to disprove me with the best reasoning yet.

Answer 1

That is a good theory, but you need controlled observational data to back it up. Africans IN GENERAL, both former slaves and recent immigrants, have higher average physical ability. Just look at the modern sports teams and olympics.

The reason that africans in general have superior physical ability on the average, is because they evolved in a warm savannah, as compared to cold and/or forested areas. Forests descrease the maximum speed of movement, and coldness requires heavy clothes and energy conservation. Also, on the african savannah, there are fast-moving animals such as gazelles, which the ancient africans (and a few modern tribal africans) hunted, and hunting such fast-moving animals requires great physical fitness.

I've noticed that some respondents deliberately falsely portrayed your question, e.g. "I think the Nazis could have used your help", "Wow, lot of talk with no substance.". That behavior is caused by the pleasurable crude blind wrongful sensation of disrupting truth. To learn more about rightful intent and wrongful intent (and therefore be better able to fight wrongful intent), go to:
http://www.cotse.net/users/t3nj/ctlg.html

Answer 2

Your theory is flawed and completely incorrect.

you know why?

Because non of the AA you are discussing are full blooded African.

They have white genes in them. That is why African immigrants look almost nothing like those who you are describing as AA.

AA are moer brown than black.

Second problem isthat you are ignoring all other causes of this "difference", if it exists ( i have seen plenty of fat black people, both male and female).

You are ignoring all socio-economic effects on them.

For example, The fact that many AA live at or below the poverty level, in large inner cities. The inner city culture dictates that in order to survive you must be strong (look at raop videos, other icons). Physical strength is an asset for survival in the inner city.

Does that make it genetic though? probably not.

do you really think all these young men would still be that fit if you stuck them in a suburban home where survival was no longer a daily struggle?

(I am not trying to be stereotypical, but that is the only way to address his erroneous assertions, if any are offended, I apologize as that is NOT the intent)

Answer 3

Hey,

I think it comes from being African. The more diluted the blood the less fit it appears. Mixed race blacks tend to soften up.

Africans Americans that I know (nigerians) are pretty fit.
Somalis are fit but a little thin.

Even new first Gen. Africans in America.

I think the trip over on a boat had very little to do with it, unless the person was grossly sick, in which case they were going to die no matter where they were.

You could make a case that African Americans are more Timid or Cautious than others, theoretically because those more rebellious would have either fought to the death during their kidnapping or died fighting on the boat, or jumped off the ship rather than be a slave.

Answer 4

It is not racist to describe physical differences.

It is racist to value judge a human's worth based on appearance.

There is merit to understanding genetic tendencies whether they refer to Sickle Cell Anemia, Alcohol Toxicity, or anything else tied directly or indirectly to race.

That aside, your point has a certain validity except that Africa Americans were subjected to UNNATURAL selection.

They were systematically bred like cattle, with certain male progenitors bred to certain female progenitors to make "big" or "strong" slaves.

Overly aggressive individuals were killed outright. Sociopathic ones probably too (almost no black seriel killers...my own pet theory)

Proof is easy if you accept it anecdotally. Nowhere in Africa do you find the huge muscular AA athlete body type in quantity. There are tall people, and muscular people, but not both...again, not in quantity.

But keep in mind also that modern people have access to greater caloric intake and greater quality nutrition and exercise than did our ancestors of hundreds of years ago.

In any event, as the process "only" took place over a few to a perhaps a dozen generations at most, this was insuffecient to create a uniform or homogenous population.

This happened primarily in the US as big and strong was perceived to be a desirable trait. This was not the case in the Caribean and South America where simple survival in the heat was the issue.

Modern African Americans show as much variety in appearance and abiltiy as any other group.

But they skew SLIGHTLY more common athletically, most of that ability is environmental and social. And only because you notice a 6'4"+ man of any color more easily.

This is not really news. Copies of slave ownership and breeding documents are available in a variety of archives.

Perhaps some tiny good came from the horrors of Slavery.

Be proud that our ancestors eliminated this ancient and cruel practice.

Answer 5

So what's your "theory"? Sociopathy aside, everone's the effect of natural selection. However, slaves were bred to be big and repressed to be kept unintelligent. The individuals of strong spirit made the trip -- strength had nothing to do with it. The strong were naturally chosen, but pleanty of big people are cowards.

All in all, I'd say that a theory of so many words and that poses instead of proceeds a question is tomfoolery. Read a book and stop posting dumb, quasi observational **** in Questions.

Answer 6

I think the trip over has little to do with it, and moreso with their environment. Europeans had more moddern 'convinieces' and in effect, had started to make them "weaker" so to speak. While Africans still had to hunt and live traditionally, and had to be fit in order to generally survive. Which is really the reason most Americans are getting fatter, more modern convininces and less of a real need to work. We don't need to hunt for food, our actual "work" usually consists of desk jobs, so is it any wonder people in general are getting less fit. African Americans just have less exposure, and therefor may seem to be more fit. But that's all generalizations.

Answer 7

well I believe it is total correct that slave owners tried to breed slaves for physical ability. they treated them like all the rest of their livestock so why would they treat them any differently in this respect?. however as anyone who breeds livestock will tell you if you don't keep up with the selective breeding the "positive" traits will diminish within a couple of generations. i believe what you are seeing is called a "spurious corelation". where 2 things happen but they are not cause and effect.

Answer 8

Look at life expectancies by race and your theory falls apart. African Americans in general have a shorter life expectancy than that of other races.

Answer 9

Wow, lot of talk with no substance.

AA's work harder because they don't have access to, or dont want to attend, Colleges that would result in thinking, instead of physcial labor.

Answer 10

mdp --

what does life expectancy have to do with it? traits that affect your life after your childbearing years are not subject to any form of natural selection.