|
|
Re: Social Engineering
MIchael (michael3x@delphi.com)
Thu, 12 Jan 95 22:52:23 -0500
Troy Kelley <tkelley@hel4.brl.mil> writes:
>Secondly, I would like to make the point that much of the "spirit" or
>"environment" of the 60s was about rebellion and confrontation. For
>blacks, as well as other segments of society (women, youth), this
>attitude which gave the blacks more rights was brought about through
>conflict and confrontation, and has stuck with them today. Those
>attitudes have not died easily.
The attitudes of the 60's for Blacks have not died as you have alluded to.
Beause the same problems that were so prevalent in the 60's are still here
in the 90's. But this "attitude" is not solely a black characteristic.
Throughout white history there volumes of conflicts and confrontations.
After all, that's why this country was founded, don't you think?
>Finally, I wonder if anyone has thought about the "types" of people which
>were brought over as slaves, and how those ancestors effected African
>Americans as a whole. For example, slave traders didn't go over to Africa
>to find the smartest or the most intellectual blacks they could find.
>They went over to find the biggest, healthiest blacks they could find for
>the hard labor they would have to endure in America. It seems to me that
>there has been sort of "selection" pressures, that have affected the gene
>pool of the Africans that were brought to America. The brightest, most
>intelligent blacks simply were not brought here, it was usually the
>biggest and healthiest blacks. So how does that effect the gene pool of
Even though the slave traders didn't go to Africa to find the smartest African,
who's to say that he didn't get them through sheer luck? I don't think being
big and healthy exempts you from being intelligent. I question the intelligence
of the slave traders for dealing in human misery for profit for 400 years. I
wonder how it affected THEIR gene pool?
|