3 ms·

> The average person historically was remarkably short, generally because of childhood malnourishment. I believe the average member of the House of Commons was

> The average person historically was remarkably short, generally because of childhood malnourishment. I believe the average member of the House of Commons was visibly shorter than the members of the House of Lords at least through WWII. Certainly Americans were obviously taller than Europeans until after WWII. Even American slaves were taller and children were generally malnourished until about seven when they became capable of working. Adult height seems to have been unaffected reflecting just how rich the US was comparatively. Complete unfeeling bastards didn’t malnourish children enough to do permanent damage.

lostlogin 6y ago
This checks out - thanks. The below article makes mention of a fact that may complicate things though - big strong slaves were worth more. Presumably slave owners had this in mind so had an ulterior motive for feeding slaves better. It’s one bleak subject. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11718681_The_Heights_of_American_Slaves_New_Evidence_on_Slave_Nutrition_and_Health https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11718681_The_Height...
- zrobotics 6y ago
  Super horrible, but consider that slaves were incredibly valuable. The middle class of farmers in the antebellum south would barely have been able to afford one, the plantation owners were stupendously wealthy. This, in part, explains why the south was able to wield such outsize political influence. Very bleak, but slave owners had a large economic incentive to make sure their slaves were fit for work (although that didn't cause qualms on other, more brutal forms of mistreatment). The only way they treated them well was in providing food, but that wasn't due to kindness but more from the same motivation to feed a team of draft horses well. It's tough reading, but some of the ledgers kept by plantation owners really drive the point home that they viewed slaves more akin to livestock than people. And they somehow justified what they were doing as christian and moral.

lostlogin 6y ago

This checks out - thanks. The below article makes mention of a fact that may complicate things though - big strong slaves were worth more. Presumably slave owners had this in mind so had an ulterior motive for feeding slaves better. It’s one bleak subject. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11718681_The_Heights_of_American_Slaves_New_Evidence_on_Slave_Nutrition_and_Health https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11718681_The_Height...

zrobotics 6y ago
Super horrible, but consider that slaves were incredibly valuable. The middle class of farmers in the antebellum south would barely have been able to afford one, the plantation owners were stupendously wealthy. This, in part, explains why the south was able to wield such outsize political influence. Very bleak, but slave owners had a large economic incentive to make sure their slaves were fit for work (although that didn't cause qualms on other, more brutal forms of mistreatment). The only way they treated them well was in providing food, but that wasn't due to kindness but more from the same motivation to feed a team of draft horses well. It's tough reading, but some of the ledgers kept by plantation owners really drive the point home that they viewed slaves more akin to livestock than people. And they somehow justified what they were doing as christian and moral.