A professor of mine presented me with an interesting theory. He began our discussion by stating: “Other peoples such as Indians were tried as slaves, but the utilization of Africans was the only slave system that lasted and benefited the slave owners. Why did Africans survive the best amongst…
A professor of mine presented me with an interesting theory. He began our discussion by stating: “Other peoples such as Indians were tried as slaves, but the utilization of Africans was the only slave system that lasted and benefited the slave owners. Why did Africans survive the best amongst the others?
…
basically he said Africans lived in areas near the equator where there is an amplitude of sun. Because of physical evolution, Africans had become used to going outside and working in the sun. Their bodies evolved to retain salt, because salt retains water and kept them hydrated. This evolution separated African bodies from the make-up of other bodies. Biologically, Africans were more prepared to not dehydrate as easily as other peoples. That is why Africans were seen as “good slaves” and the others were not. They were seen as strong and durable, when others were heavily weakened at the load and circumstances that slavery demanded. Africans were able to remain productive and healthy under such harsh condition.
It’s an interesting theory and I couldn’t disagree more. This theory raises the question, why were Africans necessary as slaves in South American Spanish and Portuguese colonies along the equator when there were millions of indigenous already there? The more convincing (and evidentiary) theory is that indigenous people knew the land and territory and could often out-maneuver and escape from their captors. While Africans were thousands of miles from any known home and lacked the practical knowledge of how and where to escape. This changed over time, however, considering the large Maroon communities in Haiti, South Carolina, Louisiana, etc. But for the first 300 years of slavery, it was more profitable to kill off the indigenous folks and invest in a slave trade that introduced a foreign labor force who lacked the local resources to escape.
Secondly, there is significant scientific evidence for more genetic diversity within races than between them. There is, however evidence that race is a social formation. It’s a technology that is used to organize people as societally beneficial or criminals or good at math or lazy, et al.
I think this theory also poses the danger of discounting the causal reasons for high blood pressure in the African American community. It’s easy to attribute high blood pressure problems to biology, but it can erase the socio-economic problems that plague the African American community now. Namely: poverty, poor diet, and no health care. It’s also telling that Alabama, the nation’s most obese state, has the highest blood pressure as well. Who suffers from this high blood pressure? Well, if you look at the data: the percentage of the African American community suffers more, but African Americans make up only 23% of the state population, whereas whites are 68%. But, poverty is almost 50/50, with white poor numbering 517,000 and black poor at 428,000. These numbers tell me that there is an external factor operating here, not a biological one.
Until your professor can demonstrate any proof that his theory flies, I’m sorry, it’s essentialist, racist, and just bad science.
Reference List - there’s so much more, but these just came to mind:
- David M. Goldberg, The Curse of Ham
- Marcus Rediker, The Slave Ship
- Omi and Winant, Racial Formation in the United States
- David Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness
- Mae Ngai, Impossible Subjects
- The CDC U.S. Obesity Trends
