because most of them were superior in strength considered to the old fat white colonizers

and ofc the answer is cheap labor

of course a bunch of jungle tribals were gonna be stronger than some random european fella

to the old fat white colonizers?

but when you look at it

what?

colonizers were fat?

lol]

when you look at it from a view

dude it has nothing to do with strength

lemme guess, colonizers had abs of steel @Deleted User ?

xD

it isn't really strength, but economic convenience.

its just straight up cheap labor

^

mhmm

before industrialisation, it was about how much you could produce.

consider this: each race had a standard model

and when you compare those standard models

more land is more wealth, aggregate.

@Deleted User probably not but they werent fat by any means

more land needs more workers.

both races have different biological traits that could seperate them

Okay, but, again, every individual person has different biological traits. You need to be more specific than that.

even so, even if it was purely economic gains, doesnt mean whites were superior

yeah slavery was slightly used in north america cause of the tougher soil

the reason why it wasnt as popular as it was in central or south america

is because of the climate needed for sugar farming

more slaves were sent to sugar farms

slavery only increased in the north due to the cotton gin

If we're measuring purely for phenotypical markers, that's pretty shit, since phenotypes don't really translate well to underlying genetic structure. A single gene contributes up to forty percent of all melanin variation in pigmentation between Europeans and Western Africans, for example. We have tens of thousands of genes.

just bring out the pca charts

lol

in either case, argument is moot

slaverys over

we're moving on

slowly but surely

yeah, and?

does that mean we should flood all homogeneous communities with a mix of different races

soon slavery will be a footnote in history

why not?