I agree that it is a myth that Black slaves were intentionally bred to produce big and strong off spring. But I've also read that the trip from Africa to the States was so grueling that only those with the strongest of constitutions survived. Many if not most didn't survive the trip. By strong constitution I don't mean physical muscular strength but rather that ineffable quality that makes one endure great physical and mental hardships that would break or kill a lesser human being.
BTW, I trust that the lovely Jezzebelle is doing well and as always please give her my regards.
Whoa, it's Pellius! You've long been one of my favorites (
no homo
). Where have you been?
I tend to agree with you and Adonis. He's right about selecting smart slaves who have learned a trade, can cook, etc. over simply choosing some big brutes. Of course, plantationers needed someone to pull that plow, too. To that end, I wouldn't doubt that some buyers picked at least some slaves out for robustness alone. It makes some measure of intuitive sense, but it could be self-defeating: as Adam said, the bigger guy not only needs more food, he could very well "gas" faster than smaller men (ever seen a superheavy BBer work a water and sewer pipe/ditch-digging job? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! It's hilarious to behold. I think I'm a hair shy of the superheavy mark and I know it would fucking WASTE me).
I'm about to digress
A slave who over the long, tough trip from Africa is a survivor. You put it actually quite eloquently: "... I don't mean physical muscular strength but rather that ineffable quality that makes one endure great ... hardships that would break or kill a lesser human being." Maybe they aren't the biggest and strongest under normal conditions, but their will to survive, coupled with obvious physical resilience, still points to a slave who, when well-fed and treated, will still be a greater asset -- and, I would wager, more "fit" overall -- than an overly-simplistic "he's the biggest and so's she, so I'll take those two, breed 'em and hope like hell my little eugenics experiment results in more big, strong kids."
On a large enough scale, eugenics might have some utility. But from the figures I've seen, it would take at least on the order of 100 million monogamous couples, each hailing from a long line of exceptional people*, to really turn out a consistently well-above average crop of people. No ubermensch. No great supermen like Kahn Noonien Signh and his fellow clones from Star Trek. Just well-above average ... and, at the risk of sounding like a complete prick and snob, my opinion of the average person's intelligence is so low, they'd have to try very hard indeed to disappoint or surprise me.
*Exceptional, in this context, would include little to no family history of various diseases (coronary, sickle cell, diabetes), mental problems or other physical maladies. Longevity, quality of life, especially into old age (read: limited to no history of serious dementia for several generations) are other factors to consider. I'd suggest education, because a long line of attorneys or medical doctors or, shit, even MA degree-holders are gonna typically be smarter than a bunch of trailer park trash or porch monkeys who couldn't even finish high school. Unfortunately, that's a rather poor metric for previous generations because, at least in my neck of the woods, a university education was certainly prized ... but it was still less important than gainful employment, getting married and having a great big ole' litter of pups
