You think Jimmy the Greek was right when he said Afro Americans were better athletes because they were bred?

Question

during slavery?

Answer 1

He had a point, yes.
I mean, it's totally unpopular and politically/socially incorrect to say, but it's true that during slavery many slaves were bred like animals. You took the biggest, strongest male with the best teeth and bred him with the biggest, strongest female with the best teeth.
You have to understand that the mindset of these people at the time were that slaves weren't human beings, they were property...just like farm animals.

I don't think that a couple generations of slavery-breeding made any real difference, physiologically speaking...I think that 100's of generations in Africa did. If you take a look at the life of many African tribesmen...wow. You've got to be in great physical shape and have the best physical attributes or you just don't survive, period. It's that sort of natural genetic culling that favored evolutionary changes...like the leg muscle difference between blacks and pretty much all other races. It's a fact, the musculature in blacks means they can jump higher than anyone else. I think it has a lot more to do with many generations in Africa more than a few generations of slave-breeding though.

So yeah, he had a point (albeit a very unpopular one), but I'm not sure that it was the main reason he should have used to support his argument.

I remember seeing him on CBS (?) when he said that.

Answer 2

Man, part of me would have to fight the urge to choke you for this question if you asked me this on the street but I can understand the need to ask this and since I am African American Not Afro I will try to respond in a positive manner on what can be consider very sensitive for some. I will do so in a nice way so please understand I will not bash you and keep the name calling at a minimal cause you honestly do not know.First off Jimmy The Greek is a idiot and I will leave it at that. Breed during slavery I want you to listen to what you said. So you are saying that we are better runners football players athletes cause we spent all our time running from slave owners. That is real cute, not to sound shallow but how old are you again? It is a given fact our genetic make up is different but to say we were bred is a little sick. Seriously, if you said we were more competitive or something along those lines this would be a great question instead you ask it in a way that makes you look like a borderline racist in the making. Understand, I am not calling you racist so do not blow up and get mad cause I do not believe that is your intention but please think of what you are saying before you ask a question like that and secondly look at the source for the reason you chose to ask this question. Jimmy the Greek, you have got to be kidding me!

Answer 3

Yup. As politically incorrect as society says it is, it's also the truth. For 300 years, slaves were bred for strength. Yes, it's sick and horrible. But it's also a fact. *shrugs* The Nazis did the same thing during WWII. Of course the Third Reich went belly-up before the long-term effects could show. But 300 years is more than enough time. Animal breeding takes MUCH less time than THAT. Granted, slavery ended over 140 years ago; but the results remain. ATHLETIC Black people are stronger, faster and have better endurance than their white counterparts. Find me a sport where this is NOT true. *shrugs* Jimmy's mistake was for telling the truth, that nobody wants to hear. It's NOT racist; it's HISTORY.

Answer 4

No, I think that the familial income one has as a child has more to do with athletic ability than being African American or White or any other racial composition. While genetic makeup may be a factor in the size of athletes as well as determining factor whether African Americans have fast muscle twitch fibers (explosive strength) rather than slow muscle twitch fibers (muscle endurance) childhood income is a better indicator on who will be better athletes and specifically on what sports they will be better. Many AAs played basketball in the inner cities during the 80's and 90's. This results in many of today's NBA stars being AA from inner cities. This is coorelated with poverty, not racial identity. There are a few AA in the NBA that did not grow up in poverty, e.g. Grant Hill. However, most NBA Stars are AA from inner cities. Another reason why basketball appeals to the poor is that there is not a large committment for equipment. A basketball and a hoop are the two things you need. Unlike lacrosse, which requires numerous pieces of equipment. However what would happen 20 years from now if basketball goals were taken down in the inner cities?

This has happened in MLB. AA are dwindling in MLB because of funding cuts to inner city baseball parks and organizations. This has a ripple affect where now only five major league starting pitchers are AA.

My point is that athletic ability is largely determined by where you grew up, not what racial background you're from.

Answer 5

it was a risky thing to say, and was sure to get attention, even if it wasnt labeled a racist thing. Im not sure about the history of slavery really, i think slaves did many more things than physical labor in the fields, but that may have been the main reason for having them, and it would just kinda make sense then that there would at least be a basis for evolution of the stronger types. I think it has more to do with genetics, afroamericans having the quick twitch muscle fibers, or slow, thus being generally faster, or more endurant, and northern european americans having the other kind, thus making them have more upper body strength, or at least i read that once in some magazine or other. That said, of course there are exceptions to both rules.

Answer 6

Well, as politically incorrect as it was, there may be something to that. I do know that they were inspected and selected for things like muscular build, good teeth, good physical health. They were also bred for similar purposes.

It takes only a few dozen generations, or less, to create an altogether new breed of dog. It does seem feasible that there was some up-breeding and that as a whole, African Americans are better physical specimens than us pasty-white lumps of dough.

So slap me for even considering this, but take a step back and realize that even though it was not the "in" thing to say, he just might be right.

Answer 7

Yes they were bred, yes they were treated like animals. Hence why we think slavery was a bad thing.

No it has no bearing on their racial athletic prowess. That comes from years of reinforced genetic traits comming from the cradle of their race. It's possible that slavery put them in a position where the genetic stock they had was intensified because they lacked a diverse enough genus but this many generations ahead it's a moot point.

Answer 8

I think it helped. But it's not like the other races don't have athletes that are superior as well. Even if the percentqage is smaller. And don't forget many african americans look at sports as their only real option so they concentrate on that while other people are concentrating on school. Obviously everything I have just said is a sweeping generality and is not meant to include every member of every group.

Answer 9

Nah...slavery only lasted for about 300 years or so, from the mid 1500's till the mid 1800's....that's no time in evolutionary terms, even with forced breeding.
Africans are better athletes (in some sports, especially running and jumping activities) because of thousands of years evolution in Africa, which was a very fertile continent...but with many dangers.

Answer 10

He may or may not have been correct. This was not the issue. Jimmy used national television media and a football forum to present his own personal view on a controversial subject. As good as a commentator he might have been, he didn't think this one out before he opened his trap.

Confucius says "Is best to remain silent and thought the fool,
then open your mouth and remove all doubt"