It's both. Genetics play a large part. Selective breeding also does.
4 human species existed and intermingled in various ways to make modern human subspecies groups.
Homo erectus was in sub Saharan Africa. Neanderthals were in Europe. Denisovans were in Southern Asia. Homo sapiens arose in Northern Africa or southwest Asia or southeast Europe, somewhere near the "cradle of civilization", probably in coastal ethiopia.
Thousands upon thousands of years of evolutionary pressures changed our genetic makeup to give us different advantages based on those pressures.
Denisovans had a lush environment with plenty of food and relatively isolated territories. They had no pressures externally except unassailable giant predators. They developed a more plant based scavenger type diet, smaller frames, prey mentality, hive mind communal thought, and creative engineering and thought processes. They had free time and less aggression needs because their only pressure were apex predators, so sometimes you jist died. The idea of self was less important than the idea of the group. They run, they don't fight because how do you fight a 14 ft orangutan? They were the first people to work gemstones and intricate detail work. Their evolutionary pressures forced them to develop the skills to fight the attrition of random death through prey animal tactics of hiding, running, herding, and groupthink.
Neanderthals fought the environment. They had few resources and harsh weather, so they had large territories to support small family groups. Their prey were large and difficult to catch, and the winters long, so they developed an additional subcutaneous layer of fat, thinner nostrils to retain body heat,, retractable genitals and better blood circulation to prevent frostbite,, spatial awareness, long term planning, critical thinking and puzzle solving, empathy, lighter skin, and endurance strength. Their environmental pressures made them larger, smarter, and capable of foresight and planning to survive.
Homo erectus had plentiful food, and predators that could be beaten with a group. They had a warm environment that was relatively accessible. Their pressure was from each other. More food meant more population, and eventually those population sizes ran out of space. They developed heightened aggression, faster quick twitch muscles, better heat dispersion, reduced subcutaneous fat, larger jaws and nostrils, and thicker skin and skulls. Their environmental pressures made them organize into large tribal groups to combat each other for territory.
Homo sapien came from homo erectus stock, but ate a lot of fish and had geographic buffer zones around them that kept them relatively isolated for a long time. They got bigger brains from the fatty acid diet, had less aggression pressures due to geographic advantages, but ran out of space eventually. They spread throughout the world intermingling in many places. They were smarter than homo erectus. They were more aggressive than denisovans. They were more numerous than neandethal. This relative middle ground evolution track was their advantage and they interbred with local populations to create the modern human subspecies as you know them today.
Class dismissed.
Oh I forgot the zelective breeding part. Yeah we bred niggers to be strong and capable of better work. When you're breeding horses you don't let the retarded busted leg stumpy one breed. It's a bad investment. We bred field animals to work fields and we bred house niggers from the smarter smaller stock. African bloodlines and genetics are just as varied as Asian or European ones. There are some with more himo erectus and some that are mainly homo sapien blood. Field nigger vs house nigger.
No we didn't that is nonsense for the following reasons:
1) I don't have the links on me, but there is a great documentary on the african slave trade and the summary is basically this:
a) They tried slaving Indians (from India not native slanty eyes from north america) and during transport most of them died because they are a weak species of human.
This is true, where I live we have a huge indian community and when they hit 55 or approach 60 they just fall apart.
b) Whites, survive okay but they were not cheap.
c) Niggers on the other hand, they were cheap, they were hardy and they survived the shipping process. The dead ones you threw overboard, but most of the nigger stock was quite hardy physically. We know the iq part of this equation. There may have been partial evolutionary selection because the purchased niggers survived initial enslavement by their own people, but none the less, there are litteral jew ship logs that speak of how they are stopping indian slaving because they all die during shipping but niggers are hardy.
Seriously.
2) Actual slavery ended at the end of the civil war or around 1865. So, assuming slavery started around 1619 (too lazy to check) and assuming slavery ended in 1865 or so, that is about 265 years of slavery.
If humans live to 100 that is about 2.5 generations.
If nigger slaves live to 50 that is about 5 generations.
If nigger slaves live to 25 that is about 10 generations.
So about 5 to 10 generations AT MOST would have been available for breeding.
There is NO SUCH THING as breeding a bigger nigger between 2.5 and 10 generations. The amount genetic control and organized breeding that would need to involved to make this happen is so fucking ridiculously huge that it would have been utterly the MOST IMPORTANT historical documentation that we would have about that period of time.
3) The reality is closer to something like this:
a) Slavery seems like it's a long time ago, but it really isn't. It is practically yesterday relative to our current life span. As of 2017, President John Tyler had 2 living grandsons, Tyler died in 1862 and had kids very late in life. 200 to 400 years ago is not that long ago at all.
There just wasn't enough time to breed anything of value.
b) I suspect that it was cheaper to buy new slaves and throw away the old ones than it was to have a breeding program of any kind. Anyone that has run a business knows you don't keep old hardware around, it is far more financiall efficient to be rotating out 4 year old computer hardware and just keep on financing new hardware.
c) An eaerlier poster used the term "THERE USED TO BE SPECIES OF HUMANS". Well, the left tells us there is no difference between races. If this is true than so is the opposite, not only are there races of humans, we currently have at least 8 different species of humans co-existing with different an unique requiremetns to their species:
semitic tribes
whites
nigger
indians
east asians (chinky chinks)
native indians
aussie abbos
polynesians
Some people say there are no species, some say there are fewer human specieas. I have worked with all of the above groups except abbos and my experience has been the best way to understand them is as a group based on speciation and not cultural, social or racial context. To me, as long as I understand I am working with a different species of human, these groups become reasonably predictable and it becomes much easier to deal with them.
d) If selective breeding happened, then we have to also ask our selves, where are the UBER IRISH if this was true? The Irish were slaves in North America way before the niggers, if selective breeding was a thing, where those giant Irish cunts? All I see around Boston are tiny little red headed fuckers with a napeoleon complex.
Anyway, did the slavers get a generation or two of selective breeding of slaves? Maybe, but that is all and there just wasn't enough time to get any real results. You need thousands of generations and quick iteration for selective breeding to be useful in any way shape or form.
You're missing the basis of the selective breeding. You already have big hardy niggers for field work. You bought them for that reason. You picked the best animal for the job needed. The breeding process had started WSY BEFORE SLAVERY, jist naturally. We artificially enhanced it like with dogs. King Charles spaniels didn't exist 400 years ago. Chihuahuas, pit bulls, yorkiepoos, etc. It doesn't take as long as you think to breed in readily available traits and refine them. It takes EONS to add gills or feathers or bipedal motion.
Fascinating read, thank you for taking the time to write that. It explains so much. When is the next lecture?
Whenever there is an interesting question that I have knowledge about that I happen to see and I happen to have time to respond to in detail lol.
What’s difference between chinks and Hindu Indians. Are they both denosivans?
Northern Asians actually carry no denisovan or trace blood. Denisovan blood is prevalent in southeast Asia, Indonesia, Papua New guinea, and aboriginals. They fled when homo sapien came. They developed seafaring because of it. David Dravidians also carry it(south india).
Excellent post.
(post is archived)