actually my source is very flimsy - its a chris rock sketch i saw a few years ago.
this is perfectly believable though considering the often inhuman treatment of slaves.
googling this matter reveals that its popular enough to appear in the auto complete, gets mention on the wiki page about african american slavery and even some counter arguments:
so its not clear cut i guess... although its interesting that there is a furore or knee jerk reaction against things like this. i don't really get it...
i especially enjoyed this bit from his article though: And while some slave masters did engage in eugenics their efforts were ineffectively crude, being incredibly limited in scale and inexactly uncontrolled. Further, even with a more controlled and widespread eugenics program, 250 years would not have been enough time for major genetic differences to emerge.
he seems to have some basis for this assertion so it is probably fiction - but its judging from the internet presence its a relatively common myth.
this is perfectly believable though considering the often inhuman treatment of slaves.
googling this matter reveals that its popular enough to appear in the auto complete, gets mention on the wiki page about african american slavery and even some counter arguments:
http://quinxy.com/politics/why-slavery-didnt-make-african-am...
so its not clear cut i guess... although its interesting that there is a furore or knee jerk reaction against things like this. i don't really get it...
i especially enjoyed this bit from his article though: And while some slave masters did engage in eugenics their efforts were ineffectively crude, being incredibly limited in scale and inexactly uncontrolled. Further, even with a more controlled and widespread eugenics program, 250 years would not have been enough time for major genetic differences to emerge.
he seems to have some basis for this assertion so it is probably fiction - but its judging from the internet presence its a relatively common myth.